Ringing Forums

You have a point, Peter, if you mean that Double should mean rotation about two points of symmetry.

I don't know the reasoning behind the 2004 definitions, but it could be trying to fit the existing methods that had Double in their name. In other words, they were following precedent. Looking at the 34 methods that are Double, but not Palindromic, the earliest is Double Eastern Bob Major, which was first pealed in 1752! The others with Double in their name rung before 2004 are: Double Eastern Bob Royal (1973), Double Ascension Cyclic Bob Maximus (2002), Double Cambridge Cyclic Bob Major (2002) and Double Resurrection Cyclic Bob Royal (2002). Perhaps it is the flurry in 2002 that triggered the Methods Committee's definition.

Interestingly there is only one rung method currently that has Double and Rotational symmetry that is not Palindromic: Te Deum Treble Place Singles.

The place notation shows it's rotationally symmetric (14 to 36, 1236 to 1456), but not in the traditional sense, Double. First rung here. Complib disagrees with my symmetry analysis. — PeterScott

Symmetry is dependent upon the axis of rotation chosen for the three terms: Palindromic, Double & Rotational. Complib is consistent with the Framework for Method Ringing and former CC Decisions on this definition. The use of the prefix Double in method titles is equally consistent. Column 1 below is Double Danbury Bob Minor and columns 2, 3 and 4 are column 1 rotated using three different axes. The column with the same blue line as column 1 tells you the symmetry. In this case Double but not Palindromic or Rotational.

It is covered by a Performance norm in the Framework for Method Ringing.

6C2f) Neither ringers nor conductor(s) used any physical aids to memory during the Performance;

Yes, there is a prejudice against chiming, and it has existed since around the time CCCBR was formed and CRAG missed the opportunity to correct that for the next few generations! — Mike Shelley

The vast majority of CC members will have had no experience of chiming, nor I imagine the CRAG team. How is the prejudice experienced, what could CRAG have done about it, what benefit would accrue, and who could champion the cause now?

I think the statement that Devon call changes are rung with bells below the balance id a common misconception. Do the arithmetic on a 40 minutes quarter peal compared with call changes at 32 or 33 to the minute, allowing for the handstroke gap. If call changes were rung with all the bells below the balance, speed changes would be harder not easier. — Phil Gay

When you always ring below the balance, the bell is always acting as a pendulum, controlling its own rhythm and naturally keeping perfect time. The ringer never needs to hold a bell on the balance, only to keep the pendulum from losing momentum. Changing position does require additional skill with both styles, except not the need to hold on the balance with Devon-style.

It would be good to conduct an experiment where you take two equivalent groups of non-ringers and teach each style with the same amount of rope time over the course of a week, then compare the difference.

I'm not a HB ringer, the couple of times I did try (under duress) — John de Overa

There are many good towerbell ringers that try handbells and give up very quickly because their expectation is that they should be able to ring what they can ring on towerbells immediately, and they are not prepared to put in even a small fraction of the time they spent learning to ring towerbells. The 'under duress' is also quite telling, I think you are much more likely to succeed with something you actually are keen to do.

We have two already:

1: Devon-style call changes - easier to learn to ring below the balance; quicker to reach an acceptable standard; an end in itself.

2: Bob Minor on handbells - Plain hunt can be taught in a single session; Plain courses in a few more; Quarter-peal as a short-term objective (straightforward if there are two experienced helpers).

The moderation tools are limited to editing or deleting posts. However, it is easy enough for anyone to start a new discussion and then add a comment to the original discussion saying:

... continuing on Forum management or whichever discussion it is (using a link).

Yes, there are handbell ringers that ring purely by place notation. You ring plain hunt with two rules: hunt below an even place and dodge above; hunt above an odd place, dodge below. It is equally possible to do this on towerbells, and it can be made easier by the conductor calling out the places.

There are problems using this approach for longer touches though. Apart from learning the place notation, which is itself tricky for all but the simplest notations, there is a real difficulty correcting an error. The conductor would need to say exactly which place you should be ringing in, and what the next and subsequent place notations are. Once said, the information has immediately changed because you will now be in a different place.

For this reason, ringing by the grid is to be preferred, because it is a visualization of the place notation with more context, including where the treble is and when the lead ends and half leads occur.

Cubs, Scouts, Explorers, Brownies, Guides and Rangers (a generic term needed) — Simon Linford

Squirrels?

There are also Doubles Variations:

Queen Elizabeth II Doubles
Queen Elizabeth Doubles
Charles Doubles

Central Council Variations and Calls Library

Here are some methods that people might like to ring over the coming days and weeks:

Queen Elizabeth II Bob Minor
Queen Elizabeth II Surprise Minor
Queen Elizabeth II Treble Place Minor
Elizabeth Surprise Major
Queen Elizabeth II Delight Major
Queen Elizabeth Treble Bob Major
Elizabeth II Alliance Major
Elizabeth II Alliance Royal
Elizabeth II Alliance Maximus
Charles Surprise Minor
King Charles Delight Minor

These methods* can be found in the following Complib collection:
Queen Elizabeth II and Charles III

*excluding Elizabeth II Alliance Major and Maximus which have yet to be rung.

There is more information about the Covid Bell at www.factum-arte.com/pag/1736/, which was cast by Pangolin in Stroud. If you watch the Pangolin website video carefully, @Simon Linford, you will see a cast Hippo very briefly!

The "London Bell Foundry" was formed by the group that wanted to save bellfounding in Whitechapel. http://www.savethewhitechapelbellfoundry.com/

but empowering and supporting people so they can get to the point where they can self-sustain in the long-term is I believe more important. — John de Overa

I am sure that the CC would welcome your ideas on how that might be achieved.

as for "initiatives" "being progressed", good to hear it - are there any details available anywhere? — John de Overa

Yes, the 2022 CCCBR report. There are two workgroups focussed on young ringers, the V&L workgroup on leadership and training and PR on public relations and communication. Specific initiatives include the introduction of a new annual ringing course in the NorthEast, a new Ringing Centre in Northampton, a new mobile belfry first seen at the Ringing Roadshow last Sunday, ringing material added to the National Curriculum, and much more. This is in addition to anything the affiliated societies and ART are doing.

You mentioned Simon Linford's 2030 plan, I don't think I've heard about that? In any case, as you say I don't think we have the luxury waiting until 2030 around here. — John de Overa

"2030" is to focus a November meeting of the CC Executive and Workgroup Leaders on "What we want ringing to look like in 2030" and produce a plan for how to get there. It doesn't mean do nothing until 2030 when some magical transformation will occur. It also doesn't mean that there aren't already initiatives being progressed.

@Stephen Beckingham and @oliver lee, could you both try again using the link I mentioned:

https://felstead.cccbr.org.uk/

or this shorter version works too:

https://felstead.org.uk/

We are looking into why some of the other links don't work any more.

Try this link if it is still not working for you: https://felstead.cccbr.org.uk/

Call Changes Category added.

Rather than a one off survey to get stats, a better answer would be to provide a database that is populated at any time using an online questionnaire, and which anyone could submit on behalf of a tower. Each submission would be dated, so change over time could be assessed by querying the database over different time intervals. It would still provide valuable data even while it is being gathered, and associations could be encouraged to populate data for towers for which there was no data, or hadn't had an updated entry recently.

As a bonus, historic data from previous surveys at either local or national level could be input.