[r-t] Methods Committee proposed change 3.0(D)
mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Mar 23 15:59:02 UTC 2017
Andrew Johnson writes,
> I don't want to see that change. It is rejecting the link
> between extents and peals.
I know exactly where you're coming from, Andrew. I wouldn't want to
count a peal of Triples where someone had added an extra plain course by
mistake, and I too am worried that your proposed 5166 (is that the
shortest solution?) in some senses devalues a couple of centuries of
However... you can add an extra course to a peal of Doubles no problem.
Why is Triples (or any higher number) any different? Is a peal of
Triples worth more than one of Doubles?
Also I have to say that I think the bobs-only 5166 would become an
extremely popular peal to ring, and it would encourage a lot of
innovation around new compositions. Is that a bad thing? Ringing has to
move forward and do new things.
Is the world going to end if we make these changes? No. Are people going
to be ringing new stuff that's worthwhile and quite good fun? Yes. So
let's do it.
I think the "extent=peal" boat has sailed a long time ago. It will
remain part of our heritage forever though, I hope.
More information about the ringing-theory