[Bell Historians] Rings of 12

[Mrthigby at a...]

In a message dated 20/03/2002 23:19:28 GMT Standard Time, djb122 at y... 
writes:


> Subj:Re: [Bell Historians] Rings of 12 
> Date:20/03/2002 23:19:28 GMT Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:djb122 at y...">djb122 at y...</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 

I gather Gresford are planning a similar scheme!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20020321/8b99575e/attachment.html>