bazuin

"This is no doubt a personal view to which you are entitled. However, I do not regard my opinion as regarding this instrument to be naïve. For the record, I do not believe that I stated that this organ was 'among the best organ building in Europe from that period'" nor did I suggest that you did. My point was simply that you can't judge the organ without placing it in a wider context than the organ culture of the UK. "Ralph Downes, when giving his reasons for choosing the same firm to build the organ of the Royal Festival Hall stated '... not that I liked their recently built organs - I did not ... But I had managed to get inside one of their larger organs, and observed their execution of trivial details (which nobody but the tuner would ever see) in a manner which plainly spelt Perfectionism, no less: that was all the evidence I needed, and later events proved me right; everything in the new organ was an exemplary model of proud craftsmanship - soundboard construction, cabinet-work, electro-pneumatics, pipe-making; no detail was skimped anywhere.'" The reputation of the firm was still based on their pre-war work, and especially the voicing of Arthur Harrison. I think even in 1962 (when Coventy was built) the organ at RFH was considered a curiosity. Which, if one considers the broader development of the reform movement even in 1954 it was, although of course no-one in Britain saw it in those terms. I haven't read Baroque Tricks for a while, but if one considers the technical standard of organ building in the UK at the time, quite apart from the artistic vision, (which was well behind the rest of Europe even by then), Downes's comment is understandable. "I know nothing of this instrument, so I shall refrain from offering an opinion. However, I do know that, given the choice between having to accompany a the music of the Anglican Church on either the Metzler organ in Trinity College Chapel, Cambridge or the 'Harrison' organ of Coventry Cathedral, I would choose the latter without a moment's thought." Please don't equate the modernist Geneva Metzler with the more austere, Edskes-voiced (I think?) instrument at Cambridge. They had come a long way in the interim, (the first serious influence of historical organs began to play a role). The Cambridge organ accompanies wonderfully incidentally, the accent is simply more on the quality of individual sounds than on kalaidoscopic affects. "In fact, the mixtures complete the choruses effectively - anything lower-pitched would be dull and somewhat lost in this resonant acoustic. " So in resonant acoustics, only high mixtures will do? The issue is more complicated than that, come to the Netherlands and you'll hear things which would surprise you. The presence of the high mixtures in Coventry is related to the idealism of the time, more than the acoustics of the church, although I'm sure you're right, they undoubtedly work well in the room. "Tha perceived lack of functioning organ cases perhaps betrays a mis-understanding of the nature of this organ and the building in which it stands." The organ façade is architect designed, I think the nature and form of the organ was probably dictated more by this fact than anything else. "Arguably, too much has been made of organ cases in some respects." Now that's controversial. "In fact the organ of Gloucester Cathedral sounds better now that some of the roof panels have been removed." But, unless I'm mistaken, the roof panels were only added in 1971! "Mechanical action - I am unsure whether you mean to imply that the organ of Coventry Cathedral should have mechanical action or not." Let's say it like this. The fact is that the organ reform movement in 1962 had reached a point where virtually any modern organ of note was built with mechanical action EXCEPT in England, and to some extent in the USA. Every organ which we consider the definitive examples of the first generation of the reform movement had mechanical action, except those in England. Not for nothing are the organs of Coventry, Liverpool RC, Blackburn, etc etc all but unknown in mainland Europe, while the Marcussen in Utrecht, the Metzlers in Geneva and Zurich, the Flentrop at Harvard, even the Beckerath in Montreal etc enjoy international reputations to this day. "However, I cannot see any advantage whatsoever of rebuilding completely this instrument with such a means of control." That would be bizarre! The fact of its having electro-pneumatic action is a part of its concept. As I said before the organ is a child of its time which should be preserved jealously. "I am somewhat unimpressed by the new mechanical action of the organ at Bath Abbey." Its builders are not noted for their wonderful actions! Don't they even still use electric couplers? The mechanical action console at Christchurch Priory sits folornly upstairs gathering dust This has a lot to do with the attitudes of the organist I think! The only mechanical actions I have played on by a contemporary British builder which match the quality (in terms of real control over the pipe speech) of the real premier league builders in Europe (of whom we have several in the Netherlands) are those of William Drake. I should add that I haven't played on a modern organ by the hosts of this forum. "Whilst mechanical action may be advantageous in a moderate two- or three-clavier instrument, I remain unconvinced of its supposed merits for anything larger - pace Bridgewater Hall." I am struck by the fact that you can only relate experiences of playing organs in the UK! Please remember that the majority of imported organs in the UK were sent there by builders who had built reputations during the first wave of the organ reform and were already struggling artistically to develop by the time the UK took interest. Back to Coventry. I've no doubt its a good organ, even Stephen Bicknell described it as "Cuthbert Harrison's masterpiece". But to wax lyrical without placing it in the MUCH wider context of the organ building of the time, and everything that's happened since is, in my opinion, misleading. greetings Bazuin

