[Bell Historians] CBC

[Robert Lewis]

At 17:41 11/10/2013, Peter wrote:

>I think it would be hard to justify not allowing SPAB the 
>opportunity to argue their case.  The important point is making sure 
>that they aren't the only interest group represented, and don't have a veto.


Well it is interesting to contrast the make-up of the Bells Committee 
with the Organs Committee;  the Organs Committee seems to be 
populated almost entirely with organists of one description or 
another (no sign of SPAB there!),
whereas the Bells Committee includes several non-ringers, including 
the Chairman (who - charming and sensible though he may be - is an organist!).

Maybe this says something about the Church's attitude to ringers as 
opposed to organists, and bells as opposed to organs.  Interesting 
that there are no fewer than four Organ Builders on the Organs 
Committee and no representation whatsoever from the bell trade on the 
Bells Committee. Maybe it is not for the want of trying? (Although I 
suspect not).

Arguably organs are a much more visible part of the church 'fabric' 
than bells ... and, one might have thought, more likely to attract 
the attentions of SPAB than bells & bellframes.

But should we be particularly worried about all this?  Do these 
committees have any real power, influence or importance?

RAL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20131011/37da75a7/attachment.html>