Talk:List of carillons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List format

I guess it couldn't hurt to suggest and try to establish a list format for naming a specific carillon. Lets say:

  • City, State / Country: The Blah Carillon in the Holy Cathedral at Yaddah School, original-year-created. Current-#-bells, made by Bellz Incorporated, ranging in size from small weight and size to large weight and size. History as needed with update years.

Items to note about the format:

  • Defining City and State / Country followed by a colon
  • Carillon name, building name, school / agency name
  • Comma
  • Original year created
  • Period
  • Save the number of bells until after the Carillon is named
  • Current # of bells first
  • JUST "48 bells", not "the 48-bell" or whatnot
  • Comma
  • Foundry if you know it
  • Comma
  • Smallest bell weight in lbs and size in inches
  • Largest bell weight in lbs or tons and size in inches
  • Total bell weight in tons
  • Brief! history as needed, perhaps on the increase in the bells or whatnot
  • Leave off the "located in" "housed in" "additional bells added in the year of". Short and sweet!
  • Try not to re-mention the word "carillon" unless it is in the title of the carillon itself! once is enough, it's a whole page on them anyway!
  • Finally, link off-wiki to the site of the chapel / carillon if known

Please amend as needed. But don't leave stragglin' Carillons! --Rbeas 23:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ('List format' moved here from the talk page of the article Carillons that had contained the list)


You sad,sad people. Sorry. 82.46.177.213 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This list is for carillons only

Please do not add other bell instruments to this list. Chimes, electronically-assisted bell instruments, peals, and the like should be documented on the appropriate page in Wikipedia - not on this page. See The Carillon talk page for more information. SaxTeacher (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the Carillon at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. I believe that the Bells of Congress in the same city should probably be removed, as they are a change-rung peal.--Cantabwarrior 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Having confirmed that the Bells of Congress at the [Old Post Office] Tower in Washington, D.C. are in fact a change-rung peal of 10 bells, I have removed them from the list. For more information about the Bells of Congress, see [[1]]. --Cantabwarrior 18:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated yesterday on your talk page immediately after finding out we had been working simultaneously on 'Carillon': "The List of carillons still needs some clear reference to the definition, I think that list should be split in a chapter for traditional carillons, and one for other true carillons.", the list was updated in such way. Since a few of the instruments that sound like a carillon though do not fit the definitions for either traditional carillons or non-traditional carillons, are worthwile mentioning; and since these do not have their own article (to which 'Campanology', 'Carillon' and 'List of carillons' should then have to refer), and since we certainly should not throw these together with Hammond organs or Moog synthesizers either, I also introduced a third section pseudo-carillons. The definitions are briefly stated at top of each section with a reference towards a detailed definition. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-05 22:11 (UTC)

Please note that 'Chimes' (like a carillon but les than 23 bells as needed for 2 octaves), 'British bells' (used for bell-ringing), 'Russian Orthodox bells' (used for a very different type of bell-ringing) have, like 'Carillons', their brief description in the 'Campanology' overview of musical bell instruments; and each has its very own article that goes into more specific details. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-05 22:28 (UTC)

[edit] Not a carillon

Has any thought been given to all electronic carillons? Gasp, this can hit some in the business to the heart to think in these terms. I have watched a similar transition from only recognizing "real pipe organs" to the acceptance of high-end digital pipe organs over the past few decades. There will always be room for both. How can we gracefully accommodate the new kids on the block (electronic carillons) without alienating both groups? --Jrshaw 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • In an article about clavecimbles, one does not talk about pianos, in one about Spanish guitars, electric guitars have no place. Definition are needed (one editor had already contributed with a 732 bell carillon); the WCF is very strict, the GNCA also recognizes 'non-traditional carillons'; I inserted the opportunity to mention noteworthy 'pseudo-carillons' but Wikipedia should not allow definitions as 'carillon' for instruments that are not generally recognized. If there are enough talented kids on the block, the establishment will get to hear from them soon enough. They may well create a Wikipedia article but not use this one, which is getting long enough. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-15 06:07 (UTC)
Where would one put the 'ole Miss carillon in Oxford? It has real bells which would classify it as traditional, but the front end is an electronic keyboard (non-traditional as defined and found in the gcns database). To put it with the non-traditional section seems a shame since that puts it with the "98" bell instrument at KSU? Perhaps we need a 4th category that is in-between the traditional and non-traditional--something that differentiates between the traditional baton front-end and an electronic keyboard while recognizing the "real bells". This would be similar to the difference between a tracker-action pipe organ and an organ that uses electromagnetics or similar technology to open the valves to real pipes. For the time being I'll grudginly put it under the non-traditional category until we can agree to draw the lines a bit cleaner. --Jrshaw 07:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If it fits a well-defined category, it belongs there. As my former reply states, Wikipedia does not decide on categories of this kind, the world does. I don't quite understand your problem: the article on carillons already makes it clear that a fine concert carillon can do with 47 bells, some of the most highly regarded traditional carillons have about 49 bells - it does not make them compare too badly with some other carillon's 77 bells. It's not about setting records, it's about music; less than 47 bells only limits the choice of music written or arranged for carillons, more merely extends the choice with relatively few pieces of music created for such carillons. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-15 13:26 (UTC)
I at least wanted some agreement as to why it should be forced down into the "Non-traditional carillons" category, rather than the traditional category which is where I believe it should go. Thanks for the clarification as to how these things get decided. I am just trying to use some foresight regarding how this definition likely will shift in the coming months and years much like it has in the pipe organ industry. In the near future (if not already) one will be faced with this choice, "How is one going to categorize a carillon that has two input devices: one a traditional baton device and the other a keyboard or computer?" Let's say a University connects the baton console for concerts on the weekends but programs and runs the carillon all other times with an electronic keyboard that reads and transmits "touch" (which is a key element in the GNCA traditional definition). Is that carillon a traditional one on weekends but non-traditional during the week? My contention is that the input device used should if anything be a sub-category not a major division.
I propose that one should divide the instruments by media such as bells, pipes, rods, digital sample or something really cutting edge: digital bells (electronically built waveforms built from the ground up in a computer). (This has been happening in recent years with digital pipes in digital pipe organs). Whether you use a baton keyboard or an electronic keyboard will make no difference to the sound the world will hear, so we really need to drop the input device distinction as a primary division. With this in mind, the input device should be a lesser and secondary division not a primary one.
This is contrary to how the GNCA defines it today. This sets us up for an "us vs them" or "David vs Goliath" scenario. I question whether their (GNCA) choice is one that will last or if it is behind the times. No person listening can tell the difference in the sound anyway (baton vs electronic). That was your (SomeHuman) point above (quality of sound). So I would think I could get some agreement here to at least consider drawing the line differently, i.e. shift the definition slightly giving more weight to the traditional medium (bells) and less weight to traditional input devices.
You missed the point on the 36 vs 98 bells. The 36 at Oxford are "real bells". The 98 are either metal rods or tubes. A 98 "bell" carillon would be the biggest in the world (which we know is not the case). These two instruments (because of the questionable GNCA categorization based on input device) are now lumped together as an apple and an orange. This makes no sense and is confusing to me as it likely is for readers of the carillon article.
I mean no ill-will to you. My reason for going though this whole exercise to argue my point is that I simply want quality instruments like the Oxford carillon and similar instruments to not get short-changed and lumped together with instruments that are truly different in how they generate sound (media). Some people may appreciate the other media. I do not want to get in the way of that either, so we should carve out some stubs now so that those who want to pursue those classes of instruments can have the opportunity to inform the world of the vast palette of instruments out there. You likewise made a similar distinction above when you made reference to clavecimbles and guitars. --Jrshaw 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a carillon player, but don't you think it makes a difference how an instrument needs to be handled: I can't imagine an electronical keyboard that would have the feel of a baton keyboard (to make it like that would require a mechanical contraption probably more complicated than the real thing so it would not make much sense to build it).
We use different words for a bicycle, a scooter, a motorcycle, some small scooters and small motorcycles are mopeds, here too there are hybrids: motorized bicycles. For sure, if an instrument fits the 'traditional carillon' definition (the only carillon definition that is accepted by all organizations), it may have a secondary keyboard or a mechanical device that rings the bells every quarter hour (the latter is quite common, for some carillons one can pick from of a series of automated tunes). One might say it plays a chime every quarter hour, though only a carillonneur with control of expression through variation of touch plays the carillon.
A good CD player, amplifier and speakers may (to most people) sound perfectly like a piano. It is not one. An electronic device imitating a piano will not soon be mixed with traditional pianos as if the latter are just old-fashioned versions; I think we owe the same to carillons. If an electronical device might be played so as to sound exactly like a carillon, it could be made to also sound exactly like a violin and like a hobo etc, it might even be handled by a number of instrumentalists to play a symphony – why should anyone want to call it a carillon? I'll accept a hi-tech electronical sound producing instrument as a carillon as soon as a similar instrument is played by the traditional Scottish marching bands who call it a bagpipe.
The 98 metal rods or tubes, if it has some keyboard (else I assume it would be tubular bells), might belong in the pseudo-carillon chapter, it is not a carillon as the GNCA defines: even the non-traditional ones must have cup-shaped bell cast in bronze.
As I understand, the primary classification is based on type of bells, the secondary on the number of cast bronze cup-shaped bells: a chime or a carillon; of the latter, the WCA and several national organizations of carillonneurs do not even consider anything that does not have a baton keyboard (primary condition at equal importance as type of bells), though (I assume because the art became popular in the US much later than in Europe and technology by then allowed other solutions) the GNCA recognizes a tertiary classification based on the input device. Anything else is not a carillon to either of them. I assume the players of electronic input carillons will support the GNCA viewpoint. I am not familiar with possible earlier lobbying that made the GNCA accept electronic keyboards or perhaps even caused the existence of this separate organization. Perhaps you check this and follow that example - it really is not our place to decide upon these matters. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-17 preliminary version 03:17, revised 16:36 (UTC)
As an amateur, I have played both. The expression comes through, but "differently". A trained carillonneur can tell the subtle differences. The average person who just comes to enjoy a carillon concert at 6:00 with a blanket and a picnic dinner likely will not.
One of my hobbies is to visit these kinds of places as I have opportunity to travel on business and vacation. It is helpful to know in advance, what the capabilities are of the instrument for choosing music. The gifted carillonneur can make many of the adjustments on the fly, while as an amateur, I need a bit more preparation. A resource like “List of carillons” helps people like me in tracking down the instruments that one may want to consider visiting, playing, or researching their history.
I agree this article is as big as it is and should not be unnecessarily lengthened. As a solution, one could add a new article parallel to this one titled, "Table of Carillons". This would leave the existing page intact while providing an additional resource for those of us who could benefit from the additional information. I do not know if I really have the time to take this new article to completion. So rather than start something that never gets finished, I will contemplate this for a while and consider any encouragement that others may send my way before proceeding. --Jrshaw 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead and alive carillons