"Oh dear, this sounds too depressing: time to resort to YouTube to listen to St Sulpice or Notre Dame al la Pierre Cochereau or St Ouen, anything but the inevitability of listening to yet another perfectly competent, very well constructed, and thoroughly dull English organ." I agree, one should never judge an organ by its specification. However, I have the feeling that too many new and rebuilt organs in the UK are conceived entirely as stoplists, seldom as coherent concepts. Without questioning the quality of St Ouen, (one of the 7 organ wonders of the world?!) or Sulpice, we must consider quality independently of style. The best English victorian organ building was as good as anything (perhaps bar Cavaillé-Coll) built in Europe. Since the war, and certainly not at Coventry, whatever its merits, that artistic level has never been reached. (With the possible exception of the larger New York instrument built by our hosts). "No - having given recitals on the organ of Coventry Cathedral - and accompanied the music of the Anglican liturgy, I can state that this organ is both superb and, in effect, timeless." I haven't been to Coventry, I only know it from recordings. The idea of its being timeless is in a sense true, it should be preserved as a child of its time. To count it among the best organ building in Europe from that period is naive, whatever its qualities (which I don't doubt). This is the same period as the Metzler at Geneva Cathedral for instance, an organ in a different league if we're being objective. " I would suggest that the Coventry organ is no mere progeny from a diluted or mis-understood ideal of the organ reform movement." To an extent of course it is precisely that. This is unavoidable, virtually every large eclectic organ built in the UK at that time was. On the one hand the high mixtures, fractional length reeds, mutations, on the other the lack of functioning organ cases, mechanical action etc. Which is not so say that those organs aren't interesting, or even musical. They simply shouldn't provide any kind of example for new organ building today. Greetings Bazuin

"realise that this instrument was what most organists wanted at the time and that it worked as an acompanimental organ at the time (and in many cases still does today). " Sorry, but what is missing from this specification which today could be deemed essential for accompanying Anglican liturgy? "However, as I once read somewhere something to the effect of 'what was ground-breakong and innovative in 1908 was rather tired and well-trodden by 1950'. Unfortunately I cannot remember who actually said this. It may have been in connection with the proposed scheme for the new organ of Coventry Cathedral." If so, would we not say the same about the Coventry organ today? In fact, dare I suggest that the diluted ideals of the organ reform movement (as executed in Coventry) and the accompanimental ideals of the Anglican music world have been confused here? Is this dichotomy not THE cantus firmus of serious organ building in the UK since the war, and even today? Greetings Bazuin

