matthew at frye.org.uk
Mon Jun 9 00:15:19 UTC 2014
On 8 Jun 2014, at 15:17, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:
> From an intellectual point of view, one form of ideal peal of Stedman Triples is a bobs only extent. But until recently no composition was known: for Erin that's still the case, and for Grandsire it's known not to be possible. If you can't ring the ideal peal you must compromise on the ideal. The compromise could be allowing a second sort of call, it could be allowing a shorter peal, or it could be not requiring it to come round. Each of these possibilities have been tried over the years, but only one is currently considered legal. Why?
Allowing a shorter peal, or allowing it to not come round are more fundamental alterations of the *rows of a peal* (independent of methods or calls or description thereof) whereas using two calls is a far more superficial change that just nudges things about a bit but fundamentally looks pretty similar. (all the right notes, just maybe not in the right order?)
OK, not the most persuasive of arguments (and I don't necessarily agree), but I do see a divide between these different possibilities.
More information about the ringing-theory