John Maslen

Yes, I think they do. But in this Diocese (Bristol) responsibility for budgets etc. is being passed over to the Area Deans, and most of this character's comments regarding The Dean are about money. Good programme, though. Enjoying it immensely. Regards to all John

A great man of the church of my aquaintance died a few years ago of a brain tumour. He knew his end was near and planned his own funeral. When on a visit to Bristol Cathedral he heard a piece of which he was particularly fond, turned to his wife and said 'That's what I want played as my coffin leaves church'. The piece in question? The Tocatta from the Gothic Suite, which I was privileged to play for him. A fitting Finale for a lovely man who I miss still. Regards to all John.

Sorry - pressed the wrong button and posted twice. John

Seriously, if these pipes are mid 19th century, there is a risk that the paint or whatever it is is lead based. Whatever you do, don't sand it without taking strict precautions to prevent breathing the dust in - far more serious than penetrating two layers of clothing! Regards to all John

You are right, of course. I was, though, thinking about orchestration rather than solo instruments, and I would still say that the sound of one group of strings is much like another - not identical, but similar. So is the sound of a group of brass, woodwind and so on similar. I should also point out that recordings do not always reveal the exact tone of the original sound; microphones pick up all sorts of sounds that our ears may not hear (try listening to a recording of someones voice that you know well), and the accoustics of the rooms used will almost certainly be different - all making accurate comparisons difficult. If, though, one were to take a group of stops on, say, the RFH Organ and that in the RAH with identical names, (Open Diapason, Principal, Fifteenth and Mixture say) the sound produced would be quite different; a far greater difference than that between different orchestras or string soloists. That is the point I was, rather clumsily I admit, trying to make. And that makes orchestration rather easier than indicating precise registration on an Organ. Not to mention that any stop requested may well not exist on the instrument I am playing - in fact, in many cases even the pitch required, especially mutations, could quite easily not exist on a given instrument. And if it does, there is no guarantee that there will be a suitable accompaniment for a solo, far example. So if one wishes to play the music, one has to find a combination of stops, or a single stop, that sounds well, and use that. Historically accurate? Possibly. Not in exact registration, perhaps, but in spirit. I cannot believe that any composer for our instrument always used the same registration, especially when playing on an Organ which was not his usual haunt. His aim may have been for a particular type of sound, but such is the nature of the beast that he always would have had to accept the nearest approximation he could find to what he was used to. And in so doing, possibly reveal something about his music, and maybe even himself, that his 'home' Organ may not have done - who knows? Regards to all John.

Grumpy old man hat on - yes, sing something else!! John

Maybe describing academia as fascist is putting it a bit strong. I am sure that academics have much to teach us, and it is those who latch on to part of what they say that cause much of the trouble. Many medical 'breakthroughs' trumpeted in the press are no such thing, and disappear without trace. (no, I can't quote a specific example, but I have a newspaper cutting somewhere detailing several such). With regard to music, though, I think we have much to be grateful for. I for one prefer, after the initial shock had died down, 'Messiah' played by small forces at a brisk pace, rather than the rather overblown performances of Sargent etc. I do feel, though, that the desire to copy old instruments, or at least take what we assume to be how they may have sounded, and ccopy that, to be mistaken. The greatest music sounds well wherever it is played, and on whatever instrument, provided a competent player has got the measure of both musiic and instrument. A performer worth his salt will recognise that some pieces, for whatever reason, just don't work on some Organs, and play something else. As to comparisons between Organ registration and orchestration, a violin sounds very much like another violin. Two different builders of equal merit may well produce stops with the same name, but the sound is totally different. Suggestions are the most we can hope for, I think. Regards to all. John.

I may be an old cynic, but I would have thought that maybe genius is necessarily not fashionable? Regards to all John

Agreed, though I didn't enjoy the last hymn much. John

Peter, I have said that I won't comment any more on matters theological, but I'm afraid I must. Tony refers to John ch. 1. It reads In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. .... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. ... The nature of the Holy Trinity must always remain a mystery; it cannot be adequately expressed in human language. But I have always understood that 'Three in One and one in Three' summarises the doctrine. I, though, am not a theologian, and am happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood. Regards to all John

And from me - have a wonderful Christmas day, a prosperous New Year, and many thanks to you all for many happy hours spent perusing your contributions to this forum, and to JPM for allowing us the privilege of meeting and debating in this way. Regards to all John

I think it likely that at least some Organ builders would prefer to move a good but buried instrument rather than 're-balance' an otherwise satisfactory tonal scheme, but are prevented from doing so by lack of a suitable alternative site, or lack of funds, or both. It's unfortunately much cheaper to 'tweak' the voicing than move the thing lock, stock and barrel. Regards to all John