"How much rubato is acceptable in baroque music?" This is already a confused question. 'Rubato' is a later way of describing a rhythmic freedom which, when present in baroque music, is the result of a number of other factors. Most important among these are rhetoric and beat hierarchy. A good example of the sort of piece where rhythmic freedom is the result rather than the means is anything with durezze e ligature. The most obvious examples are the elevation toccatas of Frescobaldi and Froberger, however the central section of BWV 572 also qualifies! If you treat the suspension and the resolution as rhythmic equals, then I'm not coming to hear you play. "This is purely a personal opinion, but if something is slowed down, something else needs to speed up to compensate for it, otherwise the essential pulse and drive of the music is lost." This is only true if the rhetorical structure allows for it. You have to be able to analyse the musical figures. In other words, the idea of all the bars being of exactly equal lengths because of 'give and take' is potentially misleading. Tempo in baroque music in general is actually another issue and one which in general is misunderstood and under-researched. I once again would like to recommend the book I mentioned here before by Clemens-Christoph von Gleich, "A Bach Tempo Guide" (GOArt, 2002). MM, once again: "it should be with a free-spirit of adventure ......Bruhns could move from slow to fast, from open arpeggio to formal fugue and from consonance to dissonance. The music is wild, impulsive and, above all, free spirited" Please don't confuse the ideals of the Dutch gentleman with the frizzy hair with those of Bruhns. Aforementioned Dutch gentleman wrote an article in the Musical Times in 1991 in which he invited us to "take the risk to be dissident" in Buxtehude's music. Unfortunately he (and the majority of performers still) miss the most essential unifying element in the North German free style (perhaps it also applies in Muffat? I'm still working on that one), that of proportio, the relationships between the time signatures. The musical structure is much more formal than most people assume. To complete this evening's reading list, please see the article by Pieter Dirksen (in English) about the nature of the stylus phantasticus in the Westfield Center's essays in honor of Harald Vogel, which includes a fascinating analysis of BuxWV 163 (g minor, manualiter Praeludium). It fascinates me (mostly because its my fault) how these threads wander from the initial subject. This one is a complex issue. I am going to be away from the computer for some days to play a recital in Germany and to go on holiday in Yorkshire, I'm glad to let you people take this one further.... As we've wandered so far away, I will just say I spent the day in Amsterdam with 1999 St Albans winner Pier Damiano Peretti, sitting in on his wonderful classes and enjoying an utterly stunning recital of music by Eben, Franck, Hindemith, Bossi and Bettenelli. PDP is one of the absolutely finest organists of his generation, and a quite phenomenal teacher, (I still study privately with him when he has time). We were all in awe today... Look out for his recent recordings of Buxtehude (IFO, recorded in Norden) and a forthcoming Naxos recording of Bossi. Greetings Bazuin

"It was a busy week. I don't remember these links and cannot find them, please can you tell me the topic name and post number and I will listen." Better still, I'll re-post the links: Anton Heiller, 1953 Improvisation competition final: http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=vlsiuCsHtGAkBbCeBA (click on 'beluister') Daniel Roth, 1965 competition final: http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=emmguCsHtGAkBbCeBuB (once again, click on beluister) Greetings Bazuin

regarding the Bavo organ: "I think that I recall MM (or another contributor - possibly Bazuin?) mention that this has also been painstakingly reversed by Flentrop (?) - or did I just dream this?" Flentrop have done some considerable re-voicing. But, to repeat the most important point, the re-voicing was carried out within the boundaries of the situation created by Marcussen: ie Marcussen's wind pressure, winding system, windchests, and altered pipework. I have heard stories that the changes to the pipework were even more intrusive than simply the shaving-off of the nicks. But I don't have any documented evidence. The best article in English about this organ is that by Stephen Bicknell, on his website. In Dutch there are interesting writings by the Klaas Bolt, and also the doctoral thesis of Hans van Nieuwkoop. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of this to hand, but I remember he includes an initial proposal by Marcussen to enlarge the organ to 4 manuals, by adding a Borstwerk. Last week I posted links of really fascinating online recordings of the organ from both before and after Marcussen's work, shame nobody picked up on these or commented on them. Greetings Bazuin

"I'm referring to the mainstream in American voicing, running through from Arthur Harrison," or perhaps you mean G Donald Harrison? "to the whole gamut of organs by Austin, Möller, Wicks, etc. It is just that I don't like it," and I rather suspect that Mike Bigelow doesn't either! Greetings Bazuin

"This is also an interesting concept, I found it on the M. L. Bigelow & Co site, and whilst not being overly keen on American voicing,".... What, in your view, constitutes "American voicing" and what do you object to? Given that the USA has organ builders including both Schoenstein AND Martin Pasi, (to suggest just 2 extremes) this seems a quite staggering generalisation. Bazuin

