Ringing Forums

Every teacher has a slightly different approach, some things work well for one person but not another — John de Overa

Yes and no. People do teach in a lot of different ways. Some of those ways are good and a lot are bad. And it's true that one approach might click with someone for whom anoither didn't, so being exposed to different approaches can be helpful. That's fine as long as the approach that clicks is a good one. The problem is that exposure to bad approaches can also click,

I’m confused! — Lucy Chandhial

Sorry if I helped to confuse you. I think there are two slightly different aspects.
My original comment (in the context of whether the community of practices would support heritage recognition) was that a lot of ringers aren't really motivated by ringing itself, so might not feel strongly about its future. That raises the logical question of what does motivate them, and I suspect it's a whole bag of things including habit, meeting friends, being active and serving the church, and being lazy I rolled them all up into the last point.
By doing so I probably overstated the church motivation, which is what Roger picked up.
I think the reality is that a few are motivated by the church, a few are motivated by ringing, and quite a lot ring mainl,ly out of a combination of habit, social factors, etc, though I can't put figures on the proportions.
Any clearer?

That's an interesting analysis . My comment was based on a general impression rather than hard data. However I do know that in 2024 50% of our branch members never attend any of the 50 or so practices that we ran (elementary, imtermediate, advanced, Saturday, weekday afternoon) and in 2017 30% of members hardly ever rang at all (in their own towers).

It would be interesting to know how other areas break down motivational aspects (though Roger's categories aren't quite how I would break down ringers round here).

I think Roger might be over estimating the degree of attachment to service ringing. It is what we have all grown up with as the dominant form of performance, so we accept it as normal, but that doesn't mean they identify with it. I took a straw poll of what ringers would do if ringing at their church ceased and the options available were: (a) ring at a secular tower, (b) travel some distance to a church with service ringing or (c) give up•. Of the 30 people who replied 80% said they would ring at a secular tower rather than travel to find service ringing.
On a tangential point - while service ringing is indeed a Victorian invention Ellacombe's early writing when he was formulating his ideas in Bittern in the 1820s suggest that he didn't want ringing for services (hence the eponymous apparatus). He encouraged his ringers to practise twice a week and to attend services but I don't thionk they rang for them. I think it was later, probably with the influence of the Oxford Movement, that service ringing was being promoted. It's in the rules of the GDR, which Ellecombe founded, but that was 50 years later, and it could well have been the other, younger reformers who introduced the idea.

The assumption that only a tiny majority of older ringers want to ring methods — John de Overa

I’m not sure that age is the defining factor driving ambition. In my experience adult learners in general think more about all aspects of their ringing, including progress, than youngsters do. I suspect aspirations are influenced as much or more by the environment into which they are recruited.

too much concentration on "You are learning Method X" rather than "You are learning how to learn and ring methods" — John de Overa

Yes, I’m sure that is very true. And not just for moving on to advanced methods. Right at the start lots of explanation is missed out.
People argue heatedly over whether you shout tell learners the bells to follow or the places to ring in, but how many are never told that they have to change the speed at which they ring when hunting?
And when moving on to Plain Bob how many do not have it explained that the work happens when the Treble leads, and that dodges are backward steps in hunting?
The New Ringer’s Book has 25 pages on how to ring changes and actual methods appear quite near the end of them.

Even if people like that are in a minority, their existence is a sign of failure. — John de Overa

I don’t disagree, but my comment was in the context of how many of thee ringing community of practice would care about, and therefore support registration of, ringing as cultural heritage.

I don't see anything in there that requires being a teenager? — John de Overa

I didn’t say there was. It just happened to be an example where I knew, from both the inside and outside, of someone who was doing a lot to progress both self and others while being completely unaware of, and never thinking about, the heritage of ringing.

What proportion of them are doing that because they've been repeatedly told that's all they are good for and have restricted their horizons accordingly? — John de Overa

Very few I suspect. For most I think it's more likely a combination of not being given the vision of what ringing could be, not being taught and developed well enough to get to the point where they could realise it for themselves, and absorbing the culture of the band into which they were recruited.
But whatever the cause, I was merely stating (what I believe) the numbers are.

Except that's not preserving anything, it's choosing to let the heritage die out with them. — John de Overa

I don't think that's true. By 'doing it' I didn't just mean experienced ringers who ring by themselves, I meant the activists who as well as doing a lot of ringing also do teaching and development of other ringers, but do so 'in the present'.
That described me n my teens. I rang several nights a week, cycled miles at weekends to ringing, taught lots of other youngsters to ring and we developed a moribund tower to become leading QP tower in the county. But I didn't think about heritage or the future, I was just in the present, but the opposite of letting ringing die out while we were there.

