Ringing Forums

Failure to get right up to the back in plain hunting or in method ringing is a very common fault. Certainly better bell control is required, plus listening skills to identify that the bell is too close to the bell it is following because it is getting up to only about 4 and a half instead of right up to fifth place in doubles.

One point to note about this 'not getting up enough' progression that goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 4.5, 4, 3, 2, 1 is that the change of speed between hunting up and down is spread over more blows. The change in position during this faulty process goes +1, +1, +1, +1, +0.5, 0, -0.5, -1, -1, -1, -1 (instead of the required ... +1, +1, 0, -1, -1... at the top for accurate striking). The faulty version therefore requires much less effort, as it consists of a larger number of small changes rather than the greater change of pace that is needed when changing direction accurately. The faulty process involves less effort and less anticipation, so can easily result from poor bell control.

I would suggest Kaleidoscope and similar exercise, starting with long places. Stand in front of the student as they ring perhaps 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3... The aim is that they move directly from 3rd to 4th position, and then stay in 4th (rather than not going far enough at the change and not really getting up to 4th until the second blow there). Once the student has the idea of what to do, insist on really accurate striking. Ensure (by warning them in advance verbally or by gesture) to anticipate, so for example making a stronger pull on the fourth blow in 3rd place so as to be able to let the bell float up, giving the required extra delay to that it comes down accurately in 4th place. Only when they can consistently do this with long places, move on to just two blows in each place, and then revisit plain hunting.

You'll probably need to repeat the process when the student starts method ringing with dodges, as they will likely do 'lazy dodges' not getting up or down far enough at the dodge.

I feel it is very much up to the individual teacher or more likely the tower to decide its policy on this matter. There is no longer the feeling that teaching somehow "ought" to be free, and there are many good reasons for charging some sort of fee. My only comment would be that, if like most towers, you choose not to charge anything, the reasons and the history behind this decision should be made clear to the student (and, on the case of children, to their parents, and it should also be explained in any promotion or recruitment material). It sounds as though this did not happen in the case the first writer mentions, which led to a misunderstanding about the quality and professionalism of the teaching.

Welcome!

After attending a course the student needs to return to an environment where he/she can build on and consolidate what’s been learnt.

That is certainly a problem with some attendees at some residential courses. In the first NW course (2022) I offered the topic "Moving on in Minor" (essentially to introduce plain minor methods such as Double Oxford). A subsequent discussion with Simon Linford brought forth the idea that such courses are best if they help attendees over a hurdle. I now (2023, 2024 and hopefully this year) offer "Starting Surprise". The idea is that if you have done no surprise, you can't really rock up to a local surprise minor practice and ask to join in - there's just too much to learn. But if you've attended the course, you will have rung plain courses and short touches of at least Cambridge (and we did Primrose too last year), so you can attend your local surprise minor events, even if you have to say "I ring only Cambridge so far, and may need a stander-behind'. But you are now over the hurdle.

I feel that "Moving on in Minor" is more suited to events like the ANZAB intermediate courses, where you hopefully have quite a few ringers from the same tower or cluster, and if you can get them started on something like Double Oxford, they should be able to get together and continue to ring it after the event.

But the bottom line is that, if what you need is not available in your area, try to find some like-minded ringers and make it happen!

One very small but helpful step that CC has already achieved has been to get the new North West residential course going, and one of the topics this course offers is "6 to 8", covering part of what you mention. There's no one single magic bullet that is going to suddenly cure all ills, but small steps in the right direction are happening. I also wonder why your local association is not offering anything to help. ANZAB - my local association - now offers offers regular courses at three different levels, namely 12-bell, "advanced" (which covers exactly what you mention - anything from Stedman Triples to spliced surprise major), and "intermediate" (for ringers stuck at around the badly struck PB5 sort of level). And it offers some subsidized travel (our distances being rather greater!) and scholarships. I suggest that if there is adequate demand you should badger your association to do something - that it what is is for, surely.

My purely personal feedback as a tutor at the recent NW course was...
a) full marks to all the "students" in the Starting Surprise topic, who had actually done all the homework that was set (!) and so were able to make full use of the rope time; all made really great progress.
b) I agree that some "just one student at a time" is needed, but it really does cut down on each student's ringing time. It also results in what some residential courses complain about - the same students coming back and doing the same thing year after year (as they can ring whatever it is ONLY when surrounded by good ringers ( i.e. the helpers). So I feel that not TOO much "one student only" is worth aiming for.
c) I was very impressed with the optional extra 'Handling Clinic' sessions. Much more progress made in a short session than typically happens in towers. Not sure why - maybe the different mindset ("seize the opportunity") of those attending?
d) Value for money? Well, everything is done to keep the cost as low as possible, but residential courses with meals provided are going to cost a fair bit whatever happens. Feedback suggests a very high level of overall satisfaction (but not of course 100%).

I strongly agree with John Harrison - a record of a performance properly rung in good faith should not be removed because of subsequently emerging dodgy connections in its dedication or method name. I have mixed feelings about renaming the method - Julie has not actually been found guilty of anything, and while the whole story has a very bad smell to it, I don't think we should assume guilt when the court has recorded a Not Guilty verdict, even if for very dubious reasons. Currently I feel more anger about the court process then about any crime Julie may or may not have committed.

This is mostly in reply to John's original post. In many fields, not just ringing, there is if anything a negative correlation between being very good at something and being able to teach it. This is of course a gross generalisation and there are lots of exceptions, but a key aspect of teaching is being able to perceive the level at which the student needs help, and then talk, demonstrate or explain at their level, not at the teacher's level. Many experts are not good at this!

