[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
sh53246 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 18:17:42 UTC 2014
> Simply that methods are one thing, Dixonoids are another.
> A method can be defined using a block of changes, representable as place
> notation. So it is a very simple thing (and I suspect the simplicity of
> the idea is what has made it supremely successful in its role as the basic
> component in composition).
> It strikes me that a Dixonoid is a more complex entity, a bit more like a
> composition in some senses, since it is derived both from the generating
> properties of changes ("repeat x16") and the application of row (or bell-
> position) based rules ("make fourths if the 2 or 4 are at lead"). This
> makes a Dixonoid very interesting, and no less worthwhile, but perhaps
> less suitable as a base component for composition-building.
> It is certainly a different beast from a method.
A long time ago when I used to go to Saturday meetings I'd often suggest
ringing Dixon's Bob Minor. Dixon's being almost unknown then it was easiest
to explain it as a touch of Original with two types of call, a bob (14) and
a plain (12). I knew the rules, i.e. a bob whenever 2 or 4 leads and a
plain whenever the treble leads, but as far as everyone else was concerned I
was just calling a touch of Original.
Wouldn't it simplify things to regard all Dixonoids simply as compositions,
rather than methods in their own right?
More information about the ringing-theory