Talk:Change ringing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Change ringing has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Would it not be more sensible to have a BLUE blue line rather than a red one?! I can see this being particularly confusing for non-ringers.

"ringers (not to be confused with bird ringers)".

Ok I am confused, what are bell ringers? Mintguy 11:31 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ah.. I just noticed that it says bird ringers and not bell ringers. I saw what I wanted to see. I don't think anyone would have confused ringers with bird ringers, why was it there? Mintguy 11:33 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It looks like this article was written by a change-ringer. Congrats! (I wish there was more changing-ringing going on in the US.) There is also, however, carillon-style bellringing, which is more common in the US and in continental Europe. This article ought to be reworked to reflect that it is change-ringing that is being discussed, especially in the history section. (Also, the playing of handbells can be considered bell-ringing.) I'm not sure what is up with he redirect from "change ringing" to "bellringing". (Is this an American vs. British usage thing, or a carillonneur vs. change-ringer usage thing, or just plain old confusion, perhaps on my part?) Aranel 19:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact I think I will move it... anyone want to write something on the other ways of ringing a bell??Iainscott 13:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Calling down?

Hi! I got here from Peer review, where you ask for "anyone who isnt a bellringer". That's me! I've made a few minor changes, and I have a question. The article says:

For example, if the bells start in the order 123456 and the conductor calls "3 to 4" the resulting order of the bells is 124356. This, the accepted way of calling in Devon and many towers elsewhere, is known as calling up as the bell corresponding to the number called first moves up behind the second bell. Call changes can also be called by calling down: in the example above the call would become "4 to 2" for the same result.

Shouldn't the "calling down" version be simply "4 to 3", i.e. bell 4 moves to position 3? If not, something needs to be explained better.

I'll be back with more questions later! Dbenbenn 02:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The call "x to y" is shorthand for "bell number x ring after bell number y". I can see how the example confuses "bell number n" (which basically stays the same) and the "bell in the nth position" (which changes everytime the order of the bells change...) I have returned the example to the version by 144.173.231.8 as I cant remember why I changed it! I hope the example and further explanation is clearer... Many thanks! Iain 11:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, the "calling up" is clearer (thanks!) but I still don't get "calling down". The article says
For example, if the bells start in the order 135246 and the conductor calls "5 to 2" (which is shorthand for "bell number 5 ring after bell number 2") the resulting order of the bells is 132546. Call changes can also be called by calling down: in the example above the call would become "5 to 3" for the same result.
Wouldn't "5 to 3" mean "bell 5 goes before bell 3", i.e. it becomes 153246? Dbenbenn 20:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note to self: when giveing an example, at least try to give an acurate example! It should read: "2 to 3" for the same result.
Again, the call is a shorthand for "bell number 2 ring after bell number 3". Iain 22:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I'm a Bell ringer in Liverpool. All towers I have rung at in the north 'call up' when calling changes. Many ringers, including my tower captain call "3 after 4" (12345 -> 12435) and I believe that many ringers who 'call down' would call in a similar fashion i.e. "4 before 3" (12345 -> 12435). This obviously leaves nobody in doubt of what they are doing and makes it much easier on beginners.(Craddster 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC))


I think we should have examples on both calling upand calling down. Both methods are in common use StormCloud 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "mathematically proven"

Okay, here's my second question. What do you mean by:

Thus a "full extent" of any of the traditional methods has been mathematically proven to begin at rounds, move off through the various permutations visiting every one once and only once, and finally return safely home again to rounds — all with only neighbor-swaps from row to row.

As a mathematician, I know that sentence isn't accurate. But I can't fix it because I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Can you explain it better? And do you have a reference to a proof of something? Dbenbenn 01:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a change ringer myself; but since I wrote that sentence I'll explain my understanding. Mathematicians and changer ringers alike please correct me if I'm wrong!
Here's the point: imagine that I've just come up with some algorithm which is supposed to allow you to ring a full extent. Now you could just jump in and try to use it; but then somebody would have to stand there with a big checklist to make sure that our algorithm hits every permutation once and only once. (The former condition makes it an "extent"; the latter is necessary for "trueness.") This would be tedious in the extreme; instead you would be wise to check my algorithm on theoretical grounds (using group theory and so forth) to make sure that it does what it promises; your analysis will take the form of a mathematical proof. Doops 06:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Though (usually) it is the "composition" (the list of alterations the method which the conduter will call while ringing it) which is proven to be true (the simplest, if crude, way is to set your computer to working out all the changes which will be generated by a particular method and composition and checking them against each other. Other, more elegant, techniques are available and various short cuts can be often be made which depened upon the group-theoretic propeties of the particular method in question). Iain 11:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right. As I understand it, the various methods have a basic algorithm which is good for a few dozen changes at most, returning rather quickly to rounds. All longer touches, peals, and extents based on that method are compositions, incorporating periodic hiccoughs to avoid returning home prematurely. Doops 17:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence in question means:

It has been mathematically proven that you can ring a true extent, beginning and ending with rounds, with a bell never moving more than one position in a change.

