Ringing Forums

you can't do it directly but if you buy the full record of one of the ringers it will be included.
The obvious source is the RW DVDs, the older ones of which are available free online. Check the entry in Felstead, which may include the RW page reference and save you having to search.

how long a groove takes to form depends on the hardness of the stone. The picture looks a bit like chalk, which isn't normally used for building because it's not very good, but we have a lot in All Saints Wokingham.

you sharpen a blade by rubbing it along the surface at a very shallow angle. Cutting int the stone woul blunt it.
My understanding is that these marks were caused when bells were chimed from a convenient place within the church that wasn't under the bell. Drawn ropes, long droughts and friction aren't the problem for chiming that they are for ringing.

try asking your district secretary, who probably has a pretty good idea of which towers would welcome help, and may already know what local towers are planning.

That's an interesting question. With many inventions you can answer the question by finding the same thing invented elsewhere, by other people. That won't work with Stedman because the ringing community is small and closed, so it seems unlikely that a ringer and band capable of compiling and inventing such a method would already know about Stedman, so could not re-invent it..
More generally we could think about the likelihood of a method like Stedman being invented. If 'like' means a principle then there aren't many - a tiny handfull out of tens of thousands - and they are little more than curiousities. In the last 20 years BB has ~17.5k performances of Stedman, very distantly followed by ~800 Erin, ~50 Shipway and ~25 Duffield. Shipway is the closest in concept to Stedman, and given the dominance of 8-bell ringing one might expect it to be far more popular. But it isn't.
So Stedman must have a USP, the most obvious being that it got there first, and that probably makes the original question unaswerable.

neither of them look very practical for use with ropes in situ in a tower.

when we were on BBC a Breakfast I gave the presenter a copy of my book on the history of ringing in Wokingham. I hope he still has it, and didn't eat it for breakfast.

Sonning Deanery Branch of ODG introduced a 6-bell competition in 1961 and an 8-bell competition in 1975. ODG itself wasn't quite so early - the first 6-bell competition was in 1964 with the 8-bell competition in 1981 (for the Guild centenary). The 10-bell competition came later still.

I think there are two sorts of peal band. Many peals are rung by ringers who know and regularly ring with each other, and tend to be self perpetuating, while the bands ringing some peals are more ad hoc, and not a 'regular band'. In either case the key feature is the organiser who gets the band together. That's easier with a regular band, and harder to do from scratch without a regular group, but still possible. Most (tower) bands wanting to ring a peal for a special occasion find they don't have enough members able or willing to ring a peal so the ofraganiser needs to ask around others who might be able to do so.
An individual ringer wanting to ring more peals therefore has two options: make contact with an existing regular band and see if they will include you, or start organising your own, drawing on any contacts you have, and asking for advice on who else you could ask where needed. You may need to ask quite a few to get enough, but as you build up your contacts it should get easier.

I mention taster sessions triggered by mention of bucket lists, and because the cost is not open ended. I agree that we should aim to recruit people who want to stay, other things being equal.
In normal circumstances that would be the default, and anyone given an honest prediction of the likely learning curve would be unlikely to start without at least the though of sticking if things work.
Advertising to ring for an event clouds the issue, both by introducing an alternative goal and by suggesting they will be doing the favour by helping out, rather than the ringer(s) doing the favour by teaching them (for nothing).

we once offered taster sessions for a promise auction to raise funds. We didn't get any recruits but (but we might have done) and we got goodwill and awareness. The cost to us was limited to a few hours, the sort of time we would spend on a tower tour.

