Talk:Change ringing

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 16, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Comments[edit]

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)

Bow Bells[edit]

What a first class article! I'd say it ought to be a candidate for a Wikipedia featured page. I'd like to suggest an addition about the (at one time) world-renowned Bow bells, perhaps like:

Bow Bells The church of St Mary le Bow in London has a ring of 12 bells; traditionally a Londoner could not be called a Cockney unless "born within the sound of Bow Bells". A 1926 recording of these bells became famous during WW2 by radio - the BBC General Overseas service used this recording for 10 or 15 minutes every day as a station-tuning signal before going on-air, broadcasting to resistance workers and fighters in occupied Europe.

The "Great bell of Bow" is included in the last line of the children's nursery ryme "Oranges & Lemons". Details of all the Bow bells may be found at http://london.lovesguide.com/mary_le_bow.htm, which includes a sound clip from the 1926 recording: http://london.lovesguide.com/sounds/mary_le_bow_gillett.wav.

If anyone has access to the full recording as used by the BBC, could it be possible to identify the method? L0ngpar1sh (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling down?[edit]

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)

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)[reply]

"mathematically proven"[edit]

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)

Third question[edit]

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)

Trimmed some details from bell ringing mechanics[edit]

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:

Mechanics of church bellringing[edit]

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.)

Mechanics: a question of balance[edit]

Both in the text above and still in the main article, the wording says: "To ring the bell, the ringer will first pull the sally towards the floor, upsetting the bell's balance", and above too it says for ringing up: "...until once again the bell is poised upside-down". Now hang on a mo, if bells were left like that it would be dangerous! I have seen bells deliberately left up, for a wedding (or several weddings) later that same day. But they're not "balanced", "poised" or any such thing - they are left slightly beyond the mouth-up position, with the stay resting against the slider. Yes of course, all ringers know that, but that's not what the text says at the moment! L0ngpar1sh (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I altered the last sentence of the para alongside the Shoreditch pic. L0ngpar1sh (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handbells[edit]

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.

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

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)

Categorization[edit]

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)[reply]

True peals[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Major Rewrite of Method-ringing section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I don't understand[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Tintinnalogia?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

External links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overtones and whatnot[edit]

I just scanned this article as it's late and I don't feel like reading the whole thing. (So there.) It didn't really look like there would be a section that might contain the answer, so I figured I'd ask here.
Are the bells the same as carillon bells? I mean the bells, themselves, not their execution or whatnot. I understand that they're pitched, which would make me think that they would, at least, be similar, but, as free-swinging bells, are they larger? Deeper? Do they have the same overly-prominent minor third overtone?
I've been doing an inordinate amount reading about bells lately. Either I'm becoming Quasimodo or Poe. Or some sort of morose, disfigured hybrid.
— Music Maker 5376 06:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any major differences in profile and so on, so the physics is basically the same. English bell foundries do cast bells for carillons as well. As for size, as stated in the article the heaviest used weighs about 4 tonnes, the lightest are probably of the order of 100g. There is a link to some recordings of this style of benll at the bottom of the article, so you can probably judge for yourself. David Underdown 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASCY[edit]

Here's the best summary I can find online of the ASCY's situation in the late 18th century / early 19th:

By 1756 however, tensions had arisen within the College Youths between the older members, and more recent recruits who on the whole tended to be the better ringers. This led to a split in the Society. The older members went off to form the Ancient Society of College Youths, whilst the remainder kept the original College Youths name (though are often referred to as the Junior Society). Although both societies came back together by 1788 and adopted the ASCY title, limited records other than membership details and peal performances exist for this period. Hence the absence of the Master’s name of 200 years ago when a toast is drunk to the their fragrant memory at the close of each Annual Dinner. (from [1])

Given this, I see no reason not to list them among the early societies. Doops | talk 12:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The webpage is factually incorrect and I think misleads with its "older members went off to form the Ancient Society" which is not the case. The paper archives held in the "modern" ASCY archives show that there was a defection by a number of ringers (to form the separate Junior society c1756), then the College Youths renamed itself as "Ancient" then eventually became moribund. So the society formed in 1637 ceased to exist by 1780's.

It is also incorrect with "both societies came back together" which implies some form of reconciliation for which there is no evidence at all. There is evidence however that the Junior Society changed it's name to Ancient and then much later in the 19c did it start to say that it was formed in 1637, probably as form of response against direct competition from other societies†. So the society we now know of as the ASCY was actually founded in 1756.

