Ringing Forums

Details for information session 15th Dec 12pm
https://livingheritage.unesco.org.uk/get-involved/info-sessions
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting (ID: 33626954129489 / Passcode: Mb6fJ2qp)

but in my view the cultural heritage is distinct so separate cases need to be made for their inclusion. — John Harrison

Yes, but we need to be careful not to perpetuate the Victorian version of our heritage, which goes back much further than them and is very rich. We haven't discussed prize ringing, focussing on rounds ringing and rounds and call-changes. This was prevalent throughout the country in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, but did not find favour with the Victorian reformers. However, it has survived, notably in Devon and Cornwall, and I believe in parts of Yorkshire. The Victorian clergy like Elllacombe promoted scientific change-ringing as they believed that it brought a better class of person into their belfries.

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,

I can attend on the 15th as well. Thanks Ian. 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.

I agree that four months is a very short timeframe, depending on what is required to put together a bid and bearing in mind that we have to persuade other people what is blindingly obvious to us. However, that will simply be the first of these types of calls. While we don't want to let the grass grow, we don't want to rush something in that might be rejected as poor quality.

The UNESCO site mentions "Community Support Hubs":

We've partnered with a number of organisations who cover different parts of the country and the different categories of living heritage, so if you have any questions relating to your type of living heritage or your region, they should be your first people to get in touch with.

The Community Support Hubs will be running throughout the call for submissions and are there to answer any questions and provide guidance tailored to your region or area of living heritage.

That page includes The Heritage Alliance, their 2020 annual report makes specific mention of bellringing in the form of Ringing Remembers, on pages 26-26. The CCCBR logo is on the page, so presumably there is an existing relationship witb them?

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.)

Ah thanks for that clarification. Another problem to be solved, but a solution is certainly posible.

There are two things we need to be clear about in developing an application. The first is why are we doing it? I’m assuming that it is to strengthen the case that we make to external funders such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, who are a major funder of bellringing projects. Their current investment principles include:

• Heritage at risk of loss, decline, damage, neglect or of being forgotten – ensuring it is valued and better understood.
• Measurably reduce the amount of heritage identified as ‘at risk of being forgotten.
• Involve a more diverse range of people in heritage,
• Enable organisations to remove barriers to access and participation,
• Support all communities to explore and share their heritage,
• Support organisations to develop the skills and capacity to ensure a sound long-term future
• Support organisations to increase their financial and organisational sustainability by developing their commercial and digital skills and strengthening governance and leadership.

This leads to the second point. Our ’community of practice' probably has a very narrow view of our heritage. How far do we go back? Modern peal ringing grew to several thousand peals a year from about 1880 onwards’ leading to many of the methods that we ring today becoming widespread. However, it was not always thus. From the first peal in 1715, for around 175 years only a few dozen peals were rung each year.

1668 saw Tintinnalogia the first book on change ringing published, containing some recognisable methods. However, prior to this early change ringing was practiced in whole pulls, not half pulls, and simple sets of changes such as plain changes were rung.

As far back as 1549 recreational ringing was common, with the German reformer Martin Bucer visiting England and complaining about the recreational use of bells by foolish youths.

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.

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.

Our community of practice is numerically dominated by people whose interest is less in the art of ringing and more on doing something for their church on Sunday morning. — John Harrison

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?

And among those who are focused on the art of ringing, 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'. — John Harrison

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

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.

Very few I suspect. — John Harrison

Everyone at my previously-moribund-for-decades home tower (all adults) is now aiming to ring methods, even if it's only simple ones. The branch practice I went to last night (all adults) didn't ring any CCs, the rounds that were rung were for an adult learner who is ringing with the band after around 5 sessions, the rest was all Minor method ringing. And here's a quote from one of the ART learner's Facebook group from earlier today (the author is an adult), the latest on a recurring theme:

I’m frustrated that my local Association offers nothing for the intermediate ringers. For whatever reason I am not included in advanced ringing locally, or even Association quarter peals, apart from a couple I have set up myself. The response to this would be that my striking is not good enough, but there has been no help from the Association to help me to improve. Although advanced practices have been scheduled they are cancelled 95% of the time. Nearly all the resources of the Association are fed into the Young ringers. As an older person I feel my ambitions are not important to the Association and I’d like to change things for the better.

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

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. — John Harrison

Yes, I think you are right. We are failing to provide the necessary environment and support for people to keep progressing.

I was merely stating (what I believe) the numbers are. — John Harrison

Hmm, yes, the numbers. I don't think we actually know how many ringers there are, let's assume 30,000, and let's assume 95% are in the "blue zone", as per the famous articles. Let's be conservative and assume only 5% are both sufficiently motivated and capable of moving into the "red zone". That's nearly 1,500 people who can already ring, we don't need to recruit them. How many youth ringers have we recruited so far? How can ringing afford to ignore the potential of adult learners, even if they do take a bit longer to train?

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'. — John Harrison

I think it's great that is happening and I'm grateful to the experienced ringers who do contribute so much time and effort, but there are many more who don't are only interested in ringing with their mates. The minority who care and act on it don't scale up to what's required, and burnout seems like a big risk. I don't know what model would work best, but it seems clear the current one is failing.

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. — John Harrison

I don't see anything in there that requires being a teenager?

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.