As with all transactions, the deal depends on what each party wants and what each has to give. In these cases the TV company wants an 'interesting', photogenic story, while ringers (in general) want good publicity.
Money for incidentals (as in Birmingham) probably isn't an issue for the film company if they think it will help get a better story by oiling the wheels, so it's worth mentioning.
I doubt it would be possible to get anything like a 'performance fee' or for the church to get a 'venue hire' since in most cases the particular tower isn't unique. If you aren't keen they'll go somewhere else or drop the story.
All the talk about a shortage of ringers and needing more to Ring for the King probably hasn't helped either since it portrays us all as desperate for publicity. They may well think they are doing us a favour by offering us air time. .

while a motivated individual may be able to make his/her own opportunities, that can't be done in a vacuum, it relies on exploiting existing infrastructure, whether by finding a 'good tower' where progress can be made or collectively organised practices. However it needs to be regular. A society may have more resources than a branch, but it is also more remote so likely to involve more travelling, not just for the 'learner' but for everyone. That might be fine for occasional courses but progress requires regular practice, making local solutions more practical.

yes, I think there's an element of rationalising a preconception in some of the arguments that everyone should ting the standard way.
One interesting thing I've noticed when I ring opposite handed is the my hands occasionally collide with each othe on the rope. I think that's because the dominant hand has a orefetance for going farther (up and down) than the non dominant hand. That might just be habituation from normal ringing but it could equally well be inherent and/or acquired from everything else we do.

yes, ringing other handed is a useful exercise. So is ringing one handed. As well as enhancing general dexterity it gives confidence that you can carry on if one hand 'has to do something else'. It also enables you to keep ringing if you get an injury to one arm or hand.

I hadn't spotted the significance of it being mainly right hand, which could indeed suggest that she isn't using both hands effectively, with the right hand doing most of the work. But other things being equal I would expect gripping the thinner, harder tail end to cause more pain than the thicker, softer sally. However, there is more scope for an awkward grip at handstroke so obviously worth looking at.
Are there differences between the hands? One might expect the dominant hand to be used more for other things. Would that make it stronger and more resilient or is it already suffering strain from other causes that ringing, as an unfamiliar activity, exacerbates?

as Lucy says, a lot of ringers grip too hard, failing to relax their grip between strokes. I suggest explaining that during the period when the rope is slack between each stroke her grip should be completely relaxed, not gripping the rope at all but just cradling it gently. (It's the same action needed when raising, so the bell can pull more rope through the hands at the top of the stroke as needed.) You could demonstrate that by getting her to hold the rope loosely and then checking that you can pull it through her hands.
Many people also pull too hard, which increases the pressure they need when they do grip. You can assess that by holding a rope above her (stand on a box or chair if needed) and get her to reach up and apply the amount of pull she typically uses while ringing. Quite likely that will be far too much so get her to reduce it until it feels about right to you. Then move the rope up and down while she tries to follow it with no more force but not letting the rope go slack (is like when ringing).
Obviously if she is habitually gripping and/or pulling too hard/long it will need sustained effort to undo the habit.

Check will advance the Bong. ... Etc — PeterScott

It will but I'm not sure that's the best way to explain it. The degree to which the bell is checked, I've the extent to which it is allowed to rise, determines the energy in the bell, and hence its swing period, which affects not just one bong but the rate of all succeeding bongs.
I tell people that you control the bell primarily by how high you let it rise and that pulling is mainly to top up the energy.

am not quite sure what is technically correct. — Simon Linford

If you want to be inclusive you could refer to 'youth organisations'. I assume they would take that to include them.

and were all nodding their heads as you were pulling, in the hope that this energy somehow transferred to just-a-little-more pull :-) — PeterScott

Yes, and they like the person struggling are missing the point. People struggling to get up a (normal weight) bell are usually pulling like mad. If the pat were all they did the bell would shoot up. But in their eagerness to pull they start too soon. By applying force on the up stroke they stop the bell rising, and waste the effort put in on the previous stroke.
I see far more problems caused (not just when raising) by failure to let the bell rise than from lack of effort.
When raising I tell people to relax the grip completely on the up stroke so the rope, and only to grip and pull at the top of the stroke when they can feel the bell has stopped rising. And that they should expect the bell to take a little more rope through their hands each time if they are doing things correctly.