s.ivin at n...
s.ivin at n...
Thu May 2 11:16:03 BST 2002
> And this in itself smacks of some of the more modern day rants we here from. . .
Funnily enough I was about to make a remark re the changing Whitechapel
tonal properties (Jewry, Bow versus more modern peals), because it seems to
me that the changing sound might have a good deal more to do with the use
of the Conn Strobotuner than a change in physical profiles. If one prefers the
earlier sound it might well be that 'Uncle Jim' was not entirely without
foundation for his views. I'm partly inclined to think that it is possible to
be excessively accurate in the physical sense at the expense of overall
quality. A noteworthy example is Leighton Buzzard, where Chris Dalton/Mark Regan
imposed stiff numerical constraints on the tuning and succeded in getting
the most WBF/G&J-like peal ever produced by L'boro.
On the subject of weights and measures, I was disappointed that only Bill
Hibbert took up the challenge, and that from a rather irrelevant point of view -
i.e. looking up lists of heavy bells! In fact the bell concerned is the tenor
at Westminster Abbey, as cast. I selected it because it is of the same size
as the 3rd quarter-bell of the Westminster clock, slightly heavier, and the
same pitch, in the un-tuned state - even the partials are adrift in the same
directions - and there had been some interest shown in scales of thickness.
Surprising how much alteration can be made to the pitch/weight relationship
by removal of a small amount of metal!
More information about the Bell-historians