19th century bells

[oakcroft13]

I have been following the exchange of positions on the above subject 
with some fascination. John Ketteringham's latest message has 
inspired me to break my silence:
> medieval treble and tenor and Warner second . . . I hate to think 
what [others] would think of them!

As D. H. Lawrence said, to analyse is to destroy. There's a whole set 
of 19th century and older peals I know well for which I have 
developed a great deal of affection and respect. But when I go to 
ring on them again, with all I have learned in the last decade, I 
find myself criticising their tuning instead of appreciating their 
effect as a peal as I once did. Does this increase my pleasure in 
ringing? Not at all, I'm afraid, in fact I think I have lost 
something through better understanding.

With many (but by no means all!) of these older peals, the founder 
did his very best with the technology and understanding available to 
him, using some knowledge (e.g. about stretching) which is now lost 
to us. We might not like the bells but we ought to appreciate the 
skill, even if we end up retuning or replacing them.

I still maintain that, given a tower that doesn't sway, good internal 
and external acoustics, and fittings in tip-top condition, you get a 
smashing ring whatever the tuning, within reason. I recently rang on 
a moderately heavy peal of eight, true-harmonic tuned to the n'th 
degree, which did not possess these attributes, and to me they were a 
great disappointment.

I guess there's no accounting for taste!

Bill H