†notably the London Scholars who rang at Shorditch, which renamed itself Society of Cumberland Youths in 1747 and then renamed itself as Society of Royal Cumberland Youths in 1872 - the Royal being an affectation like the Ancient in ASCY.

There are many examples of ringing societies from this era ending, and of some attempts to resurrect them. What is clear is that the modern ASCY is not the same society as the original 1637 one. Truthmasterringer 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I take it you're an ASCY-er yourself, then? Doops | talk 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles[edit]

There is a recent 12 in the Isle of Man, and slightly older 10 in Guernsey, so UK and Ireland is not an adequate description of the area. David Underdown (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headstock[edit]

I added an image of a dismounted bell I had handy. There are are a couple of questions for the caption:

It looks like the entire bell mount has been taken down - or is it mounted in a temporary structure.
To my mind, the metal headstock exists to counter-balance the weight of the bell - and this should perhaps be mentioned in the text (otherwise the weight of the bell would always cause it to hang down) - the bell ringer only has to cope with moving the mass of the bell - not the weight.
The wheel, in this case, appears to be metal - not wood.
The headstock appears to be specifically cast iron - not generic metal.

Perhaps someone who is more of an expert would consider those matters in the caption and accompanying text. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be in a temporary structure - if you look at the (bottom) righthand edge of the bell, you can see that it's touching the frame, so obviously the bell could not turn in this frame. The metal headstock, and the fact that the top of the bell is above the centre of the wheel do counter-balance it to some extent, which makes it easier to raise the bell for ringing, and to pull it off, but the natural poisiton of any bell is mouth down. The ringer first has to "raise" the bell by slowly increasing the amplitude of its swing, until the bell is ringing a full-circle with each pull (think of pushing a child on a swing, give it a small push just as it starts it's swing, and the child rises higher and higher on each swing, with a bell, it's pulling the rope at the appropriate time which adds the impetus). However, once up, it's the stay (the pice of wood sticking up on the right hand side) and the slider (the lack of which is another give away for this being a temporary frame) that allow the bell to rest mouth uppermost, the slider is a piece of wood that runs across the frame, under the bell, pivotted at the wheel side, and with two stops at a given space apart on the side of the frame where the stay is, as the bell swings full circle, the stay contacts the slider, and the free end slides across until it is in contact with the stop, when the bell swings the other way, the slider is knocked back the other way, and when the stay is allowed to come to rest against the slider, it will hold the bell mouth-up (the ringer should stop the bell short of the full travel of the slider when ringing normally, if you don't eventually the stay, as it is designed to do, will break, to prevent damage to the bearings etc, and the bell will turn over and over, potentially pulling the ringer up toward the ceiling of the ringing chamber, or burning their hands). It seems to me that the wheel is basically wooden, but with some metal reinforcement where it joins to the headstock (a metal wheel would probably wear the ropes out too quickly). Cast iron is fairly commonly used, but I wouldn't like to swear to it. Interestingly, the headstock has Warner, London cast into it, indicating that it was probably reused from an earlier set of bells, since the current bells were cast in 1994 by Taylors, and Warner's is long defunct. David Underdown (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating ... I started out with temporary, but thought the bearings looked too permanent. Worth checking. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bearings will be sealed ball-bearing units, which would normally be bolted to the "real" frame - you very occasionally still come across plain-bearings (i.e. basically just an axle in a sort of metal cup I think), but usually only in places where the bells haven't been upgraded in a very long time. David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuning Question[edit]

If there is such a thing as a "normal" tuning for the bells, what is it? That is to say, if there are 6 bells, to what notes are the bells tuned? If specific notes are not involved, are there specific intervals between the notes of the bells? JimCubb (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says in the first paragraph after the lead "The bells are usually tuned to a diatonic major scale, with the tenor bell being the tonic (or key) note of the scale." However, the ring may be in any key, and the tuning is sometimes rather approximate - rings may well consist of bells cast centuries apart, with different profiles, and hence differing acoustic properties. Details of all rings can be found in Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers, online at http://dove.cccbr.org.uk/dove.php where you'll see that key is one of the options you can search on. For any individual tower the nominal pitch of each bell is also given. Modern bells are fine-tuned by (basically) turning on a lathe and scraping out metal from the inside until the desired pitch is precisely achieved, but this is a fairly recent innovation (well, within the last century!). This said the acoustics of bells are quite peculiar. The strike note (i.e. what's heard when the clapper strikes the soundbow of the bell) is quite different from the hum note, which is what's usually perceived as the pitch of the bell (this difference is what gives a bell it's characteristic "ding" sound), and the overtones are not, from what little I understand, the "standard" harmonic series.

