[Bell Historians] Layout of information

[David Bryant]

> 2) As regards content, as bells are musical instruments I think one
> should always comment on their musical quality. I don't mean tuning
> figures, these are rather dry and meaningless, I mean qualitative
> judgements on the pleasantness of otherwise of the sound (e.g. old-
> style but sweet sounding, rather out of tune especially bell x which
> is quite flat, etc. etc.). Very few writers include this information,
> but after all isn't it what a bell is for?

In my write-ups of the York towers, I have generally only mentioned what I
thought of the tonal qualities of the bells if they made a particular
impression one way or the other. e.g. The Minster and St-Martin-le-Grand get
very favourably comment, whereas an 1869 Blews bell, an 1869 Taylor bell,
and a bell by WIlliam Oldfield with a large lump out of the lip get the
opposite!

David