Ringing Forums

It's not a simple question of which is easier. They each have different things to go wrong. When lowering you are going 'downhill' but you are going from a slow stable rhythm with the balance point on hand if needed into a faster, less stable and mpre crowded rhythm. When raising you are going uphill but the further you go the more open (and familiar) the rhythm.
The seeds of a bad rise are sown with a bad start, failure to establish a stable two stroke rhythm early on. Typically the bells start too spaced out (and take too long to start) so there's an extended period with hand and backstrokes overlapping. Add in any unsteadiness and no one can hear whether they are right or wrong so different bells try to 'correct' in different directions. The whole thing is a mess until the bells are much higher and manage to sort themselves out.
This can be avoided if the Treble rises briskly to start with, which (a) gets quickly to a speed where the Tenor can strike and (b) pushes the other bells together leaving space for the second stroke to come in so everyone can hear what's happening. Once the Tenor is striking on both strokes, the Treble sticks to its tail and goes up at the Tenor's speed but before that it helps if the Treble mantally puts in the Tenor's backstroke so mthat when it emerges everything fits.
I just looked back to see what I said in 'Raising & Lowering in Peal' (is it really 35 years since I wrote it?) You might like to haqve a look. Feel free to copy anything you find useful.

I see there are some pretty extreme reactions to the original letter in this week's Ringing World.

supply and demand will have an effect, pushing up the cost of tuition in high demand activities. But that's only true within a limited range. Organisations don't reduce the cost to zero as soon as they don't have a waiting list.
In any case, it's better to create more demand than to give away what you have on the assumption that it's not worth paying for.

If we wanted to argue angels on pin heads then I could point out that the pen used to write it is not part of the body. However from a practical perspective I doubt writing the composition on one's hand would help. The difficult part of calling I find is remembering where you are in the composition while ringing.
But that misses the point. One of the key shifts from the old style Decisions to the current Framework was to recognise that while precision of description is a valid goal, some things - notably the attributes of performances that people value or are interested in - may differ between people or over time. The Framework's role is to enable concise, accurate description of performances, and the idea of a norm: 'something that might reasonably be assumed unless stated otherwise' was intended to cater for that variability without either over complicating most performance reports or outlawing things that didn't fit a rigid mould.
The definition of 'what would reasonably be assumed' is conveniently asymmetric, a bit like the concept of guilt in a court. If there is reasonable doubt then assume it won't.

using your own body is not a physical aid. If it were then all ringers using their hands to control the rope would be using physical aids.
Reduction ad absurdum!

The parallel with the organ world is interesting, and we probably could learn from it, but there seem to be some key differences.
The demand for instruments in the near continent is presumably backed by plenty of buildings that need an organ and have the space and the cash, and competent organists able to make good use of them from day one. That's not true for full circle rings of bells. There might be buildings with the space but bands of ringers would need to be built from the ground up, making it a less attractive proposition.
The demand for bells (as opposed to full circle rings) would no doubt be greater, but that would not help to preserve the tradition of full circle ringing, or English style installations.

I was trying to make a more general point though, not just about your particular church — J Martin Rushton

Of course - the general points are valid. I was merely trying to show that it wasn't gloom and doom everywhere. I did say 'On a more positive note...'.
We are an expanding historic market town cum commuter town so very different from a typical small village. However, the need to find wider uses for church buildings within a community probably reads across. I recently looked up the process the CCT goes through before vesting a church, and finding new uses figures strongly, as well as heritage.

We need both. The 'new building' in our case is about 20 years old, and was a major investment. The expanded function of the church building will complement it and couldn't possibly replace it. If interested, see: https://www.allsaintswokingham.org.uk/spaceforall/

On a more positive note, our services are currently being held in The Cornerstone (adjacent community centre owned by the church). The church building is being renovated and made more suitable for community use as well as services.
We asked for the contractors to ensure we would still have access to the tower for practice and service ringing, and we are being encouraged to ring as often as possible to remind people that the church is still active despite being surrounded by builders fencing.

wording about Christianity in their ‘purpose’ (as does the CCCBR) — Lucy Chandhial

Sorry, you are several years out of date. The CC's purpose is about ringing, see: https://cccbr.org.uk/about/ [/u]

once in a 12-month period, you can put in a claim below £1000, providing it's above £500. — Philip Pratt

But that would still rule out a set of muffles, which I understand have also been confirmed as within the scheme. (And the mind boggles at the thought of requiring a VAT registered professional to fit them.)

do you know if there has also been a change in the stages at which they are rung, e.g. more Minor and less Major — John de Overa

That should be easy to get from CC annual peals analysis. My guess is that Major will still be a dominant part of the mix, but only because the stats will be skewed by the hard core who ring lots of peals. Guessing again, I would expect a higher proportion of Surprise than 'entry level' methods.

