Ringing Forums

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.

Societies should encourage voting to be informed, so anyone voting should be able to do so woth full knowledge of relevant facts. From that it follows that there are two different cases:

If a topic is to be discussed in a meeting, all those eligible to vote should have the opportunity to hear the dedbate before voting, which means thee must bed present either in person or online. Obv ly you can’t force people to listen, or even stay Assamese, but you can try.
But where a vote is not preceded by a debate, and relevant facts have already been made available, there is no need to allow stand alone voting.
An obvious example is the election of officers. Normally the only facts provided are the candidates’ names, so no arguments to be listened to. Sometimes a little is said about candidates, their track record and/or whazt they cash bring to the role. That’s not a debate and the summaries could just as readily bee posted beforehand (as they are for CC officers and most professional bodies). In fact it would be better for ringing societies to do that. It would salve merging time. It would encourage more members to taker part.

once I'd got to the blag-my-way-through-PB5-by-bell-number stage and realised what was needed to progress any further. I had to go back to basics and greatly improve my existing skills — John de Overa

Why do we have so many who get to that stage without the basic skills? Many of them don’t have the insight or determination to unlearn the wrong way of doing it and go back to basics, which is why do many are stuck. We shouldn’t be leading 6hem down that path in the first place.

The ringing community is pretty good at getting people up to PB level, but it generally falls apart after that — John de Overa

I think one of the reasons is that ‘up to Bob Doubles’ on the mental front isn’t accompanied by the range of competences needed to ‘ring a method’. They can just about struggle through PB5 without those skills, but add an extra bell to the mix, or an extra feature to navigate, and they can’t cope.

I spent a lot more time on the end of a rope during COVID — John de Overa

So did I. I learnt Zanussi. Having a dumbbell and simulator at home meant I could fit in a course whenever I had a spares 20 minutes.

we have to ring with the band we have — John de Overa

Yes, we do. And it’s far more difficult to get results with people who didn’t have the ideal skills grounding. But if we keep teaching new ringers the same way we will always be in that position.