[Bell Historians] Re: three levels...

[Richard Offen]

> 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

Whilst I agree with you to a point, there are always engineering 
considerations, besides musical ones, in desgining a bell frame. 
The notion of loading a potentially wobbly structure (I guess most 
towers have the potential to wobble!) with the heaviest bells at the 
highest point is surely not sensible and is, no doubt, why very few 
multi-layer frames have the tenors on top.

Designing a bell frame requires many considerations, not just musical 
quality and I'm willing to bet that, in structural terms, the Bull 
Ring frame is exemplary in its design. We'd all complain if the 
bells went badly because of a poorly designed frame!

Clearly the design balance between structural rigidity and acoustics 
is a fine one!


R