Taylors 'Grimthorpe' bells
richard at ...
Fri Jan 6 17:01:40 GMT 2006
--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Chester" <mike at m...>
> I have not rung on either of these rings. A question comes to
> What did Grimethorpe rings sound like in comparision to other rings
> produced at the same time?
> Am I correct in assuming that they had some musical deficiencies,
> solely on the fact that rings to this design were never that
> If this is the case, is it really fair to ask a Parish to retain
> something that could be made better at the same time as a general
> restoration? It is a real quandary - retention of something
> that might not be the best at the expense of someone else? Should
> the expense be borne elsewhere?
> Just a thought!
We're back on to the old question of whether old bells that sound
dreadful should be tuned or not? Whether of great historical
significance or not, why should a parish be expected to put up with
something inferior for the sake of pleasing a few conservationists?
Would previous generations have been as concerned? Answer: probably
not. Did those generations, by their actions, add to the historical
richness of our present bell heritage? Answer: almost certainly!
A certain amount of devil's advocacy is involved in my answers above
and I honestly don't think that there is a right or wrong answer,
whatever anyone may tell you!
By all accounts, most Grimthorpe style rings were pretty dreadful, so
it's not surprising that most places wanted rid of them! If they
helped Taylors to reach their significant discoveries at the end of
the nineteenth century and resulted in the replacement of Grimthorpe
rings with such glories as the twelve at Worcester Cathedral, then we
should not mourn their loss but be thankful they were a means to an
More information about the Bell-historians