Keynotes for peals of bells
oakcroft13
bill at h...
Mon Sep 9 19:03:31 BST 2002
So many messages on this subject, I hardly dare enter the debate!
I suggested to DJB that he pick a convention for Db / C# bells for
his list. This, as it happens, is the only note for which the
published list has two alternative names. The reason (which I think
is quite valid) is that when scanning the list, it helps to quickly
see what order the pitches come in (B, C, C#/Db, D, Eb, E etc.),
especially when comparing with the order of the weights. The presence
of both C# and Db was a slight inconvenience, no more, and I
personally have no strong views about it.
The various discussions about pianos, string instruments etc. are
valid but I think are missing one key (pun intended!) point. The
various musical temperaments etc. were developed primarily to solve
one unique problem, that of key changes on a keyboard instrument or
one with frets. Players of other instruments and singers make the
adjustments automatically as they perform, but keyboard players are
stuck with the choices of the tuner.
What makes change-ringing bells so different is two things:
* the physics of their vibration is quite different from strings,
pipes and voices (they have inharmonic higher partials)
* bell-ringers never change key (apart from e.g. the front six of a
ten, which in any case sound OK in almost every tuning).
Therefore, the distinction between Db and C# which matters so much
for piano and organ tuners (and also I guess the players of
carillons) is meaningless for pitching the tenor of a ringing peal.
When pitching a tenor, we are trying to specify a frequency, not a
key (after all, just because we know the tenor is C# does not tell us
if the rest of the peal is tuned in equal, just, meantone or anything
else). I'm happy with frequencies in Hz, but am very sympathetic with
people who don't think that way and would prefer to see a note name.
Jim Phillips actually makes a very important point. The various
founders make changes from time to time in their profiles which makes
quite a difference in the sound even between bells which are tuned
identically. They also change from time to time the way they tune the
nominals (e.g. from just to equal).
Some of the recent changes (i.e. last two or three decades) have not
met with universal approval. It is beginning to be possible to
measure the differences, placing people's reactions at last on a
scientific basis. The fact that these changes co-incide with changes
in nomenclature (e.g. from Db to C#) is I think co-incidence rather
than some fundamental issue with the tuning.
Bill H
More information about the Bell-historians
mailing list