May I offer my apologies if I have caused offence to my any of my Catholic Brothers or Sisters in Christ - I had no intention of doing so, and had I spent a few moments considering my post I would perhaps have been more careful in the wording. I'm sorry to say my Protestant sensibilities got the better of my manners. I am, of course, aware that the poem is an ancient one, and that it reflects the theology of the age in which it was written. And I think that the setting in Carols for Choirs is beautiful; sung it many years ago at school, and words aside, I love it. You must forgive me, though, for sticking to my guns regarding the link between 'the Fall' and the elevation of the BVM to Queen of heaven. I don't see how it could be clearer. 'Ne had the apple taken been ... then would never our Lady have been heavenly queen ... blessed be the time that apple taken was ...' I will now retire to my study, stop pontificating, and try to refrain from further comments on theological matters. Regards to all John

Probably the best answer is to rhyme it with 'mind' and 'find', although, it sounds odd. As a matter of interest, does anyone know if 'wind' has been pronounced to rhyme with 'mind' and 'find' in any British dialect in times past? Regarding the theme of carols that irritate, I find the words of 'Adam lay ybounden' quite offensive. That anyone should think that the woes and miseries of the world for thousands of years can be justified by Mary being Queen of Heaven (if indeed there is any such title - it's not in my Bible!) is quite extraordinary. Regards to all John

I've just listened to the repeat, and yes, he did play it at quite a lick. But let's face it, this isn't JSB's finest piece, but played at a fairly fast pace it is entertaining. Why not? I thoroughly enjoyed it. 'Performers trying to play faster than the organ can speak evidently isn't a new phenomenon. Nor presumably is the difference of opinion on how fast pieces ought to go. ' (Nick Bennet's post) I think there are bound to be differences of opinion regarding the speed to play a piece, although most pieces seem to have a 'natural' speed adopted by most players that suits to piece, and which is varied slightly from player to player, but only slightly. I can't explain it, it is just the speed that sounds right. There are, though, practical matters for musicians; the speed the instrument responds, or pipes speak, for one, acoustics for another - there is little point playing so fast that echoes swamp everything - and the ability of the player to clearly convey the spirit and rhythm of a piece. Classic FM often play a performance of the famous Litolf (spelling?) 'Scherzo' which is so fast that the 'twiddles' in the music are, to my ears at least, not played within the beat, but slightly after it. Totally unnecessary. Again, it isn't music's finest hour, but there is no need for such a rush. The older Moura Lympany performance is more gracefully done, and everything is in its place; to me, much to be prefered. Regards to all John

I think you've answered your own question. I'm sure you wouldn't use a Harrison Open 1 in Baroque music, because it would sound completely out of place; in other words, you know the sound it makes and have rejected it for that purpose. As with all things musical, the answer is to listen and use what sounds right. It may not be according to someone's pet theory, and your decision may not be the same as mine, but there is no other way of deciding which stops to use with which in given circumstances - as you suggest, it isn't an exact science. And that, to my mind, is half the joy of music; in the final analysis your ideas may be different to mine, but so long as the result is musical, there is, or should be, room for both. Regards to all John

As I understand it, and I am more than willing to be corrected if others know better than I do, to state that a chorus is 'based on' a particular stop means that the chorus on that manual is understood to use the stop in question as the 8' rank supporting the upperwork, 4' and above. On a typical British Organ of the 19th century, it would normally be the Open 8' (or one of them on Great Organs, which one depending on the tonal ideas of the builder), but in late 20th century instruments built on neo-classical lines it may be a Stopped Diapason or some other 8' flute of suitable design. Hope this helps. Regards to all John

I recall a service sheet we were presented many years ago that included an item entitled 'The Lord sprayer' Regards to all John

I'm quite sure that's why, although whether or not it was the result of a fire I don't know. Regards to all John

Reading the sad tale of a fire damaged Organ reminds me that on Wurlitzer theatre Organs the Swell boxes always close when the instrument is off because of fire regulations. I wonder if the reported behaviour of the Compton is based on the same idea; they built quit e few theatre and cinema Organs in the early days. Regards to all John

It all depends. If your instrument is mechanical action, leaving them drawn 'on' will in theory allow some air to circulate in the windchests, but I doubt that the effect will be very great. After all, the only opening for the air to pass through to penetrate the windchests is the gap between the lower lip of the pipe mouth and the languid - hardly a wind tunnel. If the action is not mechanical, everything will be off whatever the position of the stop controls. Ciphers such as you describe are caused by dirt on the pallet, and to be frank I would think that leaving the stops 'off' would make it less likely to cause one, not more so. I suspect this was just a coincidence. Leaving the Swell box open is usually advised as it allows the internal temperature of the box to be the same as the unenclosed sections, avoiding tuning problems. The main reason for leaving all stops 'off' is to avoid embarassment when switching on, just in case something is touching the keys ... Regards to all John

Very possibly. If so, though, I can't see the difference between this and the 'old fashioned' anthem which the congregation can't join in either! The starting point for my post was the question of participation. 'Music group' worship is lauded in some quarters as the answer to the church's musical and attendance problems, because the style of 'music' (in case you hadn't guessed, I don't enjoy it much) is familiar to those the church wishes to attract. My point is that the 'attractive' style of music so easily becomes a different kind of tyranny, still leaving the congregation unable to join in as originally intended. Perhaps it's inevitable, perhaps expertise always has this result - I don't know. But it happens. Regards to all John

