[Bell Historians] Rings of 12

[David Bryant]

No, I hadn't forgotten them. There are rumours that Kings Lynn are
intending to do the same (treble and 2#, omitting the 2nd). Is it just
me, or does everyone else think this idea is bloody stupid? If you want
a ten, then OK, have a ten, but if you're going to have 12 bells you
just as well make it a true 12 plus a semitone - the cost difference
won't be that great. One major problem with 1 and 2# but not 2 is that
it will give a '12 bell' rope circle, and given that many ringers are
apparently oblivious to the musical aspects of the bells they are
ringing (e.g. peal of Yorkshire 14 at Leicester recently), it seems
inevitable that they will get rung as a 12. Broadly, I think that
semitones are a good idea in the case of heavier 12s if they avoid
ringing the front eight, or a similarly unmusical combination, but the
concept seems to be being taken too far recently - 10s with semitones,
an 18 cwt 12 with a flat 6th. What is the point?

David

mikechester_uk wrote:
> 
> Don't forget Writtle!
> 
> What's the betting on the natural 2nd being supplied with the other
> 12 bells?
> 
> Mike Chester
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To
> unsubscribe from the list send an email to
> bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.