"What about the wonderful mongrel at the A-akerk, Groningen?" This was partly restored by Reil in 1990. The case is presently in the church, the remainder has been in storage for around a decade while the arguments rage. Here the question is whether to keep 19th century pipework by Timpe, and by Petrus van Oeckelen in an organ by Arp Schnitger. Both Timpe and Van Oeckelen were outstanding organ builders, plentiful examples of the latter's instruments especially are preserved. I think it is still unknown when the organ will be completely restored and returned to the church, where it enjoys an audible decay time of nearly 12 seconds incidentally. In one of the transepts of the same church there hangs an empty pair of organ cases which originally housed an organ built around 1550 by one Raphael Rodensteen. In one of the Dutch magazines it was reported late last year that a new instrument will be built in the cases by the American organ builder Paul Fritts. Given that he is undoubtedly one of the 3 or 4 finest organ builders in the world, and that this would be his first European project, this is very exciting news indeed. Greetings Bazuin

So.....back to the Oude Kerk. "It is difficult to know what to do with the Oude Kerk organ. My fear is that something too intrusive is done - a little like Haarlem in 1960s. I would be more inclined to keep the old material where possible, respecting the work of previous builders. It would appear it isn't feasible to restore it to any time in history but I'm not sure there is a need to preserve this organ in aspic in one time period." The organ will be restored in its present situation, ie as left by Witte in 1870. Haarlem is the only organ which was so radically changed in the Netherlands - even in 1960 the degree to which it was altered was exceptional. Compare it with Flentrop's restoration in Zwolle in the mid 1950s for example. "Is there is enough evidence to restore it to its orignal Vater state? If so, would people want to do that? I read the original Vater organ was very unsatisfactory too and J.C.Muller was asked to improve it." There are several factors which play a role here. The first is that although the organ was deemed "unsatisfactory" as you say the year in which it was altered is also important; 1738 was also the year in which Haarlem ws completed. A degree of jealously of the neighbours almost certainly led to the organ being changed. There would be no question of restoring the organ to its original 1724 (Vater) situation because the Muller material is of equal historical significance. The organ in the Oude Kerk is perhaps the last big organ in the Netherlands not to have received a modern restoration. There have been several restorations in recent times which have determined the current philosophy of restoration practice here. The (over-simplified) key issue is whether one keeps 19th century material (or in the Lutherse Kerk in The Hague even a pneumatic Swell division by Mr Bik from 1948!!!) in a 17th or 18th century organ. Now it has become normal to do exactly that. The large 1742 Garrels organ in Purmerend has been restored preserving the 19th century stops of Flaes. The 1640-something Bader organ in Zutphen was restored 10 years ago with its 1815 Bovenwerk (Timpe) completely intact. In the Oude Kerk, the organ as it stands is a unique and rather compelling instrument which deserves to be preserved. Witte's Cornet of 1870 in the Rugwerk is one of the best stops in the organ for example. Witte also removed the back wall of the organ (the sound goes directly up the tower!) removed the doubled principal ranks, raised the wind pressure etc. But to "correct" one of these elements in isolation would lead to a potentially unhappy compromise. At present a substantial church restoration is just beginning, the organ will be restored when this is completed. In recent weeks I understand a significant winding problem has finally made it virtually unplayable, but it is due to be sealed off anyway due to the work on the tower. Greetings Bazuin

"OK then, where did you go - whom did you hear and enjoy?" On this side of the North Sea there is also a tradition of Easter Monday organ recitals. I went to Zwolle to hear Sietze de Vries play the big 1721 Schnitger. Programme (rather different from the offerings in Yorkshire!): Es ist das Heil, uns komen Herr (complete, 30 minutes!), Matthias Weckmann Christ Lag in Todesbanden (partita on the Sinfonia from BWV 4), Anthon van der Horst Improvised partita (Bach style) on Jesus, meine Zuversicht, Sietze de Vries It was, as usual from S de V, excellent. Someone said he improvised for 27 minutes.... The van der Horst piece is well worth the study if you don't know it. For the statistics I guess the audience was around 130. Bazuin

