[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Tue Apr 18 19:45:17 UTC 2017

Tony Cox writes,

> The idea that a `method' can contain complete plain courses
 > of another method embedded in it seems completely wrong to me.

Yes that is a bit weird. But really a method is defined by its lead, and 
we've already accepted that a lead of one method can form part of the 
lead of another (e.g. Original vs PB or virtually anything else). There 
is no uniqueness of construction in ringing - you can describe a 
composition in many different ways.

So overall I don't have a big problem with it. It would certainly cut 
out a large swathe of false methods if we said it couldn't happen - and 
then what would they be, blocks still? One of the strong steers we've 
had in recent years is that composers want to describe things as they 
see fit, so in my view it is better not to put restrictions in the way 
of this.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list