Our ’community of practice' probably has a very narrow view of our heritage. How far do we go back? — Roger Booth

Our community of practice is numerically dominated by people whose interest is less in the art of ringing and more on doing somethinmg for their church on Sunday morning. And among those who are focused on the art of ringiing, many just want to get on with 'doing', so their view of preserving the heritage would be to ensure that others like them can carry on 'doing'.
While I agree with Roger that we need to understand the history of ringing (and making the case for conservation will include describing it) we can only preserve practice3 that exists now. We can't preserve things that have already died out.

We are the custodians of a very rich intangible heritage, firmly embedded in aspects of British culture and the historic soundscape, with wide public appeal. We need to celebrate that far more than we do. — Roger Booth

What's embedded is the result - the soundscape - but the culture that creates it is not. That's the problem. We do need to celebrate it more, and do so public;y if we want to turn ringing from a shrinking niche activity into a sustaibable mainstream one.

On the subject of community support I read that as the wider community, so for example statements of support from various church and conservation bodies, and even statements from local communicties in support of 'their' bells. — Tina

That's not what the guidance says. It refers to 'communities of practice'. The wording is:
"Living heritage should be recognised as such by the communities, groups or individuals that create, maintain and transmit it. It is therefore important that the element is being put forward by or on behalf of the community of practice and that the community has given its free, prior and informed consent for the living heritage to be submitted."
So they are not saying 'Do you have a willing audience'. After all not all cultural heritage is performance based, for example the craft of making bellropes by hand. I interpret it to mean 'do the majority of those involved with doing it want it recognised'.

The initiative is about safeguarding cukltural heritage, whach means ensuring it will still be carried on, so it is reasonable to look for support from a community of practitioners rather than a few individuals. (Unless there are only a few practitioners left, in whiuch case it really is endangered.)

I'm aware of the history, and the fact that the Victorin reformers changed it (for better and for worse). But our concern should be with preserving the heritage that we have inherited - from many people, both before and after the Victorians.
Call change ringing is a good point, it is another distinct flavour that was indeed widespread before Belry Reform but is now mainly limited to the West. BTW - I'm not aware of it living on in Yorkshire. Are you getting confused with cartwheel ringing, which is practised both by Devon call change bands and by change ringing bands in the Barnsley area?
In my OP I referred to overlapping traditions (change ringing and English style full circle ringing) and the discussion has thrown up more overlaps. A key issue for registration could be how to structure the submission. Should it be as a number of discrete elements or should there be an umbrella covereing all ways of controlling and all types of music produced by bells.
In terms oc getting support from a community of practice it might be simpler to keep them separate,

In my opinion living heritage includes all three forms of ringing — Roger Booth

That's a good point. Maybe I down played the value of handbell tune ringing.
As Roger says, there were closer links between tune ringers and change ringers in the past, and there is still some overlap between the practitioners, but in the context of the current discussion there is a clear divide that is refleted in separate national bodies: CCCBR for change ringing (in tower and in hand) and HRGB for tune ringing.
I have no doubt that similar debates are being held in the HRGB world.
Maybe we can learn from each other's campaigns so it's worth CCCBR and HRGB comparing ideas, but in my view the cultural heritage is distinct so separate cases need to be made for their inclusion.

The community of practice in our case equals ringers. It's clearly not practical to get individual consent from 30,000 ringers by eg 'a show of hands in a meeting' and the guidance recognises that. Fortunately we have an established structure of ringing societies and the Council that can represent ringers.
I can't find an actual cut off date, but 4 months gets to say 1 April, which is before either the CC ACM or many society AGMs. Most societies will have the means to take soundings, especially from their more active members and officers so it should be doable.
If the Council can show the backing of 60-70 (independent) societies across the country I think that should carry considerable weight.
So the question is whether any society would oppose the submission. I would expect enthusiasm to vary from strong support to neutral. I can't see any obvious down sides that would justify opposition, but that can't be taken for granted, so early engagement of both territorials (because they repreent the mass) and the elites (because they may have disproportionate influence) will be needed.