This sounds like a non-obvious fact, but it needs a reference. I removed the sentence. (For what it's worth, it can be restated in terms of the existence of a Hamiltonian cycle in a certain Cayley graph for the permutation group.)

Or, you could talk about the correctness-proofs of particular algorithms, such as plain hunt. Dbenbenn 18:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Third question

I don't really understand what this means:

Due to the number of competitions, ringing by bands from Devon's more succesful towers is reckoned to have some of the best striking in the country.

Dbenbenn 18:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmed some details from bell ringing mechanics

After reading the peer review request, I've gone ahead and boldly trimmed some details from the bell ringing mechanics section. IMHO, the article is not primarily about ringing bells, but about ringing them in a certain way (i.e. change ringing). Hence, the reader shouldn't need to plough through a lot of "unnecessary" details before he gets to the "meat" of the article. The rest of the article reads just fine, even for a non-ringer like me. I actually learned a lot from it! --Plek 15:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the text from the original section:

[edit] Mechanics of church bellringing

Bell ringing practice in Stoke Gabriel parish church, south Devon, England
Bell ringing practice in Stoke Gabriel parish church, south Devon, England

A bell tower in which bellringing takes place can contain up to sixteen bells, but six or eight bells are a more common number for the average church. The bell highest in pitch is known as the treble, and the bell lowest in pitch is called the tenor. For convenience, the bells are numbered with the treble being number 1, and the other bells numbered by their pitch 2,3,4, etc. sequentially down the scale. The bells are usually tuned to a diatonic major scale, with the tenor bell being the tonic (or key) note of the scale.

The bellringers typically stand in a circle around the ringing room, each managing the rope for his or her bell above. The end of the rope is called the tail and by tucking back the tail on itself the rope can be adjusted for ringers of different heights. A little further along, approximately at the ringer's shoulder-level, is a hand-hold called a sally comprising coloured woollen tufting incorporated between the strands of the rope during manufacture. The rope passes through a hole in the ceiling up into the space (the bell-chamber) that contains the bells themselves. Each bell is suspended from a headstock, allowing it to rotate through just over 360 degrees; the headstock is fitted with a wooden wheel around which the rope is wrapped; during a session of ringing the bell sits poised upside-down while it awaits its turn to ring. By pulling the rope, the ringer upsets the balance; the bell swings down then back up again on the other side, describing a 360-degree circle. During the swing, the clapper inside the bell will have struck the soundbow, making the bell resonate exactly once. The ringer can control how quickly the bell sounds again by allowing the bell to pause in the mouth upwards position (thus postponing the sound) or conversely by prematurely ending its swing, tugging the bell back again before it has come to rest at the top of its wheel (thus sounding the bell earlier). If the bells are left in the mouth-upward position between performances, ringing can be resumed at any time; but for safety, at the end of a day's session the bells are usually "rung down" — by gradually dampening their motion, they come to rest for the night at the bottom of their cycle, mouth-down. Before the ringers can perform again on another day, the bells will have to be rung up again — by tugging on the rope, the ringers will set them swinging, gradually adding potential energy by pulling at just the right time, until once again the bell is poised upside-down.

Although ringing certainly involves some physical exertion, the successful ringer is one with practised skill rather than mere brute force; after all, even small bells are typically much heavier than the people ringing them, and can only be rung at all because they are well-blanced in their frames. The heaviest bell hung for full-circle ringing is contained in Liverpool Cathedral and weighs over four tonnes. Despite this colossal weight, it can be safely rung by one (experienced) ringer. (While heavier bells exist (for example Big Ben) they are generally only chimed, either by swinging the bell slightly or using mechanical hammers.)

[edit] Handbells

Change ringing can also be carried out on handbells (small bells, generally weighing only a few hundred grams). These are held in one hand by a handle attached to the crown of the bell and sounded by moving the entire bell, usually by a flick of the wrist. Many groups of tower bell-ringers use handbells to practice (in which case, just as in the tower, one ringer handles one bell). Some bell-ringers pursue handbell ringing as an endeavour in its own right, in which case each ringer often handles two bells.

[edit] Bellringing vs. bell ringing and change-ringing vs. change ringing

One other thing: I noticed that the terms "bellringing", "bell ringing", "change-ringing" and "change ringing" are all being used in the article. I'm not a native English speaker myself, but wouldn't the proper way of writing these be: "bell ringing" and "change ringing" (as well as "bell ringers" instead of "bellringers")? --Plek 15:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

What is a good category for this article? Oleg Alexandrov 20:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. (Actually, I fixed this a month ago but forgot to record the fact here.) Doops | talk 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] True peals

I'm a bellringer and therefore a pedant, so I have a couple of issues. I've touched up the page a little in the places where I can find a good wording, but there are some other points.

A peal's acceptability is determined by the rules set by the CCCBR (http://www.cccbr.org.uk/).

Moving bells more than one place is generally called ringing "jump changes". For a peal to be acceptable under the current rules, jump changes are not permitted.

