On the last occasion on which the subject of Spanish music was discussed at a meeting of this Association, we were able to listen to the finished product—a product “finished” in every sense of the word, for, as members will recollect, the illustrations, consisting of a number of Spanish madrigals, were beautifully performed by the English Singers. This time, I should like to begin at the other end, as it were—with the remains of early Spanish music as they confront the researcher, and the traveller. For the researcher is not confined to musical MSS. or to the statements of the theorists. Sculpture, ivories, miniatures and contemporary descriptions in prose or verse, often throw more light on the conditions of performance and the character of the music itself, than the actual MS. with the musical notation (supposing it to exist and to be intelligible), and they are certainly more illuminating than the treatises on musical theory.

Some three years ago I had the privilege of addressing the members of this Association on the subject of “Bells and Bell Tones.” On that occasion I dealt with the bell as a musical instrument, and the paper I am about to read on Carillons is nothing more or less than a further instalment of information respecting bells on the same lines. Those of you who are conversant with that lecture will the more readily understand some of the remarks I shall make with reference to the requisite conditions necessary to produce good tone and tune in bells. On this occasion my statements concerning some of their most important characteristics must of necessity be very brief. Any who so desire can find a fuller treatment of these characteristics in the lecture I have mentioned.

The well-known Treatise on Harmony, by Alfred Day, M.D., has already been prominently brought under the notice of this Association at least three times :—first, by Mr. Charles E. Stephens, in his paper entitled, “The Fallacies of Dr. Day's Theory of Harmony, with a brief outline of the Elements of a New System,” read during our First Session, 1875; secondly, by Mr. Gerard F. Cobb, M.A., whose paper on “Certain Principles of Musical Exposition, considered educationally, and with special reference to current systems of Musical Theory,” occupied our attention for two consecutive meetings of the Tenth Session, 1883–4; and lastly by Mr. Ebenezer Prout, B.A., whose paper on “Some suggested Modifications of Day's Theory of Harmony,” read as recently as the fifth meeting of the present (Fourteenth) Session, must be still fresh in our minds.

The term “Musical Exposition” may be taken to include all the various means adopted for representing to others the work of the musical brain, such as (1) The notation employed for representing it to the eye, and thus stereotyping it for common use; (2) The vocal or instrumental processes by which it is reproduced to the public ear, and eventually made to assume in the brain of the listener the shape in which it originally presented itself to the internal ear or musical imagination of the composer; and (3) The methods by which the arrangement and assortment of sounds which we call music—that manipulation, so to speak, of the elementary material at command which constitutes composition—is explained, justified, and taught to those who wish to learn it.

Mr. Stephens.—Before the paper is read, I wish to make a few observations on the discussion which ensued on the very interesting paper which was read at the last meeting, On that occasion Mr. Whomes challenged the audience, and I accepted the challenge, to name the key of every piece that he played, the pianoforte being concealed from us. I put down on paper, and read afterwards, the key of every piece which he played, as they appeared to me at least, and the Chairman, who had sat at the pianoforte, came afterwards to the table and read out the key in which he had seen Mr. Whomes play. In every case the key in which Mr. Whomes had played on the pianoforte was a semitone higher than the one I had named. Now I am very anxious that any impression should be removed that I had been guilty of a failure on that occasion. It was simply that Mr. Whomes had, for the special purpose of his lecture, caused the pianoforte to be tuned a semitone lower; consequently, I was right in every instance, and Mr. Whomes has kindly come here on this occasion to corroborate what I say, and acknowledge that, for the purpose of his lecture, he was obliged to practise what, applied to my own particular case, would appear a deception, and he will acknowledge, I believe, that I was right in every instance as regards the true pitch, and when a selection from a Concerto of Beethoven in C minor was played, I said, not in C minor, but in B minor, and so it proved. After several of the audience were gone away, we compared the pianoforte with another one in the room, and found it was exactly what I have said, half a tone below pitch; therefore, whatever the position may be with regard to tone colourists, I wish to claim that I was in every instance correct in my judgment as to the key which was played.

It is unnecessary perhaps at the outset to dwell on the nature of tone quality or timbre. Most musicians nowadays are aware that this elusive characteristic has given up its secret and that what the scientist calls the ‘note’ of a musical instrument can be split up into a number of simple ‘tones’ and that it is the relative number and magnitude of these components that determines timbre; tells us, for example, why a violin and a clarinet or even two violins do not when played severally sound the same when producing a note at the same fundamental pitch. In many cases these component tones are members of the harmonic series, i.e., their frequencies bear simple ratios to the fundamental or component of lowest pitch, but again often other tones—not harmonics—intrude, whose origin is to be traced to the vibrations of the invariant parts of the instrument such as the belly of the violin or the metal tube of the trumpet and which do not alter much when the player passes from one note to another. By means of the apparatus I am about to describe this characteristic ‘formant’ of an instrument can be delineated after precise analysis of the tone quality over the whole range of performance of the instrument. A knowledge of this factor is most important to the instrument maker. By persistent analysis of this type one can, for instance, reduce the difference between a Stradivarius and a Heath Robinson—pardon the mark!—to scientific terminology and then with the co-operation of the maker take steps to improve on a specimen of poor quality, checking the extent of one's improvements as one progresses. Work of this nature on stringed instruments has been carried out by Backhaus in Germany and Saunders in the United States. At Newcastle we have been mainly concerned with organ pipes and hope to deal with the wood-wind next.