Church bells were used to mark time, and announce major events like the death of the king and probably a few others. Those are information content - but of course very limited. The bells weren't for entertainment (although I enjoy hearing those massive gongs, and church bells often appear in recorded music).
It's a bit hard for me to imagine drums working in medieval Europe. I don't think they would propagate as well as the sound of church bells. Heck, I could identify church bells from miles away, nothing else carries like that. Outdoor concerts don't seem to carry far at all, for example.
>I don't think they would propagate as well as the sound of church bells. Heck, I could identify church bells from miles away, nothing else carries like that.
As with most discussions, the nuance matters. Anecdotal evidence is trumped by science.
Drums tend to have lower frequencies than church bells. All else equal, lower frequencies generally travel farther because they have longer wavelengths (less diffraction means they can go around objects better), less attenuation, and less absorption.
As an example of the application of low frequency long distance communication in nature, elephants use sub-sonic (to humans) frequencies to communicate many kilometers away.
That's true! The king's death is a message!
Generally lower frequency sounds are less attenuated by air, and they diffract better around obstacles, and drums are better at producing low-frequency sounds. So I'd think that drums would carry better than bells over many kilometers.