Ringing Forums

thanks, that's similar to the list I came up with. I can see the appeal (pun intended) for composers & conductors, but for others the benefits seem marginal at best, and I think difficult to justify when compared to QPs. Although some people clearly enjoy being a "rank and file" peal ringer, I think the importance of peal ringing is a difficult pitch to recent starters, although of course it will be attractive to some of them.

I have heard people claim that the striking in a peal only really gets good after the first couple of hours (!). If true then perhaps it would be better to work on striking well from the start of all performances?

The original question was if the decline in peal ringing mattered. If the definition of "what matters" is the overall participation levels in ringing, and the standard of what's rung, perhaps the answer is "No, not really"?

p.s. I thought you only had to ring a QP to name a method, or are you referring to the naming the peal composition rather than the method(s)?

I think "pushing peals" is flogging a dead horse. I'm sure some people will still ring them, including a small proportion of "newbies" but none of my cohort (recent-ish starters) are interested, and indeed most of the long-timers of my acquaintance who have rung them in the past aren't interested any longer. I can think of only one person who still rings peals, but they've been unable to persuade me of why anyone would bother.

QPs however are a different matter - I think I'd get far more out of ringing 4 QPs than I would of ringing one full peal.

I'd love to hear what the benefits are, other than bragging rights and masochism?

That's not actually true. Consent is only one of the legitimate reasons for holding data, and not the first choice advised. — John Harrison

That's not what I meant, I meant that GDPR compliance is often considered to be so scary it prevents people from doing things like setting up electronic membership systems, or email distribution lists.

In any case i think GDPR is often misunderstood and sometimes used as a reason for not doing things. The basic principles are that the data has to be consented to, appropriate to what it's being used for, held securely and deleted when there is no further reason to keep it. It does not say you can't hold membership information.

There's an entire industry which relies on GDPR scaremongering to try to get you to buy their products and services. Following what's laid out on the ICO website is all you actually need to do.

There's clearly benefit to be had from listening to good ringing, principally being able to hear what good striking sounds like, to be able to track where bells are etc, but I think the comparison with "traditional" music, which has intonation, phrasing, volume etc, is an overreach.

As for Tales From The 50s, my takeaway is it shows how badly learners were treated then - they'd all have got a lot more out of the 3+ hours by being on a rope rather than sat on a bench.

Many of those "star" ringers, unfortunately, do not have a clue on how to teach handling to new recruits. They would provide a better service working with ringers on learning difficult methods and on conducting. Leave the handling training to those who know how to do it. — Eileen Butler

I've seen this come up many times. Yes, some ace ringers can teach handling and even more of them are excellent at helping you once you've got to a level where you can understand and act on what they are telling you. But for teaching basic handling they can be a bit of a disaster. That's not through lack of willingness, it's often that they learned so long ago they can't remember how they did, or what it's like to be connected to several 100Kgs of spinning metal for the first time. Having them teach handling makes about as much sense as having a Premier League coach teach primary kids, the result is very often frustration on both sides.

Plus some of them can have rather "unique" handling styles that are probably best not passed on... :joke:

it would be better if everyone just did a bit of helping of the tier below them — Simon Linford

Yes, and to stretch the analogy, in many cases the issue is not the length of the elevator shaft, it's that the elevator is completely broken and you are faced with a long climb up a dank and dimly lit staircase. Faced with that, many just quickly give up on the climb.

exactly so, well said!

Maybe the bellhandling needs to be separated from the mentoring through competent rounds, different bells and to basic methods. — PeterScott

Yes, I think you are completely right and we already do so.

I teach "solo skills" 1:1 on a tied bell & simulator, starting with basic bell handling and working up to the skills needed to control a bell for PH, dodging etc. The TC teaches PH & above at the weekly group practices. There's overlap of course, but it seems to work well for us.

I do think teaching of handling tends to stop far too soon, usually just as soon as people can avoid killing themselves (or other ringers) when ringing call changes. I had a real struggle myself trying to move beyond CCs because my bell handling was just not up to it. I was fortunate in that I went on a bell handling course that was specifically aimed at the post-CC "skill gap" and I've had lots of time on a tower sim ringing a real bell of a realistic weight. My handling is still "work in progress", but even I get a bit despondent when I see people who believe "I can handle a bell just fine, thank you" have ago on a tower sim and can't change speed accurately - and they then blame the sim for not being "realistic". Well, yes - unlike real ringers, the sim takes no prisoners - it won't hold up over you if you are unfailingly slow coming off the back! The root causes seem to be pretty universal - over-pulling all the time and then having to continuously check hard as a result, and not moving up and down the rope appropriately.

it's the sad story of my ringing life :wink:

I'm teaching someone to ring up and down at the moment - I'm using the ART "Small, Simple Steps" ethos and I'm working on getting them to be able to continuously drop and make coils whilst keeping the bell at exactly the same level whilst they do it. We'll see if it helps :smile:

Don't you have to ring a peal or something similar before you can join ART? — J Martin Rushton

No, neither as a teacher not as a learner.

