<div dir="ltr"><div>Even by April 1953 (RW p.221 adapted from E. Hims) when Dick Speed's 13280 Cambridge Major was published, he felt obliged to comment:<br><br>"This, as far as I know, is the longest peal so far obtained in this method. </div>
<div>I believe this is the first example of a long length of Surprise Major being obtained by the use of singles.</div>
<div>The use of singles is objectionable but I think that in this particular case it is impossible to achieve this length without their use."<br></div>
<div>It was a 5 part with two singles in each part.</div>
<div>Eddie Martin<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2008/7/18 Graham John <<a href="mailto:graham@changeringing.co.uk">graham@changeringing.co.uk</a>>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="Ih2E3d">"Simon Humphrey" <<a href="mailto:sh@keystrata.co.uk">sh@keystrata.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Incidentally, what was the first surprise composition to contain a single?<br>> Was it Brian Price's 5090 of Cambridge?<br>
<br></div>Yes, and it was rung in 1947, so there was no "rule" against using Singles in<br>Surprise. It was controversal because it had not been done before, and many<br>thought Singles unnecessary.<br><font color="#888888"><br>
Graham<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>ringing-theory mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ringing-theory@bellringers.net">ringing-theory@bellringers.net</a><br><a href="http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net" target="_blank">http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>