Ringing Forums

I think for practices at this level to work they have to be focused rather than general, and have to have experienced ringers specifically invited to go to them. We gave up general practices in the St Martin's Guild some time ago, and we now only have practices which are for specific purposes or for specific people, and the helpers are invited. A practice would not go ahead if there were insufficient experienced helpers. It is quite common to have very experienced ringers at such practices because they know they will be of value. — Simon Linford

I think it's difficult to stress just how important that is, I don't go to "general" branch practices as they are of little use to anybody, be they neophyte or wizard.

However even focused practices need careful management to avoid the same problems. Recently two of the associations round here have both set up their own Surprise Major/Minor practices. Unfortunately they both quickly became a waste of time if you weren't a Major ringer, as all the people trying to learn Minor ended up being rammed together into the same touches, with predictable consequences. I quickly stopped going to those as well.

So, targeted practices are a must, but they need to be well organised ones.

When we went to the HLF "How to write your bid" session, they made it clear to us that if we put "We don't need contingency, we have everything covered" in our bid it would result in it being rejected. And they were right, we used it all - and them some. Nobody's fault, until we started to take everything apart we didn't find some pretty significant issues.

I may be telling you something you already know, but don't forget the "VAT hole". Suppliers will charge you VAT and although you'll be able to claim it back, there will be a delay and in the meantime you'll have to cover the difference.

have we really moved so far away from the original purpose — Mary Jones

You could make a good case that we are moving back closer to the original purpose because if you go back beyond the Victorian era, in many places bells were rung primarily for secular purposes. "Bells are just for services" was very much an Oxford Movement thing.

https://funwithbells.com/gareth-davies/

We followed the Heritage Lottery guidance:

A contingency is only used to pay for unexpected costs required to deliver your project. The total contingency figure may be up to 10% of the total costs of the project, unless you have a particularly complex capital project where a higher level may be required.

The figure we used was around 7%. But if you don't have any contingency at all then I wouldn't sign it off either - sorry.

Indeed. I was a participant in the last AI "revolution". I think "Deja Vu" best sums it up...

If this was a nautical environment, rotten old hemp ropes would be going straight in the skip :wink:

I was concerned about that but no, they didn't. And it was only a temporary expedient to keep the bell going until we got new bellropes.

my "favourite" bit of bellrope splicing was having to splice a right-hand laid top end onto a left-land laid bottom end... :scream:

The key skill is striking, which is a combination of physical bell control, accurate listening and good teamwork. — Rosalind Martin

Yes, and I'm sure the best ringers consider all of those to be a "work in progress" and never stop striving to improve them. I think how they do that are skills that could be transferred to less rarefied levels of ringing. Rather than focusing teaching Method X or Y, perhaps teaching "How to improve your ringing" is more important?

And the people who are best at that are.... (around here) the Peal Ringers. — Rosalind Martin

There are no peal ringers around here.

So John, if you are offered a rope in a peal and you are fit enough to do it, I would encourage you to say yes! — Rosalind Martin

I can't ever see that happening to be honest - even QP opportunities are infrequent and I've had quite enough after 45 mins anyway - the physical side isn't an issue, it's a mixture of boredom and not wanting to stuff it up as it get close to the end :lol: And as a late starter I don't think I'll realistically progress much beyond Minor ringing anyway.

The best and most challenging ringing I do is in peals, because most of the best ringers I ring with also ring peals for the same reason. — Simon Linford

The top level of peal ringing that you describe is impressive and it would be sad to see it become even more niche. Although I think it gets a publicity that's disproportionate to the number of participants, perhaps that's no bad thing as it is aspirational in the same way that the top level of any activity is.

that ringing is not putting much back (generally) — Simon Linford

I'm fortunate to ring regularly with people who's technical standard I am unlikely to ever approach, but what I've gained most from them is mindset and approach - perhaps that's something that can "be put back"? I see a lot of people at my level struggling to make progress and I think a big part of it is because of that?

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: