[Bell Historians] Re: Great Malvern Priory

John H Allen john at jvg4V41XvZNHlyODnipvEHD-QpFOsWhjr6nCZBmGq_skfeRBXgrW118l6zn9_ijRfI1Vsv6sk5NnMZGhit0.yahoo.invalid
Fri Mar 13 18:46:45 GMT 2009

It is certainly true that EH involvement adds to the cost. What I have
observed is that organs are rebuilt and the specification changed with
little if any fuss from EH yet these instruments are very visible compared
with bell frames.






From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of peter461779
Sent: 13 March 2009 18:16
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Great Malvern Priory


While I can't quite match John Baldwin's "name drop", referring to his
conversation with a Chancellor, I can reveal that I recently had a
conversation with a very senior member of the National Trust hierarchy who
complained that EH conservation policies cost the NT a lot of time and money
neither of which they can afford to lose.

One factor which never seems to be taken into account by EH is that bells
are effectively orchestras which give frequent "concerts" to large public
audiences. It is incumbent upon ringers to deliver of their best and to do
this they need the best quality of "instruments/bells". A pianist would
expect the best grand piano to maximise his or her public performance and
the orchestra would expect to have the best instruments to accompany. The
same principle should be applied to bells.

Peter Davies

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1996 - Release Date: 03/13/09

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090313/ef048f18/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list