[r-t] Methods Committee proposed change 3.0(D)

Mark Davies 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 
ringing heritage.

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 mailing list