bill at h...
Tue May 4 09:00:33 BST 2004
> Hughes was comparing Hums with "tap notes" (or
> "strikes") whereas Johnston was comparing the
> Hums with the Fundamentals
> I have a different and perhaps more charitable
> view of G&J's objectivity.
> I do hope Bill doesn't mean that I was being
> uncharitable to anyone.
No, what I meant to say was that I would be surprised if CFJ was
comparing hums with fundamentals (which gives a wild variation from
minor 6th to augmented 7th) rather than with the strike notes or
nominals, which gives the correct result of a range between 7th and
The trial transcript is clear: Mr. W. H. Brazil B.Sc. (who he?)
demonstrated augmented 7ths on the piano. It was our old friend
William Wooding Starmer who claimed that 'The hum notes of these
bells ranged from the sixth to the seventh'. Mr. R. Ashton Houseman,
secretary of G&J, simply said 'He . . . was not a musical expert. His
experience was that recasting always improved the tones of bells. . .
He was not concerned with the technical side of the business, but
with the administrative side only'.
Still offline at home, the BT man promises to call on Thursday.
More information about the Bell-historians