Ringing Forums

letting people learn a difficult skill one way — John de Overa

That's not quite true. Ringing is an activity that requires several skills to do well, but for which a smaller, different set of skills can be used to do in a limited way, not very well. The fault is not teaching the right skills in the first place.

that's what I assume. So is the stubble field within sight of it, or is that edited?

I've a feeling the question has been asked before but I can't remember the answer.

Wikipedia credits Nick Mason with "drums, percussion, church bell" so presumably he rang it, though whether on location in a tower or a small one in the studio who knows.
A probably easier question - Which cathedral is visible on the horizon?

there definitely is a barrier to getting into method ringing at all — Simon Linford

Yes, several factors combine, the most fundamental of which is not about the methods themselves but the failure to develop the underlying skills on which method ringing relies. Sadly many people struggling to ring methods have already been allowed, and encouraged, to develop habits that make it hard to retrofit the missing skills.

'2030' is the wrong year for something needed now! Assumes no need to do anything before an event in 2030 — Ken Webb

I think that is a misguided comment. Ringing 2030 is not about what to do 'in' 2030 it is about things to achieve 'by' 2030 That is still quite close, and glevel of ambition things do need to be started 'now' (or in fact last year, which is when they actually started - there was a public session on it during the Council weekend last September).

That seems a fair analysis. Voting members is probably close to the 'natural justice intent' of the rules. I suspect the rational for including (resident) members who are exempt from the sub in societies with an annual subscription was that they would be a tiny minority. I'm sure no society would include the unkown number of NRLRMs who are still alive and ringing.

that's a lot of free memberships. It means YACR is losing £1920 per annum in subs already, and I assume the membership is getting older so the subscription income will reduce further in future.

in Yorkshire, Life Members who are not required to pay an annual subscription.... If either of these categories are included in the counts of membership, then the effect of the current proposals - the extra cost per paying-member is even greater than the 20p to 40p or 20p to £1 multipliers. — PeterScott

If you have a significant number of life members the fact that they don't pay the £12 sub seems a much bigger problem than whether the society pays a (much smaller) affiliation fee for them.

Many years ago ODG realised that giving free membership to members over 65 was not sustainable as the membership ages so we abolished it. All members now pay the same, but at £10 per year I doubt it is driving many pensdioners into hardship.

a University Society which has a small number of active residential members, who each pay a small annual subscription, and a large number of alumni-members (who are probably active in territorial associations around the country), — PeterScott

I can't speak for others, but CUG charges all members a lifetime subscription when they join. It doesn't use the resident v non-resident model that some territorial societies use.

when it joined, the University Society needed to count their alumni in order to be large-enough to become Representative Members of the Council — PeterScott

The qualifying membership of a society that doesn't charge an annual subscription is based on the number of its members who are active, ie who take part in a society event during the year.

the demand for places at the elementary level was three times the supply, — Roger Booth

Our branch introduced an elementary practice a few years ago and it is the best attended, to the extent that we increased from one to two a month.

If you consider Simon Linford's four zones — Roger Booth

There were only three in his original articles about the barriers to progression in method ringing, red, blue & black. Green was added later to cater for those who hadn't got into method ringing.

That may be because the plan isn't kept updated, but if it isn't there's not much point in having it. — John de Overa

The plan published on the website might not be the same as the plan being used by those running the project. Of course in an ideal organisation everything would be kept up to date, and it would be in some employee's job spec to do it. But the CC has no employees, it runs on a shoestring using effort that volunteers spare on their lives, and things that the person involved doesn't consider has to be done now get deferred until there is time to do them.
Lots of ringing websites have update problems, all of them run by volunteers who might stop doing the job if they were nagged about how they chose to do it.

So often I see people just using simulators as a form of sound control — Roger Booth

Yes, and they talk about having sim practices when the simulator is doing no more than a Seage's aparatus.

towers where it relatively easy to pop upstairs and silence a bell — Roger Booth

Our bells are easy to silence, but thanks to proper (effective) sound control for practices we just need to pull four cords in the ringing room rather than climb 57 steps and climb into and out of 8 bell pits. It's also another example of where making a higher financial investment can save both time and effort over the years compared with the cheaper solution.

