Ringing Forums

Somewhat surprised to find that the president doesn’t seem to find the death of Queen Elizabeth and the ringing surrounding it as a subject worth mentioning other than in passing as a possible disruption.

Unfortunate.

- Three weekly blogs — Simon Linford

This brings to mind the difference twixt biannual and biennial ...

... death of Queen Elizabeth and the ringing surrounding it as a subject worth mentioning ... — Alan C

Of the many words written, and to be written, on this subject, we will all be most interested in your thousand words of reflection ...

My comment is probably for a new discussion.
I am pleased that there is to be a project for 2030. However "together" we seemed in the last week or so, I think that ringing is fragmented at the moment. Certainly there are a lot of good things going on in centres of excellence and its great to see younger ringers making a significant mark, but generally speaking we continue to live off the fat of the land.
I am 71. When I die, I take with me all my knowledge and experience. My learners will never achieve the experience I have because they all started at a "mature" age, and that also means that I can't necessarilly pass on my knowledge either. We are an active tower but with a CC and PB5 repertoire. That's ok, they are a loyal bunch of ringers and we do other things together as well - but I'll give it another 10 years - maybe!
We will work hard towards succession (the queen is dead, long live the king!), but I very much feel that we are on our own. I constantly post on FB, Twitter, Insta and on our community email list to let people know what we are doing.
There needs to be a paradigm shift amongst ringers at grass roots level!
That's all!

I am 71. When I die, I take with me all my knowledge and experience. My learners will never achieve the experience I have because they all started at a "mature" age, and that also means that I can't necessarily pass on my knowledge either. We are an active tower but with a CC and PB5 repertoire. — Phillip George

Whilst "mature" people are never going to be able to reclaim the years when they weren't ringing, I don't think that passing knowledge on to them is a lost cause, anything can be passed on is always going to be of great value. Neither do I think that older starters are condemned to get no further than CC/PH/PB5.

There is rightly a lot of focus on youth recruitment, by definition they are the future. But we have to face up to the fact that even if it's successful, that's going to take time to come to fruit, and there's going to be a need for "nurseries" of existing ringers to support their growth; training method ringers is hard, training them without existing bands around them is I suspect almost impossible.

Turning to wrinklies and thinking about my own experience - I started 7 years ago in my mid-50s, although the last 2 years have been a bit of a hiatus... I think you can divide us into roughly two groups - the first being "backbone of the band" ringers who turn up every week and who are content with CCs/PH/PB5. They are probably the largest and most important group in terms of keeping towers alive and bells ringing.

The second are the "I wish I'd started this 30/40 years ago" ringers who get gripped by it just as hard as the current top level of ringers did. I'd put myself in the second category and what I lack in innate ability I can compensate, at least in part, with the time I have available to put into learning and sheer bloody minded persistence. It's often been difficult and demoralising, but I am starting to ring my first Surprise Minor methods, which I believe means I'm finally dipping my toes in the Red Zone. I think the NW ringing course shows I'm not alone, what's difficult is finding the help and opportunities to progress, not our willingness to do so.

There needs to be a paradigm shift amongst ringers at grass roots level! — Phillip George

I think that's right, by identifying people who are gripped by ringing and show potential, by providing accelerated and frequent tuition to those who have a burning desire to progress, irrespective of age. Such "streaming" is commonplace everywhere else, I don't understand why it seems to be so difficult for ringing to embrace it. Indeed it's part of the CCCBR's Strategic Priority 2:

More places could be encouraged or given the tools to establish ringing ‘schools’ that provide regular (weekly if possible) training and longer courses, particularly targeted at the Blue Zone / Red Zone border where we try and get ringers beyond Bob Doubles and Grandsire.

So I think the principle is already accepted.

But I don't think we have until 2030 to do it.

"But I don't think we have until 2030 to do it."

I agree. I think we have got until about 1995.

The best time to start was yesterday. The next best time is now.

The point about 2030 is that there are some things that need to be done which might take quite a long time, particularly to do with the structure and organisation of ringing associations, BRFs, etc. A Direct Membership Organistion looks to be more feasible if you think there could be a transition plan to get there. There might be 10 different strands of things we ought to try and change, all of which will take different amounts of time, but all of them probably possible with a will to do them. Other things, as discussed here, could be quicker.

Interested by what you say about the two 'wrinklies' groups. I have log thought there are two groups (not of older ringers, but of ringers generally). There is what I call the 'service' group who are happy to do their stuff at their local tower with no particular need to progress, and then there are those who are interested in developing their ringing and will read and travel in order to do it. The latter might join a direct membership organisation that served to develop change ringing, and pay for it, while the former group probably wouldn't see the point.