[R3 on Thursday am (although in Wednesday's listings) at 01.00 is playing an hour of Buxtehude to mark the 300th anniversary of his death. The player is Hans Davidsson, but no mention of the organ's location. One would assume it is taken from his recent Gothic recordings at Örgryte Nya Kyrka in Göteborg. Bazuin

Barry Williams wrote "This is fine for private instruments and possibly those in academic institutions. Organs in ordinary churches have to be able to accompany worship before representing "the 'authentic' thoughts of the composer". Thus it is perfectly acceptable to provide adequate modern stop control and pistons and for these not to be used as a matter of choice when attempts are made at re-creating 'authentic' performances. What is not appropriate is to deny the less skilled player the equipment to accompany divine worship with some 'historic' aim in mind. Those with greater skill need not use the pistons, etc, when playing 'historically'." A uniquely British analysis if I may say so. Here is Sir John Sutton writing in 1848: "Every lover of true Cathedral Music must have experienced how much the modern alterations and additions to the organ, mar the effect of that most devotional manner of performing the Church Service. In the chanting of the Psalms the attention is continually drawn from the voices by the perpetual changing of stops and clattering of composition pedals, for the modern Cathedral organist scarcely ever accompanies six verses on the same stops , or even on the same row of keys, and keeps up a perpetual thundering with the pedals" There is a deep irony in the idea that organs meant to accompany the liturgy (of whatever tradition) 'require' "modern stop control and pistons" and that anything else is only appropriate for "private instruments and... academic institutions". The point is that the way of accompanying Anglican liturgy today is the result of ever more complex console gadgetry. The gadgetry isn't conceived to serve the music, or even the liturgy. This is not to say I don't admire the remarkable feats of orchestration from certain organists in English Cathedrals, (Colin Walsh, Ian Tracey....) (The idea of "tradition" in the way of accompanying the liturgy in Liverpool is, incidentally, unique; 3 organists, all 'teacher-student' successions, the first of whom designed the organ!) I suspect I'm not wrong in suggesting that there are still advisors in the UK who would seek to "modernise" the console equipment of an organ dating unaltered from a century or more ago, destroying vital information the organ teaches us in the process. Remarkable, frankly. In general (no matter where you look in Europe) the growth in registration aids occurs in indirect proportion to the attention given to the voicing of individual stops. OK, this is a generalisation, but if you've played some German organs from the first half of the 19th century and from the first 30 years of the 20th century you'll take my point. In Britain the situation is somewhat comparable. Liverpool Cathedral without the registration aids makes no sense aesthetically - it is an ultra-late romantic organ. In an artistically conceived organ the presence or absence of console equipment should tell the player something about the way the organ's creator intended it to be played. It is not about "authenticity", (meaningless word in this context in 2008!), or "playing historically", it is about strength of concept. The balance between "organ as tool" (Barry Williams?) and "organ as art" is a difficult one. The over-emphasis on the former is perhaps (at least in my opinion) the single defining characteristic of most organ building projects in the UK today. (Perhaps this is still partly fueled by an understandable sense of rejection of the extreme examples of neo-baroque organ building which found their way into certain British choral establishments.) My point is illustrated perfectly by the nature of this discussion which began with a stoplist, and then, rather than discuss the concept it represented, wandered off immediately into number of memory levels, a rather unimportant matter in general, and irrelevant when removed from the concept of the specific organ under discussion. (Mark Wimpress's comments are spot-on I think). Nick Bennett wrote "In my view, an organ needs 8Gb of RAM in the same sense that a fish needs a bicycle." Precisely. In another post Mark Wimpress wrote: "At B St E, given the funds and the will, the ideal would be a small two-manual/pedal in the chancel area, then have a classically-voiced Grand Organ at the West end. Now that would be a revolution in thought and practice: alas, all unlikely to happen." I've never been to B St E, but as a general point, I think this is really true! It is becoming more and more normal to have 2 organs in an English Cathedral, and yet they are almost always scaled-up or scaled-down versions of each other. Or, in Worcester.... Why can't the organs be conceptually differentiated? Surely the 'nave organ' should be more geared to accompanying congregational singing, while the chancel organ can focuss on accompanying the choir? Perhaps something like this: http://www.cccindy.org/subpage.asp?p=89 A very happy Easter to all! Bazuin (going tomorrow to Zwolle to hear Sietze de Vries)