If hand bells and tower bells have the same acoustic qualities and if I remember correctly from my reading of the acoustic qualities of hand bell, two very large ifs, a tower bell's first overtone is a major 12th above the fundamental. The tuning process takes the natural harmonic and tunes it to the fundamental of the bell a major 12th above the given bell. I dimly remember that the tuning process involves the shoulder of the bell. Further than that, I have no clue.

Thank you for your answer. JimCubb (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-muffling[edit]

The section on half-muffling was originally at Half-muffled. I should have mentioned this in the edit summary but forgot. LordVetinari (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of bells[edit]

user:Contratrombone64 added the comment "[says who??]" the the statement "For convenience, the bells are referred to by number, with the treble being number 1 and the other bells numbered ... sequentially down the scale. (This system often seems counterintuitive to musicians [says who??], who are used to a numbering which ascends along with pitch.)". I have reverted this since most music theory does number upwards, in a scale the supertonic is referred to as the second, the mediant as the third and so forth up to the leading note as the seventh. Frets on a stringed instrument are numbered upwards, as are the keys on a piano (look next time a tuner has the keys off the board). The original contributor was careful to say "often" not "always". Both as a learner myself and nowadays when teaching it is apparent that musicians often do have a problem with the numbering, particularly when talking about a "flat 5th" when a musician knows it is the 4th of a scale that is flattened! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Change ringing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Change ringing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160103031112/http://www.cccbr.org.uk/prc/pubs/bellsAndBellringing.php to http://www.cccbr.org.uk/prc/pubs/bellsAndBellringing.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two instances of this, neither work at present. The citations/links need reworking. If no-one else does I'll have a go later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

purpose of article[edit]

This article is called change ringing, yet it has a large first section on the mechanics of bells, which is more appropriate in another article, such as ring of bells. Propose cutting down the long mechanics of bells section to a simple explanation of the constraints that full circle ringing of tower bells imposed to cause change ringing to develop, and adding more material and link ring of bells as a main article. Dougsim (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes. Don't do too much cutting though, the issues of inertia are essential to understanding both the why and how. To be honest, all of the bell ringing (and indeed possibly even all bell-related) articles need a thorough overhaul to reduce the amount of duplication whilst still keeping each article full enough for reader comprehension (WP:RF). I've just been having a look at WP:WikiProject Music and cannot see anywhere that bells fit in (except possibly as a footnote to percussion). Even the template seems to be a bit hit-and-miss. Perhaps there ought to be a sub-project to bring together all aspects of campanology from lists of the heaviest bells through to portable rings. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there should be no precipitate action, but something should be done here. Regarding inertia, as an engineer I know what is being meant, but does the lay reader? I felt this was making the subject obscure; people understand weights and masses, but maybe momentum will do.

The ringing articles should be encyclopedic and accessible, and there is great variation. Ring of bells is particularly poor, though I have started a re-write there - first got some headings in. The articles concerned seem to be;

Change ringing - Covers continuous method ringing and call changes. Too much about the mechanism. Should call changes be here? Ring of bells - Needs work as it is particularly allied to English style ringing, and not enough about the mechanism. Bells - A large subject.make sure link are in. full circle ringing - International and applies to mechanism only Method ringing - Quite comprehensive, and is this sub-set of change ringing? Peal - Specific but allied Grandsire - specific but allied

Any more?

The Issue to sort out really is the definition of change ringing. The CCCBR says "The origins of change ringing lie in the sixteenth century when church bells began to be fitted with a full wheel. This gave ringers control of their bell, allowing sets of bells (rings) to be rung in continously (sic) changing patterns.

From Encyclopedia Britannica 1911...

Change-ringing.—When a given number of bells are rung over and over again in the same order, from the highest note, or “treble,” to the lowest, or “tenor”—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7—they are said to be rung in “rounds.” “Changes” are variations of this order—e.g. 2 1 3 5 4 7 6, 2 3 1 4 5 6 7; and “change-ringing” is the art of ringing bells in “changes,” so that a different “change” or rearrangement of order is produced at each pull of the bell-ropes, until, without any repetition of the same change, the bells come back into “rounds.”

