Grimthorpe and the Worcester bells

[Bill Hibbert]

Rather late with a reply to the extensive correspondence on this . . .

The simulation of the old Worcester peal on Mark Regan's CD was based 
on Mirfield. I should thank Barrie Dove and the Mirfield ringers for 
their welcome when I went to take recordings. As has already been 
mentioned, they are almost the same date as the old Worcester peal. 
My appreciation of Mirfield was dominated by their clappering and 
handling. The clappers of the back bells seem to lie on the bells and 
as a result they do not sing out as they should. I tried to modify 
the sound of the tenor for Mark's CD but was unable to make much 
difference.

I did not look inside the Mirfield bells, not check tuning records, 
but I was told by the locals that one only of the bells had been 
retuned (possibly the treble or the second, previously its nominal 
was wildly out with the rest of the peal) and the rest are as they 
left the foundry in 1869.

One striking factor of the old Worcester peal (and of St Pauls) is 
the extreme stretch in the trebles. I used the nominals for the old 
peal taken by Taylors in 1928, kindly supplied by David Beacham. As I 
write this, I am listening to a simulation of the back eight at 
Mirfield ringing Stedman slowly (3h30 peal speed). Despite the lack 
of resonance in the tenors (due I suspect to the clappering) there is 
a grandeur about them which is hard to appreciate in the tower due to 
the difficult handling. I don't think Grimthorpe can be blamed for 
stretched trebles with sharp hums; it had been the practice of 
Rudhalls and the Whitechapel founders over the previous century or 
more.

As an aside, someone mentioned retuning at Dunham Massey. Again, I 
have not looked inside the bells nor checked the foundry records, but 
I was told by Ken Lewis (who commissioned the work) that the spec 
when the bells were rehung in the 70s was that no tuning should be 
done. In fact, I believe the third was touched a little but the 
others are as they left the foundry in 1854. Dunham of course are at 
the opposite end of the scale to Grimthorpe's designs, the tenor is I 
think the second lightest UK 'C' bell by about a pound.

There was a suggestion during the discussion that Taylor's appeared 
to have understood true-harmonic tuning in the 1850s. It seems to me 
that there is a big difference between a founder from time to time 
casting bells with octave partials, on the one hand, and actually 
being able to tune them to the octave, on the other. I didn't think 
there was any evidence of Taylors measuring or tuning partials other 
than the nominal until the 1880s.

Several people have questioned Grimthorpe's legacy. I need to re-read 
Grimthorpe to remind myself what he was actually saying . . . but  
it's notable that Edmund Denison Taylor (born 1864) was named after 
Grimthorpe, so at least at that early date there must have been a 
deal of respect for him from the Taylors. I assume it's the case that 
Grimthorpe got Taylors out of the trap of casting very thin bells 
such as the tenors at Dunham Massey. There's a piece of work to be 
done mapping the influence of Grimthorpe onto the tuning figures of 
surviving bells.

Grimthorpe's prescription of a heavy scale is still appropriate for 
big bells, where the tuning of the lower partials hardly matters, and 
the disposition of the upper ones matters a great deal. As I write 
this I'm listening to a recording of Wells ringing Stedman Caters; 
and now Petersglocke at Cologne (judging from its partials, cast to 
an even thicker scale than the Wells tenors). If this is the legacy, 
albeit indirectly, of Grimthorpe's ideas we are the better for it.

Bill H