I think there is a greater divide, culturally, between change ringing and tune ringing on handbells than there is between change ringing on tower bells and on handbells.
Tune ringing on handbells is conventional music, and handbells are a tiny fraction of the range of instruments used to make such music, whereas change ringing, an any type of bells (or other instruments) is a unique form of music.
Likewise tower bells rung English style are a unique type of instrument.
Whether to register together or separately is an interesting question because there’s an overlap between a performance style and a music style.

coordinate the application for full circle change ringing — Lucy Chandhial

So change ringing in hand isn’t cultural heritage? interesting that they chose ‘livingheritage’ for the website. I used that name as the title of my book because it summed up the message i wanted to get over to (non ringing) readers about ringing, but I don’t recall it in the UNESCO context.
If interested, see: https://jaharrison.me.uk/book/

to accept that the collective decision of my band is to stick with ringing at a low level, — Barbara Le Gallez

Does low mean ringing simple things (well) or ringing (anything) not well?

the church we are attached to has had to accept - that too few people are interested in coming there to practise religion for that to be a viable option. Instead, they are looking at turning the church into a community asset. — Barbara Le Gallez

We should remember that when change ringing began churches were community assets. And ringing was a sport, nothing to do with religion.

On a practical level it seems a positive thing if the church housing the bells looks outward to its community. Not only does it make the building more viable but it greatly increases the numbrt of people who will be involved with it in some way. Landbeach appears to have a population of around 650 whereas I guess a few dozen attend ervices. Would you rather recruit from the small pool or the big pool?

Is ringing about the dedicated pursuit of technical excellence (at whatever level one's natural talents permit), or should it be a stress-free leisure activity?
Is that a fair distinction, or is it more complicated than that? — Tom Ridgman

. I would go further than Tom. Even if the distinction is valid, setting them up as binary alternatives isn’t. Doing anything long term, especially if it’s hard, requires motivation, which must come in part from the enjoyment/satisfaction of doing it. So it can’t be ‘achieve or enjoy’. And stress is a continuum not binary. To remain healthy our minds and bodies need some stress to stimulate us but not too much to overload us.
As individuals we can choose to opera age anywhere within our safe stress range, depending on personal priorities and competing factors, but a team couldn’t function if all its members just make purely personal choices. Things wouldn’t go well if one member of a rousing eight decided to have a rest after a couple of minutes for example. In a mixed ability band there haas to be some give and take at both ends. The more capable/keen membership accept they’d can’t achieve as much as they might in a more capable band and the less keen/capable accept that they will need to try a bit harder to support the team.
Off coursed that assumes they knowingly signed up for the same thing. If half thee team joined expecting just to turn up for the occasional Saturday kick around and the other half expected to competed in the local league, none of therm will be happy.
So what sort of team do ringers think they are signing up to? What pitch were they given when they were recruited? Were the band’s objectives made clear? Was the goal of method ringing stated? Were performance skills emphasised? Was there talk of shared commitment as well as social bonding?
In short were they invited to join a group of skilled performers, who support each other’s progress, and whose performances include a regular Sunday morning commitment?
Or were they given the impression that all they needed to do was turn up on Sunday, they’d soon get the hang of it (not being too specific about what was entailed in ‘it’) and everyone was jolly nice?

I agree. A lot of problems people have trying to ring methods aren’t to do with the methods themselves but with not being able to execute the required manoeuvres with minimal thought. To use a driving analogy they can’t focus on the navigation, or even being aware of where they are, because they can’t make the car go round a corner when they want, and spend time looking for where the clutch pedal is.
Driving has to become second nature before you can effectively navigate round an obstacle course.

I never said it was, I said it was common practice — John de Overa

What I read was: ‘Yes we do, it's understandable as it's the easiest way’.
I wasn’t just talking about ‘putting right’, which is quite late in the instruction process.
However, when putting people right it shouldn’t be what’s easiest but what’s most likely to be effective, see 12.2e at: https://jaharrison.me.uk/thb/12-2.html#12-2

the instructions we give are very much on looking at a bell - follow that bell, look at that bell….. it's understandable as it's the easiest way — John de Overa

The easiest way to do what? Not the easiest way to develop core change ringing skills like appreciating and being able to control speed and position. It distracts from them.

Seeing my garbled text I have to apologise for not spotting and correcting it. The combination of my typing on an iPad and the infernal built in algorithms can produce some bizarre results.

Understand the concept and be able to dodge accurately when required — Phillip George

I woukd go further and generalise that to being abler to make the required manoeuvre accurately when required. Dodging is not the only manoeuvre, and the skill deficiencies that Leeds to poorer dodging also lead to poor leading, poor turn round at the back and sloppy place making.

Stop being lazy - stop looking at the floor just because that's how your teachers ring — Phillip George

That’s not laziness, and good ringers washout are accused of it are not looking at the floor. Their gaze happens to be directed slightly downward but they are taking in the whole visual field, sand that is easier to do without individual ropes in the highly sensitive area in thee centre of your visual field.
We should be tyeazching news ringers not too look art (trees) but to starred ahead and take in the whole wood.