A further application is that in bell-ringing, of the variations in order in which a peal of bells may be rung. The term usually excludes the ringing of the bells according to the diatonic scale in which they are hung (see BELL). It is from a combination of these two meanings that the thieves' slang phrase " ringing the changes " arises; it denotes the various methods by which wrong change may be given or extracted, or counterfeit coin passed. Read more: CHANGE (derived throug... - Online Information article about CHANGE (derived through... http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/CAU_CHA/CHANGE_derived_through_the_Fr_f.html#ixzz45VgSRep0

So call change ringing, which is not continuous, is NOT change ringing. So where do we put it, or is it just linked to? ie; remove section on call changes from change ringing.

Dougsim (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would look for a better definition of change-ringing! CCCBR would be more authoritative than the Encyclopaedia Britannica (see Change Ringing for example). Call changes most definitely are change-ringing. For instance the EB article doesn't mention methods or principles. I'll think about structure, the whole campanology field is wide and very cross linked. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You see there's a big debate going on in the RW at the moment, in which I have yet to read someone properly defining these things. Dougsim (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm out of touch with RW. I've recently changed home tower and we don't get a copy where I ring now. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added images[edit]

I've added some images of St Bees bells to show mouth down and mouth up - this speaks a thousand words.

There seem to be very few images like this in the public domain, which is a pity. Everyone seems to do them for their own web site etc. Also sad lack of public domain animations.

Dougsim (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCCBR link[edit]

Realise CCCBR is a re-direct page - should it not have its own? Dougsim (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's briefly also mentioned on The Ringing World! I'm seriously thinking about proposing a campanology project, part of the music (or possibly percussion) project. We need to hunt out all bell-related articles and get the hat notes sorted out. I would suggest a target plan something like:

Campanology

History
Lists (largest, oldest etc)
Bells
- forms and materials
- tuning
- hanging
Structures
- Integral towers
- campaniles
- bell cotes (and small gables)
- (large) bell gables
- clocks
Ringing
- change ringing
  - Call changes
  - Methods and principles
    - Are individual methods worthy of note?
- Veronese
- Carillon (inc Ellacombe)
- handbells
- Percussion section ("cow bells")
Organisations
- CCCBR (inc RW, use a redirect)

Comments? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree, this is a good structured way ahead rather than the haphazard approach at the moment. Will think more about this. Just sorted out the article on bell-ringer a bit, which said they were a dying breed, and got English ringing in there.

Dougsim (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more work on change ringing - got the lead to explain that change ringing is not just permutations. What is needed to make this all a project?

Also edited full circle ringing to improve narrative.

Dougsim (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy sorting out the references and citations for Raasay which were in a right old mess. I also need to get back to Subhas Chandra Bose‎ to complete some tidying up there. Moving back to bells; I see two options:

A subproject of music
Get the campanology page shaken into shape as a master page for the subject with main page hat notes to the specific articles. Likewise all the articles need their hat notes back upwards as well as cross links.
Both!

Let's have a quick discussion on the way forward - Doug, would you care to ping all those with recent edits on the topics? Can we aim for closure on Saturday and then move forward. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got time at the moment to sort out articles associated with Engish bell ringing that I can see just need some formatting, adding relevant material, making more readable and adding graphics. For this little digging out of material is needed; it's all relatively accessible - I've been ringing for over 50 years and have this to hand, but to embark on management of a large project requires more thought and time. I think therefore it's best to follow the hat notes notes route short term. Dougsim (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please all see talk:campanology. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Change ringing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firing[edit]

I've flagged '"hips" or "shoots"' as dubious. Can anyone confirm or deny the use of these terms? I've never heard them in the UK but that doesn't mean that they are not used there or abroad. The fact that the IP user refers to firing as a "method" makes me a little suspicious. The original edit was by 217.42.231.30 (talk), and it is only edit under that IP. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some history[edit]

I have no knowledge of change-ringing myself. But I recently came across this source https://www.whitingsociety.org.uk/old-ringing-books/snowdon-standard-methods.html which shows that "legitimate" methods of change-ringing in England changed, controversially, in 1903. Should anyone want to expand the "History" section, this may be a useful source. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maproom, the 1903 method decisions certainly are a notable event marking the decline of certain treble bob and delight methods. The Whiting society online books are a good source of material. Cheers Qazwsx777 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of unringable rings[edit]

Doesn't add up! 930+55+12 = 997, not 985 as stated Mdrb55 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]