QPs are on my radar but I'm not interested in ringing peals, am I alone or is that a change in preferences .... ? — John de Overa

There has certainly been a shift. Quarters only became really popular in the second half of the 20th century, and their numbers continue to grow as peals decline.

Older learners take longer and don't get as far" may be true in part but I think it's used as a convenient and self-fulfilling excuse. — John de Overa

I agree. Physical skills tend to take longer to acquire with age, but that's a gross generalisation not a rule for individuals. But mental skills don't necessarily follow the same pattern. I think most ringers struggle with inadequate skills because of poor teaching. The difference between young and old is that the young give up if they don't become rapidly competent whereas the old are more persistent so there are more of them to count as struggling.

ignore Just seen the questions been answered but I can't see how to delete my post

my main issues are not being to count my place (something I have already struggled with anyway) as well as being able to make sense of the complicated rope sight which this entails. I — Oliver Lee

I'm surprised you describe the ropesight as complicated. Think of Treble dodging is hunting with a reverse step every other backstroke. You meet the bells in the same orde as plain hunt but you do a doge with every other bell you meet. So you meet new bells half as often.
But I wouldn't start by thinking about ropesight. The essence of hunting is to make big changes to the speed you bell swings. If you can do that you will be more relaxed about seeing the other bells as you pass them. If you get the speed change right at the start (say from 1st to 2nd place) just ringing the next few blows at the same speed will get you to roughly the right place regardless of seeing which bells you pass. But if you can't make and maintain the speed changes you will contantly be struggling to get to the right place.
Treble dodging is harder than hunting because you don't get long runs of half a dozen blows at the same speed, you have to keep changing between fast and slow, which is harder to do accurately. But there is a regular rhythm, with reverse steps every other backstrokes. So hunt three blows then reverse for one, and repeat.

as Graham says, the mechanism when ringing below the balance is different from when ringing over the balance. Timing is controlled by how high the bell swings rather than by how long it pauses beyond the balance. The former is inherent in the bell's energy (guided by the ringer but stable) while the latter is much more dependent on the accuracy of the ringer's action at each stroke.
The idea that you can't change the speed below the balance doesn't hold up since heavy tenors are rung below the balance. The technique is different but it's certainly not impossible.

I wonder if there are any AccursedVirus RingingRoom recruits who have become sufficiently hooked to transfer their enthusiasm to learning to handle a bell ?? — PeterScott

We have one who didn't touch a bell until afterwards. She's very keen, and her husband who doesn't (yet) ring was keen enough to go mon a maintenance course.

a chiming frame, if you have one, is certainly a good way to provide the sound of bells if there isn't a band, and methods can be sounded on a chime.
But for one person to chime all the bells is a significant step above ringing one, or even two, and there wouldn't be space for six or more people to operate frames I've seen.
So I'm not sure this is a viable route into change ringing, compared with say handbells.

I assume you mean with a chiming frame, which most towers don't have. I don't think trying to ring methods chiming with the wheels would be at all easy.

I think prior expectation of being able to do thins is important. I remember in my 30s when I tried hang gliding, reality didn't match my vision of effortlessly soaring. Control is achieved by a combination of arm and body movement like it is on a bike, but whereas I was fluent on a bike my reactions were wrong with a hang glider.
I think it's worse for adults because they are used to being able to do things competently, having given up the things that they couldn't do long ago. That could be why children find it easier, as Phil Gay once said, 'children learn things for a living'.

would it be better to teach a learner with a bell that is down...and start to ring it up..to whatever level...maybe just below the balance. I am not sure, and I have n — Andrew G Smith

That's how I was taught, and how I taught everyone in my teens. I was unaware that teaching ringing was difficult. When I went to university I saw people being taught starting with the bell up and thought how dangerous it looked.
In reality there's a lot more to how you teach than where the bell is at the start of lesson one.