The comment on true peals is a simplification of the actual rules and has a couple of mistakes, but the explanation required to clarify the statement would be extensive. In particular, it's not necessary to ring every other change before returning to the one you just rang in order to maintain the truth of the composition. A composition can be called true if you ring the same change closer together, providing this happens in a block where all changes are rung and are rung the same number of times. So, for instance, on 6 bells where the extent is 720 changes, it is permissible to ring the same change closer than 720 changes apart if it's in a block of e.g. 1440 changes where every change is rung twice. There are more complicated rules on what consists a true peal, and these rules are ultimately a bit arbitrary and change when the central council chooses to change them.

-- Ian, --221.246.251.34 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Your point about trueness embarrassed me greatly since, quite apart from the CC "round blocks the length of two or more extents" exception, as written the article would have required a peal of minor to use the same method 6 times (since switching methods would inevitably lead to falseness under its ridiculously severe definition). That was very sloppy; I've fixed it and tried to incorporate all your other points. Would you take a look and see if I've succeeded? Doops | talk 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite of Method-ringing section

I have rewritten the section on method ringing to hopefully make it a bit more comprehensive. I felt that too much emphasis was placed on full peal-ringing. Some minor factual errors corrected, calls are used to extend a method, not shorten it. Added new information but the whole thing needs cleaning up.

I feel that now the article is too long, too many headings, and I propose that we create a sub-article. Any thoughts? --Andrew Hyde 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be quite a bit of stuff appearing on Campanology that might be better off here or in a sub article too. Any idea how this could be broken down? John 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could most of the section regaring the details of method ringing be moved into a separate article. I think a lot of this is more technical than a lot of non-ringers need. Jimi k 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As a ringer with plenty of ringing but very few methods under my belt I think that the science of method-ringing is interesting and distinct enough to have its own article. This would be a sensible split, and not scare off anyone who just wanted to know about ringing. Naturenet | Talk 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Method Ringing to its own page - Method Ringing. Maybe we should do the same with Learning to Ring section.--Andrew Hyde 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should move Learning to Ring as well-I just came here to suggest that! John 12:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What should we call the article, "Learning to Ring" is too ambigious and may refer to Carillon Ringing. --Andrew Hyde 10:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "Learning change ringing" ? "Learning to ring" could also mean bird ringing, I guess! Naturenet | Talk 10:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand

I found this page after reading some history in school about a famous person who was a bell ringer. The context seemed to indicate that there was a stigma attached to this activity. I don't understand this hobby. Is this a mathematical challenge? Do ringers consider themselves musicians? Is this a nostalgic way to remember monks that kept time for a town or an ancient sort of morse code?

It would be helpful to the uninitiated visitor of this page if there was something in the first paragraph about why people do this.

I hope I don't sound critical, I'm just curious. -thanks --Victoria h 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Victoria

I have taken this from the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers website, which I think sums it up pretty well:

A hobby which involves:

   * being part of a team
   * providing a service for the church
   * a good social life
   * continually learning something new

Bell ringing is good fun! Once you have learned the basic technique you will always be made welcome when you visit other towers. There are more than 5,000 church towers and a small number of secular towers with bells suitable for change ringing.

John 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Who was the historical figure, maybe we could find out more about this--Andrew Hyde 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about? John 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stigma - as an encyclopaedic article we should probably mention the perceived peculiarity of bellringing. Certainly in England, most people don't do it and find it strange that people are actually keen to do it.

Famous people - Paul Revere could do with a mention, perhaps? He's the most obvious example. I suggest someone contacts the Old North Church, Boston, MA bunch for more information, I only know the sketchiest of details.

--62.58.152.52 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tintinnalogia?

I have never heard tintinnalogia (edit 06:39, 2006 May 10 user:Eliyyahu ) as a term for change ringing. The Google reference is to a book by Fabian Stedman (who I do acknowledge as very significant, and needs an article), but whose 300 year old language in the title for a book is not definitive these days. Can anyone else comment on the usage of this word today? Oosoom 09:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit you are right that the term isn't used much today. However, it is the original term for change-ringing, which still finds its way in our language in words like tintinnabulation and tintinnabulary. Eliyyahu 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been ringing for many years in S and E England, and my family have for several generations. I've never heard the term before. Naturenet | Talk 17:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Its from the latin "Tintinnare" meaning "to Ring". --146.231.129.49 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, we at Project Gutenberg have just proofread and processed Stedman's Tintinnalogia. Perhaps it would be a good idea to put a link to it in the main page? I'm not a wikipedian, so I'll leave the editing to someone else :). --86.20.36.227 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Link added. Oosoom 08:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] External links

Can we have some discussion on external links?

I remember some time ago a lot of links to local associations were removed, and they are starting to creep back now (I've just removed one). If every local association linked it's own home page into wikipedia then the page would be over run with links. This is consistent with WP:NOT policy.

On the other hand, a few association links might be advantageous, to show such sites exist, particularly when they are out side the UK.

What do other people think?StormCloud 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think links should be limited to things like CCCBR (maybe Dove too as a separate link altough it's hosted within the CCCBR pages); maybe (pan-)national societies e.g. ANZAB, NAGCR (possibly College Youths and Cumberlands on a similar basis); Campanophile; and Roger Bailey's Ringing Resources (which itself probably is the major link directory for ringing). David Underdown 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7EChange_ringing_05ee.html"