When I wrote 'three weekly' I was expecting it to be queried! But the sentence seemed to flow quite well as written and it was quite late.

I did write about the Queen in the previous Ringing World, just not in a blog post, and it didn't get posted online.

There is what I call the 'service' group who are happy to do their stuff at their local tower with no particular need to progress, and then there are those who are interested in developing their ringing and will read and travel in order to do it. The latter might join a direct membership organisation that served to develop change ringing, and pay for it, while the former group probably wouldn't see the point. — Simon Linford

Obviously I can only speak from my experience, but that's the way it seems to me. I'm the only one of my cohort who has got beyond PB, and that's involved travelling to other towers to do so. The others mostly only ring at 1 or 2 towers, where there is existing "overlap" in people who ring at them. I'd be interested in a direct membership organisation if it helped in the way you suggest, many of the others aren't even members of the local Association, let alone interested joining anything else, so I think you are right there as well.

I do think that the "backbone of the average band" group tend to be older in general, the young and keen often move on, either to Uni and/or to towers where they can develop their skills. But I know some younger ringers (under 21) who are in the "backbone" category as well. It's easy to assume that most young ringers are good ringers whereas I think it's truer to say that there's some heavy selection going on as they have so many other calls on their time. It's the dedicated, and almost by definition, good ones who stick around. Older ringers value the other benefits associated with ringing more, and that helps retention .

It's easy to assume that most young ringers are good ringers whereas I think it's truer to say that there's some heavy selection going on ... the dedicated, and almost by definition, good ones who stick around. — John de Overa

I'm sure that's true. Of the ringers I've taught it's the good ones who are still ringing. And I'm sceptical that youngsters have more alternative uses of their time than older folk. I suspect they only stick of they get something out of ringing, whereas older people may be motivated by other factors, loyalty, service, etc.
I remember when I met Pat Canon in 1964 he bemoaned the fact that most of his band only rang out of duty, and weren't really interested in ringing. That remark stuck with me, and I think it is very relevant. Do we want keen ringers who will ensure ringing thrives? Or do we want it kept on life support by well meaning people who aren't that keen?

Do we want keen ringers who will ensure ringing thrives? Or do we want it kept on life support by well meaning people who aren't that keen? — John Harrison

I think the answer to that is complicated. I think to keep a tower on life support and still ringing requires a large amount of keenness, even if it lacks in technical accomplishment. My home tower had a near death experience - for quite some time the band was down to two ringers who would turn up every Sunday and ring two bells - "Our aim was just to keep the bells ringing". Off the back of that the band has slowly grown again - I only started ringing because I can hear them from the house and went along to be nosey. In 2018 we rehung them and the same two ringers paid a huge part in that, both in terms of fundraising and labouring! They're both in their 80s and ring less now, but we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, I'm not sure I'd have kept going when they did. We are just starting to ring very simple methods, which we think is the first time that's happened in the tower for around 40 years. The other two towers in the town are now silent.

Estimates are that only around 10% of ringers are ever going to make it to the red zone and whilst better later stage training might improve that percentage, increasing the size of the 90% is I believe going to be the most effective way of increasing the numbers at red/black levels, which needs both recruitment and improving retention

We need to keep keen starters keen by providing them with encouragement and continuing support, then more of them will keep progressing and not hit a wall. "Excellence at all levels" seems to be what @Simon Linford is promoting, if I'm interpreting it correctly, and I think that's absolutely right. I do think things are beginning to change - I looked at the BellBoard data and for the first time ever, this year there have been more CC performances recorded than PB. I know there are multiple things that have contributed to that but the fact that "bog standard" bands feel that their contributions are valued enough to warrant recording seems to be something new, and I think it's to be welcomed.

I think my comment about life support hasn't quite been understood. Of course life support for a band is better than death, and worth the effort to succeed and get back to health. But I was referring more generally to ringing. To be sustainable in the long term it needs to do more than avoid dying.
Excellence at all levels is a good focus, and I would interpret it in terms of attitude more broadly rather than narrowly in terms of just striking.

Older people may be motivated by other factors, loyalty, service, etc.
I remember when I met Pat Canon in 1964 he bemoaned the fact that most of his band only rang out of duty, and weren't really interested in ringing. That remark stuck with me, and I think it is very relevant. Do we want keen ringers who will ensure ringing thrives? Or do we want it kept on life support by well meaning people who aren't that keen? — John Harrison

Well, the duty aspect is declining. The sort of church which actively encourages the use of bells (tending to be more rural, more traditional in style) is the sort which is in decline; so the reason for many peoples' duty is in decline too. And perhaps younger people don't feel the same sense of duty? So, if we're relying on the people who ring as a duty, then the life-support is only a stopgap until we can make ringing truly sustainable. We're not even looking for growth at this point; just hoping to prevent further decline (which is a bit sad).

