[Bell Historians] Re: Non-diatonic rings

Nick Bowden nickwbowden at f...
Thu Jan 6 23:50:03 GMT 2005

From: "David Bryant" <davidbryant at h...>
> I think the point is that whatever system is used it should describe
> what the bells acutally are rateehr than just noting that they aren't
> major. I suppose the present system has come into use because many
> ringers aren't musical, and by describing it relative to a 'normal'
> ring it is something they can relate to in a way which perhaps they
> wouldn't with descriptions such as '2nd a semitone flat', or '5th a
> semitone sharp, or by describing the mode which the bells are in. I
> see that even the term minor is disappearing in favour of
> descriptions such as '1-3 of 4'.
One of my favourite subjects is the classification of non-major rings in
Dove. While I can understand Bill's point about the possible misleading use
of say '1-8 of 12' it is, as David suggests, just a relative description of
what to expect soundwise. It should not imply there are (or were) missing
bells or have any historical relevance.

Can anyone confirm the tuning details for Isleham, Cambs? They were a
"minor" five of some description and were not tuned when the treble was
added back in the 1950's.

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list