Pierre wrote: "I went several times to Alkmaar (from before the restoration in the 80's)," The organ is now considerably more impressive than then! The nave of the church has also been re-plastered (I think in about '97) which has also added to the result. It is simply extraordinary. and pcnd5584 wrote "I remain un-convinced that tierce mixtures, for example (tuned in any temperament), render Bach's music with greater clarity than that which I maintain can be attained with well-voiced quint mixtures." Please don't misunderstand me - I wasn't trying to put different organ types into some kind of hierarchy. I like tierce mixtures a lot. It is important to realise though that, in the Netherlands and North Germany, the Sesquialteras are also tierce mixtures, intended to be used in the plenum (see Mattheson!). In Alkmaar the Sesquialteras (Rugwerk and Bovenwerk) are once again at 16'pitch (since the restoration in 1986, are they the only ones in the world?) and can therefore ONLY be used in the plenum. The concept of a tierce mixture in a plenum context is not limited then to Bach's geographical area. And, pncd5584, clarity isn't the 'be all and end all' as has already been stated. In the Netherlands there are exceptions, some sesquialteras are only in the treble, and are intended therefore as solo stops. The organ in the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam has both types, that in the Bovenwerk is clearly intended as a solo stop (treble only), that in the Rugwerk as a plenum mixture. "In any case, Naumburg, apart from a Sesquialtera II and a Cornet IV on the Hauptwerk, had entirely quint mixtures in the time of J.S. Bach:" The Mixtures in Naumburg (at least those in the Oberwerck and Ruckpositive) are reconstructed, and aren't entirely successful I think. Bazuin

Hello Pierre and others "I just question this one: "...Alkmaar. The larger (Van Hagerbeer/F.C. Schnitger) organ is surely one of the really great Bach organs" (Quote) I just spent some dozens postings to explain how widely different the organs Bach played were - 6OO kilometers away from the Netherlands-." Sure, I know. I don't argue with anything you wrote. The historical link between Bach and Alkmaar is of course tenuous, via his visits to Hamburg to play the organs of Arp Schnitger, the father of Franz Casper. The Alkmaar organ was still tuned in 1/4 comma meantone until around 1765, (Bach would have had a fit...). Next year in the festival in Alkmaar there will be a weekend dedicated to Bach, during which there will be a discussion about 'Bach organs' which will include for example, Dietrich Wagler, the now-retired organist of Freiberg. In recent years Naumburg has been much discussed as an ideal Bach organ, and here the link is much stronger. Bach played and tested the organ in 1746. But the % of original pipework in that organ is now around half, or even less and the reconstructed material is, to my ear (and not exclusively) variable. There are actually other, less-known, but better preserved Hildebrandt organs incidentally. I was merely suggesting that in fact Bach's music, when one sees beyond the ideals of the first generation of the organ reform movement, sounds better in Alkmaar than in Haarlem. To my ears it also sounds better than in Naumburg. In any case Alkmaar is one of the best preserved large Northern European organs from Bach's lifetime. And it is an organ of a quality which could hardly be bettered. Although I admire Trost (and I enjoyed very much playing the organ in Altenburg last year) I don't believe I can say the same about him. met vriendelijke groet Bazuin