In the specific case of ringing, I think it helps to distinguish between teaching basic handling (which, although faults do tend to recur after the initial training, is essentially a once-only process) and then the teaching of methods of increasing complexity. Basic handling is mostly taught one-on-one; there is no reason why it should be an expert ringer or the tower captain who does the teaching; it will ideally be done by someone who enjoys teaching, in which case they will not become bored or frustrated or feel restricted by this task (though they may get overloaded). So I suggest that when John talks about "advanced ringers burned out by doing seemingly endless handling, CC and PH training" they are either being overloaded or they are not very good teachers. In my school-teaching days I was often asked if it was not boring to teach the same maths topics year after year, to which the answer is a definite NO - it is different children each year, each class is different, needs different materials and challenges, and one absolutely does not trot out the same resources year after year. You are teaching people, who are endlessly varied, much more than the topic.

When it comes to methods (and ok yes there is a middle ground of rounds, call changes, plain hunt etc so I am over-simplifying), surely it is more the tower or the group that does the teaching. The student will attend other towers, group practices etc, and while they may on occasion ask their original teacher for comment or assistance, the role of that teacher is very different at these more advanced stages.

So I totally agree with John's comment "I suspect trying to <get more teachers> by drawing basic teachers from the top 10% of ringers is doomed to fail". Indeed, more often than not they would be the last people you would ask!

As for the original "is it democratic?" it all depends on your definition of democracy. The key to modern democracies is that the people have the power to boot out the administration if they don't like what it is doing (or, more often, just feel it is time for a change). The people do NOT actually vote on individual decisions (other than, in many democracies, changes to the constitution). So CC pretty much fits this definition of a democracy, and recent changes have made it more able to get things done.

As several have said, the current challenges are more getting through to and appearing relevant to ringers generally. In this respect it has gone from dreadful not not very good - a significant improvement but a long way to go, and no easy solution. I'd give a B+ "trying hard, a lot of improvement achieved but more needed."

One of the Victorian (in the Australian sense!) towers has adopted the convention that call changes are always rung without a handstroke gap, but method ringing always does have a handstroke gap. Interestingly, rather than causing confusion and chaos, this has the opposite effect - people learning there are very aware of what a handstroke gap is, when to apply it, and they don't have the usual problem of tending to insert a backstroke gap when trying to get the hang of a handstroke gap.

How are you deciding where to place your bell and how are you achieving this? Ideally you are counting each row, and know what position you should be in (as opposed to, for example, having learnt which bell to ring after, looking at that rope, and coming down after it). You have developed a feel of rhythm, so your hands and arms have got the hang of what you do to ring at constant speed as in rounds, or to hunt up (slower ringing) or down (faster ringing).

You know the order of work so, after making seconds, you know your next work will be a 3-4 down dodge. So hunt to the back, then down to 3rd position and at that point give a slightly harder pull so you can let your bell rise higher so that you achieve 4th position at the backstroke, thus making the dodge. Listen and count - if you do this it doesn't matter if you can't "see" this dodge (i.e. you are not sure which bell you are dodging with). Of course ideally you will know what position to ring AND ALSO you will be able to see the ropes and so know who to dodge with. However it sounds as though maybe you are finding the ropesight ("seeing" which bell you are dodging with) difficult and worrying. If so, forget the 'seeing" and aim for now to concentrate on counting and listening rather than looking.

I think ringers often over-estimate the degree to which the public appreciate what we call good ringing. Various points:
Ringing in the background of TV programs featuring an English village generally has dreadful striking; since it's only a sound track, and the director/producer/whoever could pick anything, they presumably have no idea what good ringing is.
It's often just ringing (anything) that is appreciated. I remember overseas (Taiwan) visitors coming to their daughter's wedding in Melbourne, and they were totally blown away by all aspects of the cathedral wedding. "We especially loved the bells, and really liked that syncopated effect". (If a ringer said that it would be sarcasm, but they really meant it!)
If we were serious about ringing what the public liked, we would ring (well-struck) call changes - these always seem to be the most popular with non-ringers. And we would seldom ring peals, as they generate the most complaints!
None of which means I'm in any way against striving to ring more challenging methods with improved striking - but I suspect it is mostly for our own benefit.

Many thanks Jonathan and Philip. That's very clear and very helpful. Also exactly what I was hoping would be the case, but it's reassuring to have this confirmed - common sense does not always prevail!

I've seen plenty of half muffles, but never seen a full muffle. If one orders full muffles from a supplier, are they usable to either full or half muffle a bell, or are they really only usable to fully muffle?

I agree with Tim Farnham's comment. There's a good initial range of topics, and I'd favour letting them run for a bit before adding further ones - unless a very definite need is identified. Thanks to those who set this up. :up:

I agree with Alison. We have alarms and keycards (two!) before you can gain access to the ringing chamber, but a safety audit still suggested a spider and leaving the ropes up when we are not ringing, as an additional precaution. We all agree with this assessment, and in fact have always intended to put in spiders, but just never quite got round to it yet! (Also recommended was an additional padlock controlling access from the ringing chamber to the bell chamber.)

And yes we always teach testing a bell before ringing it up or down - knots can suggest whether a bell is up or down, but it's a fallible guide! I remember being ticked off (quite rightly) when I was doing a formal assessment of a ringing teacher, when I had a half-made loop in my hand before testing that the bell was down.