Malcolm Farr

Hi all, How about this "little" instrument - It's just a little of the beaten track, being in the Land Down Under; it's kinda sorta Anglophone, if you can understand Orshtrayun; and it was built just a few years before 1985 - The Grand Organ of Sydney Town Hall, William Hill & Son 1890, 5 manuals + pedal, 126 stops.

Thank you, Colin - I don't know the St Mary's, Southampton instrument at all, so was quite unaware of the disposition of its Great Organ. In a rather loose way, I suppose that one could say that Willis III's diapasons and reeds only Great Organ "tonal ideal" is fulfilled in the Great 1st Division at Westminster Cathedral. But of course the full resources of the Great include the Flutes at 16'. 8' and 4' on the 2nd Division; and in any case, wasn't it the Harrison firm rather than Willis which divided the Great there? Rgds, MJF

Very well done, Contrebombarde! If one can't have a pipe organ, then go for the ant's pants, the bee's knees of virtuals... Since it's beyond the bounds of this discussion board, may I send you a PM about your installation? Kind regards, MJF

Hi all, I have a friend who has transferred some music to tablet, and on trying it I found it quite difficult, most particularly as the size of the device was rather smaller than the printed page and thus not friendly to my aging eyes, and, as Choir_Man notes, light conditions change between venues such that paper seems to have an advantage. (I used it in two churches with quite different conditions.) Innate also notes problems in switching between portrait and landscape. Copyright is of course a real issue - and, I think, the biggest one. I suppose the ideal would be a non-reflective display of about the same size as a "standard" music page - rather larger than A4, although I don't know the slightest thing about page sizes - which is designed to be set up both upright and lengthways, depending upon the music. "Page turning" would be by touch, far easier than turning the real thing. Contrebombarde's system sounds like a brilliant answer to (many., at least) of the issues involved, but of course isn't adaptable in so many situations. However, something like this overall, commercially available in a form with particular standards that music publishers will agree to use - ie, selling their product either in old-fashioned print form, or alternatively in a form which can be readily downloaded onto such a device - would be the ants-pants. That's the big question, isn't it - getting music publishers involved, so that music currently under copyright is released and available in the appropriate format. If publishers were to take this on board, and also other parts of the music performance "industry" were to take it up - have any orchestras moved to electronic scores in any contexts? - then then it might be a real goer. Rgds MJF

And just as there are organs where the Harmonic Flutes do blend, I've also come across a couple where draw stops labelled "Stopped Diapason" sounded much more what I would expect from Lieblich Gedackts. Nice enough stops in their own right, but not a solid basis for any chorus. I don't know if this is just mis-labelling, or if they were totally a different conception of what a Stopped Diapason should be. Cheers mjfarr3006

Thanks, AJJ - that's a really interesting article by Stephen Bicknell, and explains a fair bit. I'll just have to digest it in terms of what I was hearing on my acquaintance's H******** set-up. And Innate - yes, that makes a lot of sense in hindsight, doesn't it? I mean, why else would they both have been called Diapasons?... Cheers mjfarr3006

Hi All, I have been wondering about something I read recently about drawing diapasons and flutes together, and hope that someone may be able to provide an explanation. Going through some ancient things in The Musical Times, I came across a letter to the editor in vol. 77 no. 1120 (June 1936), written by Henry Willis III in which he stated as follows at p. 543: "It can be laid down in the most definite manner that Harmonic Flutes do not blend with Diapasons, that any open flutes are undesirable, but that correctly voiced Stopped Flutes are capable of successful combination. Why? The reason is simple. Open flutes have various upper partials present in varied order of prominence: many, when developed in a flute, are inimical to those of a Diapason, With a Stopped Flute the odd numbered partials only are present, and the blending power is correct." (Emphasis original.) Now, the only Willis instrument of any size that I've ever had any opportunity to play had both a Claribel Flute 8' and Harmonic Flute 4' on the Great Organ, and I recall that the lack of blend was particularly noticeable if the Harmonic Flute were drawn. So HWIII certainly seems to have been spot-on in relation to his own firm's instruments. On the other hand, not too long ago I had the opportunity to have a go on an acquaintance's H******** installation - surely I dare not even name the digital beast on a forum devoted to the pipe organ! - but it did at least provide something of a context to HWIII's comments insofar that it included a virtual reproduction of a French romantic instrument which has, on the Grand-Orgue, jeux de fond comprising a Bourdon 16', Montre 8', Flûte Harmonique 8', Bourdon 8', Gambe 8' and Prestant 4'; the Récit Expressif included a Diapason 8 as well as a family of Flûtes Harmoniques at 8', 4' and 2'. To my ears, virtually any combination of these seemed to blend well. Now, I realize that a French Montre is not an English Diapason, but it does cause me to wonder if the blend, or lack thereof, is strictly a matter of upper partials, or if there is in fact more to the question. Any comments? By the way, in the same letter HWIII went on to state: "Myself, I regard the presence of flutes on the Great Organ of a three-manual instrument with any pretence to an adequate scheme as out of place: on the Swell, Choir, and Solo, yes; on the Great, no. The Great Chorus should be a pure Diapason structure, capped, if the size of the instrument permits, by the Chorus Reed or reeds." As I say, I have only limited direct experience of Willis instruments, but I have never come across one in all my recordings or in reading about them which had a Great Organ consisting solely of diapasons and reeds. Hmmm... Kind regards, mjfarr3006

Hi all, Does anyone know if there are any voluntaries on Saint Patrick's Breastplate other than Stanford's Sonata Celtica, 3rd Mvt. and the Prelude by Richard Peek? Rgds, MJF