As a new member of this forum, I'd like to try and tie up 2 threads. Firstly the question of Bach, tempo and time signatures. Nigel Allcoat wrote: "For me it is all found in the time signatures and thus self explanatory." For an excellent and practical tool for finding the relationships between tempi and time signatures in Bach, please refer to the book, "Bach Tempo Guide with 200 practical Excercises" by Clemens-Christoph von Gleich and Johann Sonnleitner. Published in 2002 by the Gothenburg Organ Art Centre. It also comes with a free CD of Jacques van Oortmerssen playing Bach on several of the most beautiful historic organs of Northern Europe including Roskilde, Trondheim and Kampen. And then to Haarlem. MM wrote: "By strange co-incidence, this is probably why St Bavo, Haarlem, is such a splendid organ for Bach's music. Muller came from the Harsz mountain region of Saxony-Anhalt in Germany." I think the perception of Haarlem as a "splendid" Bach organ is tied up with the ideals about Bach playing from the first generation of the organ reform movement. These ideals are of course the same ideals which caused the Haarlem organ to be changed in the way it was in 1960. The idea that Bach's music can only be heard to best advantage when all the polyphonic lines are clearly audible for instance. The mere fact of Haarlem's Hoofdwerk chorus being based on 16' was, presumably, un-stomachable, hence the addition of the new 8' Scherp. I know the Haarlem organ reasonably well, both as a player and as a listener. One of the things which is so strange is that the Hoofdwerk 8' Octaaf is SO quiet, (like a Salicionaal). When you pull the 16' Praestant and play in the equivalent octave it is dis-proportionately louder. The best preserved stop in the organ is perhaps the 32' reed, but unless you couple all 3 manuals with reeds, mixtures, Sesquialteras, the works, it is too loud. I think perhaps that Marcussen more or less left alone the things which they considered wouldn't be used very much. In other words the 32 stops, the 16' manual stops etc. With a little thinking out of the box however I agree that Bach still sounds great in Haarlem (but it takes some experience and a good teacher to show you how!). The organ is also fortunate to speak into one of the largest churches in the Netherlands, and one where the plaster remains on the walls throughout the church. (Very often plaster was removed from interior walls in Dutch churches during 20th century restorations, with profound implications for the acoustics). Incidentally, no scholarly study of the life and work of Christiaan Muller has yet been published. However, my colleague Gerben Gritter is working on such a project at the moment although it will be some years before it is finished. I believe he intends to publish it in English. Not so far away from Haarlem is, of course, Alkmaar. The larger (Van Hagerbeer/F.C. Schnitger) organ is surely one of the really great Bach organs, (actually one of the very greatest organs in the world) even if its reputation as such dates only from the recordings of Walcha, Germani et al. Whatever, the Alkmaar organ is much better preserved. MM also wrote (in another thread) "My own view, is that the instrument is so perfect, it is no less good than what Christian Muller created, but make no mistake, a lot of history was lost when Marcussen "had a go" at it. Since then, Flentrop have possibly improved the organ quite a bit, and every time I go there, I learn of bits being re-voiced. Now less severe, and perhaps ever so slightly more "romantic" (for lack of a better word), the Bavo orgel is probably half-way back to where it started originally, but without evidence, it is impossible to state that as fact." I think that Flentrop's revoicing has to be considered in the context in which they did it, ie on Marcussen's wind pressure, with Marcussen altered pipes, and Marcussen's winding system (or lack of). In this sense, they have I think taken the harshest edges off Marcussen's tonal ideal, but, if you know the better preserved Muller organs in the Netherlands, and especially those at Beverwijk and Leeuwarden (mentioned by Michael Hedley) than you realise that the sound world of Muller is still far far away. The one highly admirable element of Marcussen's work is the engineering of the action (balanced, with a self-regulating 'floating lever') which, for a such a big organ is disarmingly easy to play and extremely reliable. For anyone who still doubts the profound affect Marcussen's work had on the Bavo organ, here are some online recordings of it firstly before 1960, and then afterwards. Firstly, Anton Heiller improvising (wonderfully) in the final of the 1952 improvisation competition. http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=vlsiuCsHtGAkBbCeBA (then click on 'beluister') and then Daniel Roth improvising in the 1965 final. http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=emmguCsHtGAkBbCeBuB (once again, please click on 'beluister') The poor condition of the organ in 1952 is of course audible, please try to listen 'around' it if you can. Greetings Bazuin