I think my comment about life support hasn't quite been understood ... I was referring more generally to ringing — John Harrison

Sure, but I think a lot of what applies at the tower level also applies more generally? The lower the starting base, the harder the recovery.

Excellence at all levels is a good focus, and I would interpret it in terms of attitude more broadly rather than narrowly in terms of just striking. — John Harrison

I think that's right, you aren't going to keep getting better, no matter what level you are at, without it. Once you get to ringing "for duty" it's difficult to regain the impetus to improve - why would you need to? I think we are still dealing with the damage caused by Belfry Reform, historically change ringing was separate from service ringing, and I'm sure that's what drove innovation and standards, not clanking away on a Sunday for 30 minutes.

Tristan: "Well, the duty aspect is declining."
Interestingly I have just joined a cricket FB group and there has been mention there of the problems of getting regular commitment at local club level.

Clearly it's not possible to 'keep getting better' indefinitely, so that simplistic goal is easy to shoot down by those who don't want to make any effort. But the CC vision doesn't say nthat, it says: 'That no ringer should hit a barrier to their own progression'.
At first sight that just refers to external barriers (poor training, lack of opportunity, etc) but I think it should also refer to internal barriers. An obvious barrier is that facing a ringer who hasn't been equipped with core skills during the formative process. Another, relevant to this discussion, is one who has been deprived of a wider view of ringing and the ringing community, leading to a closed approach, to both external engagement and personal development.
These are often quoted as the failings of many 'local ringers' but they are in fact failings of the bands, leaders and teachers from whom they acquired all they know about ringing and their approach to it.

I think we are still dealing with the damage caused by Belfry Reform, historically change ringing was separate from service ringing, and I'm sure that's what drove innovation and standards, not clanking away on a Sunday for 30 minutes — John de Overa

Belfry Reform was the biggest thing to hit ringing since the Restoration but it is widely misunderstood. For example, before it there was no 'service ringing'. Services were introduced by chiming and 'ringing' was completely divorced from services. Ringing often took place on Sundays (to the displeasure of the church) because that was the only day most workers were free. Even Ellacombe (the earliest reformer) didn't want ringing for services. He wanted his ringers to practice their art twice a week and to attend services, but for services he invented his eponymous apparatus to improve the quality of chiming.
Belfry Reform had two huge benefits:
1 - It promoted change ringing. One effect of that can be seen in the dramatic growth of peal ringing
2 - It brought all ringers together, not just the elites and those in the major centres. We might deride the ringing societies but they served all ringers and at the time they clearly met a need, with far higher participation rates than anything seen today.
But not all its effects were beneficial:
3 - It disconnected ringing from the public. Ringing for services eclipsed ringing for public events in the public mind, so it is largely seen as a church thing rather than a community thing. The appetite is still there, as shown with recent ringing for the Queen, but such public ringing is now the exception whereas once it was the norm.
4 - It disconnected ringers from the public. After ringing some of us join the congregation (a tiny fraction of the populace) while the rest go quietly home, whereas once we would have gone out to join in the communal festivities of which we were a part. Our striking competitions are mainly gatherings of other ringers, whereas pre-reform ringing was a communal entertainment and the turnout would have made the sponsor enough profit to pay for the prizes.
5 - It fossilised the structure. The organisations set up were designed for the needs of the time but they achieved a permanence that made them hard to change, even when the need becomes apparent.
6 - It imposed a 'year zero' mentality. Most ringers believe things have always been as they have been since Belfry Reform. If they have heard of the Reform they probably think it was just about misbehaving ringers being persuaded out of the ale house and into the pew.
The future will not be like the past, but we could learn a lot from our past that might help us to create a better future.

Clearly it's not possible to 'keep getting better' indefinitely, so that simplistic goal is easy to shoot down by those who don't want to make any effort — John Harrison

I think we are coming at that from different starting points in the human lifetime :grin: As a late starter, I expect to "run out" before ringing challenges do, which means I'll be improving for all of my ringing career and I think that's going to be the case for most in my position - indeed, it's one of the main reasons why ringing was attractive to me. However I can see that if you start young that might not be the case.

I agree with you about different sorts of barriers and core skills - I think the teaching of basic handling is better than it ever has been but there's still room for improvement. From my experience, teaching of the level of bell control needed for method ringing (which is a lot about anticipation and keeping "ahead of the bell") is often poor, and nobody tells you how to develop ropesight, or how to learn methods, or anything much else. It's often "You just need to do it". No wonder that many learners plateau at that level. It's much harder to teach the more advanced stages as unlike handling, you can't see inside people's heads, but I think we can do better than we currently do.

