Rings of 12 - keynotes.

jim phillips jim at p...
Mon Sep 9 23:37:58 BST 2002

>Taunton (a mixture of old junk) are usually described as C#, so using this
>description isn't a modern phenomenon. Look at the list by weight on the
>rings of 12 site - there is no correlation between the date of a ring of
>bells and whether the key is given as C# or Db. I stand by the point
>that, as far as bells are concerned, the difference between the two is
>meaningless and, as Bill has pointed out, when writing a comparative list
>it is better to use either one or the other (and I don't much care which)
>for the sake of clarity. I'm also giving the frequency in Hz for those who
>prefer it.

Taunton are certainly not a load of old junk. You are confusing the 'go' of
the bells with the sound which is one of the reasons why the Grimthorpe 12
at Worcester were recast. Worcester still go badly. A good piece of
ringing at Taunton with a band willing to put their back into it will show
the bells to be a mellow 12, none of your flutes and piccolos and boring hum
there, with its obtrusive harmonics stomping down the stairs like at
Canterbury. Once your ears pick up these harmonics in a modern Simpson
Csharp ring the rest of any peal attempt is spoilt soundwise.
There is a subtle difference between a tenor tuned to Dflat which is
superior to a Csharp tenor. Surely a bell should be tuned by forks to a
sound pleasant to the human ear. I am not impressed by the over use of Hz
to describe the sound produced by a bell.

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list