Let me first say that I firmly believe that Choral Evensong is the crowning glory of C of E liturgy, and done well, is a joy and delight to me, and many other like me. Ian Bell may well be right, but I'm sorry to say that the service he espouses from the Iona community lack substance to my eyes and ears, as well as supporting a very 'green' theology which I find disturbing - green issues matter, but that is not what the Christian faith is about. But that is not why I write. I believe there are, broadly speaking, three types of musical establishment in C of E churches. Firstly, those with either the tradition, or the enthusiasm and therefore the money, of a highly skilled DOM, with ability to recruit and train a first class choir to sing, basically, Evensong. Such churches would include Cathedrals, Collegiate chapels and some of our great parish churches. The Eucharist is usually sung also, but Evensong is what it is all about. Secondly, there are those churches who have the services of a skilled musician who can play the Organ, and train a choir, but not to the same standards, nor for performance as often, as those in the first group. Not because he/she is in anyway inadequate, but there just aren't the numbers to sing in his/her choir, nor are they as skilled or experienced, to maintain a greater involvement. Such churches may enjoy an anthem once a month, perhaps, as well as an SATB choir (most of the time, holidays, sickness and family duties allowing) to lead the singing of hymns, and we hope, psalms, but circumstances just don't allow more. Thirdly, there are those churches that have the services of an amateur, of limited ability and available time, who can accompany the service, usually only Holy Communion on Sunday morning - there is no call for or support for Evensong in the sense we are discussing, nor further sung services. The congregation is of limited numbers, so that if there were a choir there would be few left to hear them, and so there is also the limitation on the amount the church can spend on music. Some - a distressingly great number in my opinion - will have abandoned any pretence of maintaining a decent standard of music, not using the Organ which will have been replaced with the dreaded music group, microphones, amplifiers and the rest. Music, if that is the word I'm looking for, will largely consist of the turgid drivel that requires repetition at least five time or it finishes before it has started. The first group of churches will attract two types of congregation member. There are those who genuinely experience worship done by someone else. They are, in a sense, transported to another place by the music, where they worship God silently. The other type are those who enjoy the music, rather as one might enjoy a concert, but without necessarily being involved in worship at any meaningful level. There is, of course, a degree of blurring across these lines, and I am aware that my descriptions are open to accusations of charicature. I think you know what I mean, though. I hope so. The second group will attract a congregation that will proudly proclaim that 'they have a good choir', but wouldn't dream of joining it, and sometimes complain about the repertoire and the cost. They expect to join in everything except the anthem when they have one, and appreciate the occasional descant, but music is not the most important thing in the church, and worship is a matter of participation, not listening. They would be saddened to lose their choir, but don't want it to take over. The third group includes, I suspect, the vast majority of churches across the land today. Either through inclination, caused in part perhaps by a poor musical background, or the attitude of successive ministers hostile to, or at least not especially sympathetic to, the sort of music that members of this board would call church music - 'It's all very well, but it doesn't appeal to the man and woman in the pew. We need something that they recognise as music' (ie, the dreaded music group, as lamented above).' - they have little desire for or appreciation of decent church music. They do love their hymns, though, and some worship songs as well, and enjoy singing them. With regard to the question posed by MSW, the answer may lay in the question '... if desired'. Many of those attending 'Group one' churches may well not welcome attempts to be more involved; that isn't why they are there. And if the church is the custodian of a high quality musical establishment including a highly competent DOM and choir, these latter may well have their noses put out of joint as well. Care is needed, or the worst of all possible outcomes may result. 'Group two' churches are already involving the congregation, who would resist any attempt to dilute their contribution; their problem is if the choir wanted to do a monthly choral service with minimum congregational input. 'Group three' churches have no problems with involvement if they are using the Organ (or piano or any other single instrument come to that) but without a choir. There is no choral involvement to dilute after all. If though, they are using a music group, they may have unwittingly opened the door to a different kind of musical expertise which may well restrict the very congregational involvement it was intended to encourage. I have attended some such services, and setting aside for a moment the often pathetic level of inspiration of what they are singing (if bellowing into a microphone is singing), the music group often dominate to the extent that there is little point joining in, as the volume is often turned up so high I can't hear if I'm singing or not! Also many of the songs use complex rhythms which the man in the pew can't sing easily - at least, I can't. After all, as far as involvement is concerned, does it matter if the congregation can't sing the psalms or canticles with a highly skilled choir, or they can't sing some rhythmically complex 'worship song' while being deafened by an over enthusiastic sound engineer, the result is the same. The 'experts' have taken over, and congregational input minimised. Whether or not that matters is a matter of church tradition and personal preference, but, of course, this is where we came in. Regards to all John