[Bell Historians] Re: three levels...

[Andrew Wilby]

Richard Offen

<Yes, and those playing or singing have exactly the same problems that
you've elaborated on above!>

The conclusions I draw are:

1. that two tier frames (or more) are to be avoided at all costs if there is
a choice and if the size of bells means they cannot be fitted into the tower
they are probably too big for the tower!
2. that upper tiers should be placed as low as possible. They can often be
placed at a height to clear the treble wheels rather than the tenor.
3. with a clean sheet of paper it is preferable to put the tenors on top for
two simple reasons, one that the volume from the tenors will look after
itself and not need any artificial help into the ringing room, and two that
the height of the upper tier can be much lower as it has only the smaller
bells to clear, thus minimising the sound delay problems.
(The 16 at the Bullring could have been hung with the front 14 on one level
and the two tenors on top. The upper frame could have been much lower than
the current one, the sound inside would have been easy to balance instead of
still remaining a problem requiring further attention, and it might just
have been possible to hear all 16 outside. This was suggested at the time
but Alan Hughes was not interested. How he can take any pride in that
shambles of a design I do not know. It produces a good rope circle... which
seemed to be his only consideration.... but a crap musical result. I rest my
case.... but can we change the culture for the future??)


One cannot avoid the conclusion that even today our bell hanging fraternity
remain closer to the blacksmith than the musical instrument maker!!!

andrew