[r-t] Washbrook's "4 part" peal of Stedman Triples

Andrew Johnson 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 
> Washbrook?

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. 

See https://complib.org/composition/28936

> 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:
> https://complib.org/composition/28932
> 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.

Andrew Johnson

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 mailing list