Any suggestions on what to do with the Nancy Brown Peace Carillion of Belle Island Detroint Michigan? [2] This used to be a traditional 49 bell carillon. The bells appear to be intact but are no longer used. An all-electronic system with speakers now provides the music out of the tower. Physically it is a traditional carillon while practically it is and electronic/digital one. --Jrshaw 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's rather complicated as many more carillons are not fully functional (also in Europe; e.g. a cracked bell, a keyboard that needs repairs or worse, etc). See detailed data on all or most of the traditional and non-traditional carillons by following the Guild of Carillonneurs in North America external link; for as long as the GCNA mentions a carillon, or (for traditional ones) the World Carillon Federation, I think we too should keep these in the list. After all, many broken carillons have been repaired in the past, others may become again functional in the future. We cannot keep a day-by-day track of these kind of changes and better leave it to the professional guys. I once started to check carillons against its detailed data sheet (and then completed some info and/or moved some carillons to the non-traditional list, but cannot soon find the time to continue); I was surprised to see how many carillons do not fully qualify in their contemporary state. — SomeHuman 2006-08-07 23:23 (UTC)
Now, for the 'Nancy Brown Peace Carillon', I cannot find a trace at the GCNA, not even with defunct or with degraded carillons (I also searched the site for 'Nancy Brown', and checked every mentioning of 'belle' [Isle], 'peace', and of course Detroit). The article entry's phrase 'recently restored' (after a Google search) definitely does not indicate a coming update by GCNA either: a 2004 restoration did not create a carillon by any of our standards. A blog even states "A digital carillon has replaced the old 8-track system and it recently began chiming for the first time in years" (8-track ???). Anyway, I can only conclude that this entry should not have been made in the first place, and will obliterate it from the list. — SomeHuman 2006-08-08 00:26 (UTC)
Info on the 8-track - Schulmerich has manufactured for years various electronic carillon-like sounding players. They had reel-to-reel tape players, and at one point they had a cartridge system similar to an 8-track tape player. I have seen one of each (though neither worked) at a church recently. --Jrshaw 05:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

