[Bell Historians] Dove inexactitudes

David Bryant djb122 at y...
Tue Oct 1 18:44:30 BST 2002

JohnBaldwin wrote:

> When we KNOW that we're being inconsistent (eg, 13 bells in a ring with a
> "sharp treble" or "zeroth" and yet also use the description "flat 6th") yet
> in our view prefer to use this common parlance, we say so explicitly in the
> associated description. We also recognise that there are as many ways of
> approaching Dove as there are readers, and that by definition we cannot
> please everybody all the time - as we have said before, loudly and clearly.
> We also would suggest that the question of content is a great improvement
> for, in the past, we never knew what RHD "took on board" or "rejected" until
> a subsequent edition was published.

I accept wat you've said up to a point, but to take the case of
semitones, NOBODY I've spoken to thinks the current way of describing
them is logical or useful. How many towers with extra trebles consider
their ring as one of 13? Very few, if any, I suspect. We certainly
don't, and as the extra treble rope falls extremely close to the tenor
box it would be very difficult to ring them as a 13. The same is true at
a number of other towers, and at Mancroft, as already mentioned by Mike
Chester, the extra treble falls between 11 and 12.

What do others think. As John has pointed out, it is my opinion and it
differs with his, but does anyone actually agree with the illogical
method currently used? Nobody I've come across yet, anyway.


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list