Dove / lost rings / national bell register

[David Bryant]

There has been discussion on various of the email lists about Dove, the
definition of lost rings and the possibiluty of a national bell
register, and I think there is scope for well informed discussion of all
on this list - all seem to tie up together, anyway.

Firstly, Dove and lost rings. I've heard very few people comment
favourably on the latest Dove. It has fours now, which is good, but
other than that it is considerably worse than previous editions. Chimes
are now excluded (why?) and this makes the question of whether a ring is
just unringable or has been 'lost' by being converted into a chime much
moree pertinent, as if it's considered a chime it will be removed,
rather than placed in italics as previously. Likewise, heavy, lost and
transferred bells have gone. I would like to see all of these return,
and I know many others think likewise. Why were they removed? Is it just
that it was too much effort to update them.

I have to say I've been disappointed by the attitude of the compilers of
'Dove'. I was specifically asked to advise on semitones, but when I did
my suggestions were largely ignored and the result is the present
illogical way of desribing them - descriptions such as 13 plus 6b are
NOT correct. Technically, 13 plus 7b is, or more sensibly 12 plus 0 and
6b, as in earlier editions of Dove. What was the problem with that? So
far as I can gather, there is no intention to put the removed sections
back for the next edition, nor to use a more logical description for
semitones.

Secondly, national bell register. It seems totally illogical for the
redundant bells committee to have the sole prerogative on this, which
according to Dave Kelly it has. In fact, it seems daft for the CC to be
in charge of it - particularly in view of the mess they've made of Dove!
The most suitable people for the job are probaly mostly not 'Central
Council types' - is there the intention to co-opt them? If not, this is
a pretty poor state of affairs.

Surely such a register should be carried out under the auspices of a
heritage or church body, not the CC - Council for the Care of Churches,
perhaps? Surely, if the CC actively intens to 'hijack' any such project
(and quite possibly make a balls up of it) representations should be
made.

What do others think?

David