Your points about belfry reform are interesting, and confirm a lot of what I've read previously (not really surprising as you wrote some of it!) Overall though I still think it's had a negative impact, at least at the present time, because the last four of your points appear to have completely eclipsed the first two.

Overall though I still think it's had a negative impact, at least at the present time, because the last four of your points appear to have completely eclipsed the first tw — John de Overa

I think it's hard to weigh up the balance because you can't put a number on each poor and con, and in any case it would be comparing apples and bananas.
The test is to compare ringing now with what it would be like if the church had never taken over ringing with Belfry Reform. Things would certainly be different but would they be better or worse? It would be an interesting exercise to try to work that out.

Fair points. And I have no idea how you'd work you the alternate timeline! :lol:

And I have no idea how you'd work you the alternate timeline! :lol: — John de Overa

Sounds like the Intelligence Section of the Central Council ought to invest in a timeline-jumping time machine!

Mentioned in dispatches! :grin:

https://cccbr.org.uk/2022/10/07/ringing-2030-planning-for-the-future-of-ringing/

You're famous now, John!

From the above link: "...project plan... will also need buy in from all societies." No rush with implementation then.

We are all famous :rofl:

but a couple of sentences after saying we need buy in, he does reiterate that: 'we really need to do it'.
So let's not sit cynically on the sidelines expecting nothing to happen, but rather engage in whatever ways we can to help make something happen.
People said the CC would never reform itself, and a few attempts by various presidents did fizzle out. But once the work had been put in to make the case for change, there was a strong majority in favour.
As I have said before, if we were there already it would be accepted as normal. The problem is working out how to make the transition from where we are now. That's what makes folk uncomfortable.

It is not the theory about what needs to be done that is the problem it is finding a way to make ringers behaviour significantly different. From what I see the operation models are almost unchanged; open practices from 7:30 to 9:00, open branch practices that are effectively social events with some ringing thrown in. No structured developmental path for anyone wanting to learn. The only hope is to get in with a peal or qp band.

The vast bulk of ringers are firmly wedded to the existing patterns and given the average age I don't see that changing. It has been left far too late.

interesting that you frame the constraint on a DMO in terms of the weaknesses of local organisation rather than as a weakness of the CC per se. Your views in that direction are well known but I hadn't linked them directly with the problem of making the transition to a DMO.

The potential of most ringers is not being realised. This is because the leaders e.g. tower captains, district or association officers or whomever, and I am of course speaking generally, are not leaders at all and do not understand or own their responsibility for developing ringing and ringers.
Sadly, we are the future of ringing! We hold it in our hands!
It is down to us to do something about it. We seem to have no awareness of the problem or energy or enthusiasm for making sure that ringing survives.
One essential ingredient, I am sure, is communication, telling each other and the general public what we are doing and what we are going to do, then telling them again!. With all the social media platforms available there is no excuse for not doing this. At least that gets us out there! But we can't work in tower isolation, we have to come together, at least at a local level.
I know with pretty much certainty which towers in my district will not be ringing within the next ten years but we're not even talking about it! Many ringers aren't at all interested in ringing*, only their weekly routines.
*Ringing isn't only about ringing - it's also about our relationship with our stakeholders - the church, schools, parish councils, the community, each other etc!

I think you are right that many towers and branches are blindly doing what they've been doing for years, a model that clearly doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't believe that the majority of ringers are averse to change, and I don't think age has all that much to do with attitudes. I think the issue is that there's often a big disconnect between "bog standard" ringers and the people who are branch/association officers - it's not that nobody's hungry to improve, it's that what's on the menu is not suitable for them.

For example, I've had an email via one of the associations I'm a member of announcing a series of fortnightly surprise major/minor practices - but as far as I can tell it's a standalone effort, rather than something coming from the association. Whilst it's great for me as I'm just starting to ring Surprise, there's nothing on offer to help people cross the gaping chasm between PH and Surprise, and those people make up the majority of ringers. As @Phillip George said, the potential of most ringers is not being realised. Yes we need new recruits but if we can't meet the aspirations of the ringers we already have, what's the point? Improving the support for and skills of existing ringers must surely be the first step - we don't have to recruit them and for goodness sake they can already ring!

A good question is "What would it take to start to change things?" I think it's less than you might expect. It's easy to be daunted by the size of the problem, but unless you start somewhere, things will never improve. I'm not a great fan of "big strategy" approaches to problems, much better I feel to pick something small, get things rolling, see what works and what doesn't and to use that experience to iterate towards a fuller solution.

I think the question we should be asking is "What things can we can do quickly that would start to improve matters?", not "How do we draw up a master plan to fix all of ringing's issues".