[r-t] Washbrook's "4 part" peal of Stedman Triples
andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Sat Sep 21 07:30:45 BST 2019
> Has anyone ever heard of a "four part" peal of Stedman Triples by James
On investigation, yes, but I don't think the peal you attached is it.
>From Trollope's Stedman:
The aim of the old composers was to get rid of singles by substituting
extras and omits. Washbrook reversed the process and produced a simple
variation of the four-part by substituting singles for the extras and
This variation has a good deal to recommend it and is frequently rung.
0 is rung three times, then the standard calling of the division (A)
four times, then P once, then A three times, P once, A three times,
P once, and A four times.
> I have some figures which are claimed to be this - see attached PDF,
> composition no. 582 at the bottom far right - however I cannot see how
> this is a 4-part, and indeed as far as I can see the peal is false.
> It does seem closely related to the following true peal by the same man:
> My composition is some kind of rotation of this, but it seems to me as
> if each block within the peal is rotated, and this makes one half false
> against the other. Have I missed something? Is there a true peal lurking
> within these figures, four-part or otherwise?
This is a true version:
Composition no. 582 footnote says: '*Produced by repeating the two courses
bracketed A eight times, omit H in the 3rd and 8th parts'.
Consider the first course as a short first part and the numbering works
I hope conductors using composition no. 582 understood the footnote.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the ringing-theory