bill at h...
Thu Jan 6 15:17:36 GMT 2005
>Wouldn't "non-diatonic ring" be an easier description
>for publications such as Dove?
>No, because that tells you bugger all apart from the
>fact that it isn't major! Far better to describe what
>it actually is.
I think one can get too precious about this. Let's take the example
of three bells with notes D, B and G. A possible description of these
is 1, 3 and 5 of 5. If there is some evidence (empty pits? records of
bells being ordered but not installed?) then this might be a useful
description. But if the actual situation is that they are three bells
of different provenance that 'happened' to end up in the same tower,
I'd say to describe them as 1, 3 & 5 of 5 is misleading.
Two real examples. Ugborough is described as 1-8 of 12. But, having
rung there, it was clearly not ever a possibility of them being a 12.
I would say that 'second flat' is a much better description.
My second example is Gidleigh, which are described as 1flat,2,3,4,5
of 6. But actually (I assume, I do not know their history) the
situation is that they are a set of bells which came together over
time without consideration of tuning, apart from the modern Taylor
bell. In this case, 'non-diatonic' is a more historically meaningful
Now, in fun, I wonder if we should describe St Peter, St Albans as '3-
12 of 12' or West Bromwich, before the fire, as '5-12 of 12'? Perhaps
I had better get back to work!
More information about the Bell-historians