[Bell Historians] Re: Lichfield Cathedral

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Wilby" <andrew at w...> 
wrote:
> This is written after dinner and a rather fine bottle of Claret.
> 
> I think what has been achieved at Litchfield is extemporary. The 
bells are
> superb, there's no argument about that.
> The go is now entirely ok with a reasonably competent band.
> Compared to the way Bow behave, and we were there yesterday, 
Lichfield are a
> mere stroll in the park. Bow on the other hand are now one of the 
most pealed
> rings in the world so there can't be much that is impossible about 
them either.
> All credit to those who have done the work at Lichfield... 
something about
> staying out of the kitchen....
> 
> Now remind me Susie.... what was the problem?
> 
> Andrew

My, the claret has taken effect!

Surely the problem at Bow is a rubber tower, whereas at Lichfield it 
was a rubber bell frame!

Compared with what our predecessors had to put up with in terms of 
the general go of most rings, I think we've become extremely soft, 
tending to complain if we have to put more than an ounce of effort 
into keeping our bell up. I often wonder what it must have been 
like to be a ringer in the eighteenth century? Damned hard work is 
probably the answer!


R