[r-t] Poll on consecutive blows in the same position

[Mark Davies]

GACJ writes,

> Why is that simpler when you will need a whole new set of definitions
> covering blocks and a whole new way of describing them when rung in
> performances? How would you describe the blocks in Don's QP for example?

Well, simpler in that it kicks them out of the way for now. ;-)

I would describe the blocks in Don's composition simply as the sequence 
of changes (place notations) which make them up, at the higher stage. I 
wouldn't try and separate them into two sub-methods.

The main reason for doing this is a feeling that methods are part of 
change-ringing, and, in change-ringing, all the bells at a given stage 
ought to be involved in changes. This feels to me like a basic axiom of 
our art.

In a "method" where one bell does not move in the lead, it feels like 
that bell is not a change-ringing bell (much like a cover bell) and 
hence is not taking part in the method. I'm not sure I like that. As 
part of a composition where the bell *does* move; well that's fine, so 
let's use the block concept to separate out the non-change-ringing 
changes, and then combine the whole into a change-ringing peal.

However perhaps hard and fast boundaries are not possible. Convince me!

MBD