Oh dear, no more disparagement of the organist's daughter... and no more limericks after this one. (I can't help myself, really...) It seems I've been terribly rude To the daughter of old Buxtehude. My apology's given. May I come come back if'n I show a more kind attitude? Rgds MJF

How about: A very plain maid once was tied To her father's post, as the bride Of him who'd succeed The old chap -- oh, indeed It explains why he never retired! Rgds (skulking away with tail between legs), MJF

Hi AJJ, I don't have an answer to this, but I did note something in the Brompton Oratory entry in NPOR which may (or may not?) be relevant. After mentioning the ordinary pistons below the specification proper, the entry says, "plus 'advance' and 'retreat' pistons". I've never seen anything referred to as 'advance' or 'retreat' pistons before; what are they? Are they Walker specials? Rgds, MJF

Oops! There's a good start - I thought I was in General Discussion rather than The Organ and Its Music. Dear Mander moderator - is there any way of moving the thread to the General Discussion forum? Rgds, MJF

Hi all, Given the ever-growing Youtube thread, I wondered if we might have a parallel one for Soundcloud (albeit that I've not long discovered it, so I don't know yet how much organ music is there). To start (assuming there is an interest in continuing), here's a link to Jonathan Hope playing Joseph Bonnet's Op. 10 No. 1, "In Memoriam Titanic", at Southwark Cathedral: https://soundcloud.com/jonathan-hope/joseph-bonnet-1884-1944-in Great performance, wonderful organ, very atmospheric piece. Kind regards, MJF

Hi all, On a recent trip to Sydney, three organs came to my attention, and their respective circumstances got me thinking, or at least questioning. The 1st was a middling 2-manual instrument in a largish church with capacity for some few 100s of people. I went to the 10am service with my brother-in-law and his wife, and was rather dismayed that the total attendance was only about 40 people, quite a number of whom were clearly well past retirement age. My brother-in-law conceded sadly that it may not be too long before his parish is merged with a more vibrant one in a neighbouring suburb. And then the church lands will be sold off, and, if they're lucky, they'll find a buyer for the organ. The 2nd was a parish which has imported a redundant organ from England, and it is now in pride of place, somewhat re-voiced to suit its new acoustic environment, but otherwise not significantly altered. The 3rd was an instrument cobbled together from the pipework of two (or more?) redundant organs, which had been cannibalised after no-one would take them as they were. Although the various churches where I am located seem to be holding their own, and some are even steadily growing, it's a sad fact that, generally, many are closing; and where these have organs, the latter might be bought as-is if they are lucky, used for assorted pipework if they are less fortunate, or left for scrap if they have no luck at all. But how about when they are acquired by buyers who see them, not just for what they are, but for what they might be? And what if they were, at least in their original homes, of some merit? At what point would we like to blow our whistles, and call a foul? I tried to think of an example nearer to home for most forum members, and the only one which came to mind (prompted, I admit, by my old travel diaries) was an instrument I heard many years ago, and thought was quite grand - the instrument, originally in Park Hall in Cardiff, and now at St Aidan's, Sudden, Lancashire. I would like to stress at this point that I have no designs on this instrument, nor have I heard anything whatsoever to suggest that the parish of St Aidan is in any danger of closing. I use it purely as a hypothetical case, because the instrument was one which I thought rather good when I heard it when travelling in the UK many years ago, and I thought of it simply as one which might fit the bill for this scenario. From NPOR, the organ of St Aidan's was originally built by Father Willis in 1884, and was later modernised by Willis III. It was moved from Wales to Sudden in 1952. It has 3 manuals and pedals, and the Great is complete from Double Open Diapason to 3-rank tierce mixture plus reeds at 16', 8' and 4', while the Swell is no less lavishly equipped. However, the Pedal contains only 4 independent ranks (Open Bass, Violone and Bourdon at 16' and 8', and Trombone at 16'), while the Choir is, dare I say it, typically an uneasy cross between a quiet accompanimental division and a low pressure solo division. Yet I could imagine a sufficiently well-heeled purchaser who, seeing the instrument as a "new creation" when put into its new surroundings, might be quite content with the Great and Swell as they are, but would want to add to the Pedal, and, more drastically, to re-vamp the Choir as a Solo, perhaps inserting a Tromba on a higher pressure for solo lines and "big moments", and adding a new Choir with a sprightly little chorus of its own. I don't know what the "rules" are in the UK about this kind of situation, but I wonder if it might cause a deal of argument. So ... is a purchase of a redundant, but quite grand instrument, made simply to use it as the basis for something (supposedly) even grander, fair or not? (As you can probably guess from the above, I tend to think that an instrument of "intrinsic merit" shouldn't be altered too radically during its "original" lifetime. To the question whether an instrument - even one that is quite beautifully built and voiced, but which is less rather than adequate for its venue and purpose - falls in this category, I should probably say "no". Still, any judgment must necessarily be subjective, and should I think be derived from consensus. But where it becomes redundant and is moved elsewhere, I suspect my political correctness diminishes.) Rgds, MJF

Re-reading Henry Willis' comment above, he says that "Mr Willis used to go a step further ... and make the removable side from perspex or framed glass (as at Hereford)". I assumed that the reference to "Mr Willis" was to Willis III because it was he, as I understand it, who added the 32' reed to the Hereford organ; and perspex was introduced in the '20s, I think. So was I correct in taking the reference to "Mr Willis" as one to Willis III, rather than to Father Willis (which would have taken us back to the period I was musing about)? Rgds, MJF