What is the plan for the Red links (missing articles)? There is some inconsistency. In some cases, there are plans for the instrument, tower, or the building, while not in other cases. A proposed solution: Remove the red letter links (make them plain text) and let those with the inside knowledge add them as they are so moved?. The page will be much the cleaner for it. --Jrshaw 05:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As for most relatively new or recently reordered lists, red links attract attention to work to be done. Such links usually mean that the contributer may intend to work on it, or feels someone should create an article about it; I would leave them in for a while. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-15 06:07 (UTC)

[edit] New York City or Chicago — which is the heaviest?

The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Carillon is the heaviest carillon and its bourdon alone weighs over 18 tonnes. But where can it be found?

I was editing the article on New York City, adding the data found on the GCNA website that is rather the most comprehensive authorative source on carillons especially for North American carillons, and I phrased it like this:

Then I stumbled on the website of the Chicago University... on The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Carillon stating "The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Carillon, given to the University of Chicago by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., in memory of his mother, was dedicated on Thanksgiving Day, 1932. It is the largest single installation of a carillon ever achieved, and remains the second largest carillon in the world. Cast in Croydon, England, this carillon is considered to be the masterpiece of the foundry of Gillett & Johnston. (...) The Rockefeller Carillon, with its 18 1/2-ton bourdon, or bass bell, is the second largest carillon in the world. It consists of 72 bells with a compass of six octaves, starting on the C# two octaves below middle C. The total weight of the bronze in the instrument is over 100 tons, including about 78 tons of copper and 22 tons of tin." Fortunately, this article explains the mystery: "The Chicago carillon is 'only' the second-largest carillon, but it is nevertheless the single largest carillon installation ever achieved. A larger instrument is in the tower of The Riverside Church in New York City. Donated by John D. Rockefeller, it also bears the name of Laura Spelman Rockefeller. It, too, was cast in large part by the Gillett and Johnston firm, a year before the completion of the Chicago instrument, and contains two bells more - one larger bourdon and one smaller bell - than its counterpart. However, the New York instrument reached its current senior status as a result of several growth spurts, incorporating the bells of two separate foundries."

I added a 'not to be confounded' note and the specific GCNA references for New York City and for Chicago, and reedited the latter's entry:

Both the local pages are slightly contradicted by the GCNA, which I assume to be most carefully updated, thus – atypically – I added the link to their technical datasheet. All this just in case someone else might wonder too. — SomeHuman 2006-08-09 22:12 (UTC)