I remember there was some comment in the RW maybe 10 years ago that ART was irrelevant to change ringing towers. — J Martin Rushton

Someone in RW talking out of their arse? Surely not! :joke:

If you mean http://www.learningtheropes.org/ it's the exact opposite, it's for beginners. There's a lot of very good stuff on it.

I think it very much depends on the skill level of the band, particularly when it comes to bell control when well below the balance. My experience is that if the band is weak and the raise is bad, the lower will be even worse. The usual cause is the inability of the front ringers to keep actively ringing the bell once they are one-handed on the sally and just letting it flop down, compounded by the first coil chaos when they take in great gobs of rope and the bell then drops like a stone. It's usually the case that the weakest ringers are round the front which compounds the issues. The back bells have zero chance of keeping up so they either end up dangling from the ceiling as they desperately try to drag their bell down, or they just give a resigned sigh and ring down at a sane pace. The result is chaos either way.

And another short segment on ITV News at 10 about the shortage of ringers...

And another interview with a ringer: https://fb.watch/hFHnlifjJE/

it is sometimes hard to correct someone without raising your voice. It needs to be done quickly or the touch will disintegrate — Sue Marsden

Agreed, but the tone and intent still comes across very clearly, even if the volume is necessarily high.

I have hardly ever (can't really remember an occasion) when a learner is shouted at maliciously, though it can happen. — Sue Marsden

I have, both as a target and as a bystander. It's much worse than just being ineffective as a form of "help", it's the exact opposite and it's guaranteed that the target will have even more difficulties afterwards. If it's directed at me I calmly ask the shouter to stop, and if they don't, I'll set my bell and leave.

It's usually reserved for an experienced ringer who should know better. — Sue Marsden

And it's inexcusable even then. One of the most reprehensible bits of ringing "culture" is this behaviour, although it is a small number of ringers that indulge in it and seems to be getting less common over time, which is to be welcomed.

Here's what it has to say about ringing Plain Bob Doubles. Not quite so impressive, hmm?

Give instructions for ringing Plain Bob Doubles on church bells

To ring Plain Bob Doubles on church bells, follow these steps:

Start with the "tenor" bell, which is the largest and lowest-pitched bell in the tower. This is typically the bell that is rung to mark the time or to signal the start of a service.

Ring the tenor bell in a slow and regular rhythm to set the pace for the rest of the bells. This is called the "pace bell" or "conductor."

Starting with the bell next to the tenor in size and pitch, ring the bells in the following sequence: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. This sequence is called the "plain course."

After ringing the plain course, ring the bells in the following sequence: 5-8-7-6-3-4-1-2. This sequence is called the "bob" and is the most characteristic feature of Plain Bob Doubles.

Repeat the plain course and bob sequence until you reach the end of the piece or until the conductor signals to stop.

When ringing the bells, hold the sally (the wooden handle attached to the rope) with both hands and pull the bell down to the full extent of the rope. Then, let the bell swing back up to the "balance" position, where the clapper (the metal part inside the bell that makes the sound) is level with the mouth of the bell. The bell should be allowed to swing freely for a few moments before being rung again.

Remember to listen carefully to the other bells and try to maintain a consistent pace and rhythm. This is called "keeping good bell rope length" and is an important part of bell ringing.

I hope these instructions are helpful! Let me know if you have any other questions

Ah, the robot plagiarist, yet again :roll: What's the point of this post please? It's just regurgitated content from people with an actual intellect.

A quick look at this year's first pealers summary on Pealbase shows that out of 130 so far just 15 rang Plain Bob Minor; there were 10 Plain Bob Triples; 10 Grandsire Triples, 9 Plain Bob Major and 23 of Surprise Major. There were even 2 ringing Surprise Royal for their first peal. — Roger Booth

Hmm, I crunched the numbers by stage irrespective of method - I discounted the one handbell peal and the numbers for up to Minor and above Minor are 64 / 65, so pretty evenly spread. Minor versus Major was 38 / 35 and Double versus Triples was 25 / 21.

I think your points about "the skills gap" and "risk aversion" are on the money, along with bands getting stuck at the PB5 level. Plus your points about people getting there eventually, and advanced ringing being outside traditional structures - basically I think everything that you said is right. :grin:

However I'm a bit cautious about using peals or even QPs as a measure of ringing's general health, although they are one of the few data sources available. It seems like a badly lagging indicator - as you've said many peals are currently rung by ringers who are at the tail end of their careers, and there's a long lead time for towers like mine, which is building from a CC start, to ringing QPs as a tower band - if indeed we ever do. But we are nonetheless making more progress than the band has in 40+ years, even though it's impossible to determine that from outside. I think that's one area where a survey will help - not just details of what level bands are at now, but also in which direction they are heading.