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. --- John Harrison ---That's not the case, — John de Overa

Your subsequent comments make it clear that it is.

I'm sure it's academic in your case because of your skill level, but for my level it certainly isn't. — John de Overa

I wasn't talking about my personal use, I was talking about ab initio teaching. As I said, I introduce new ringers to the process of ringing to fit in with an external rhythm as soon as they can handle a bell reliably, and before I inflict other ringers on them. One step at a time rather than throw them in at the deep end. By the time they do face lots of variability and visual input they know they can ring steadily and they know they can hear what they are doing. In the traditional approach those core skills don't get much of a look in while trying to stay afloat visually.

One very under-used resource is the simulator
— John Harrison ---- There you are preaching to the choir[/quote]

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. The core skills of a ringer are to be able to ring with a reliable rhythm, to vary the rhythm easily and accurately (both to keep in place and to make manouevres - dodges, hunting, places,..) and to hear well enough to correct small errors before they become big errors. Without that underpinning they can't develop confidence in what they are doing, and can't make use of additional information about methods (learnt) or what's happening round them (ropesight).
Ringers taught the traditional way - lots of solo ringing with no external rhythm followed by trying to ring rounds with other ringers - only develop those skills by accident, and many of them never do. Proper use of a simulator (without visuals) starting as soon as handling is reasonably stable and continued alongside later progression to group ringing enables them to develop more solid core skills needed to ring the next blow confidently, even if you can't see a 'bell to follow'.
The weaker a band is, in terms of numbers and skills, the less able it is to provide hours and hours ov rock steady ringing around the learner, and hence the greater valuje of using simulators (at least as many simulators as the number of ringers you expect to be teaching / developing at the same time).

You can't learn ropesight on a simulator — John de Overa

I suspect you can, but I have never used visuals with a simulator so it's academic. People need to be taught how to acquire ropesight, the most important of which is not to focus on following individual bells, something that traditional teaching does thus delaying the acquisition of ropesight.
But to my original point, siumulators are a grossly under-used resource - in terms of both saving manpower and enhancing quality. Why are they not used? I suspect the two classic ringing reasons: that ringers (in general) like to do things the way they always have and don't like to spend money. .

Ringing needs a lot of investment for sure but the biggest need is people's time, not money. — John de Overa

So how do we set about getting more people's time?

Getting someone ringing properly takes a large amount of time for the tutors, the pupils and those around them providing support and a solid band. — John de Overa

Yes, that's the traditional way, but since the resource is in short supply how can we achieve more with less?
One very under-used resource is the simulator, which for a lot of basic skill development can:
- Replace the need for helpers to ring around the novice
- Provide a much more stable surround then many human helpers
- Remove a lot of the psychological pressure
- Provide far more rope time per novice hour than a conventional practice
- Can give objective feedback on performance
Simulators can be bought (with money) but are cheap compared with bells.
They are by no means the whole solution, but they can have a big effect on the result per person-hour invested in the overall process.

The final issue is the need for the CC to reorganise, given all the talk this has never happened — Robert Brown

That's an interesting comment, givenm the fact that it did undergo significant change a few years ago. I assume you do not feel the changes were enough, or in the right direction. You mention the question of Direct Membership, but what are the other reforms you feel are needed?

the cost of validating the process (was the naming-Performance true?), adding methods to the database, and (future generations) wondering "why?" - all adds to a non-zero cost in time and effort — PeterScott

Yes, it adds, but it adds an amount so tiny it is insignificant. Far more effort could be expended arguing about whether or not to allow marginal cases.

And asking for £10 would add a massive admin overheaed, not to mention heat. Just look at the argumanes going on over a suggested extra 20p per year.

you are right it needs careful attention. People bandy the term insurance around without thinking what it covers.