bazuin

As of today a new 24 hour (mostly) organ music streaming service from the Netherlands can be found here: http://www.musicareligiosa.nl/defaultOrgel.aspx The recordings have a strong Dutch bias. Well worth having in your favourites as accompaniment to boring administrative chores... Bazuin

"Go figure: we would import an historic organ from 5000 km away, something which is a rarity even there, and this, just to "better" it after "our modern standards" ? I see no point there..." I only mentioned it because the organ's description you sent the link for suggests that this could be done in the process of it re-housing/restoration. Bazuin

Pierre Very interesting - I'd be curious to know whether the option has been taken to extend the pedal compass to d27. Can you enlighten us? Bazuin

I'm hoping to get my paws on this organ fairly soon. I suspect the vorabzug introduces a 5 1/3 Quint around treble c. Will let you know! Bazuin

"I also cannot recall whether, at the time, Glatter-Glotz was still involved with the company." I was astonished to learn that any member of the Glatter-Gotz family had been involved with Rieger-Kloss but you're quite correct. Josef von Glatter-Gotz's association with the company ended, however, in 1945. While I admire your one-man campaign to champion the communist organ in Eastern Europe, I wonder if those organs you like sound well because of the remarkable rooms? I have enough old Supraphon LPs of Rieger-Kloss organs which suggest that this was organubuilding of the lowest possible quality (and enough colleagues from Hungary to Belarus who tell me that it was). Logic would suggest that the organs built prior to the war (ie in the G-G era) were better than the ones built afterwards. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the R-K additions to the organ in Olomouc are removed should the money become available for the organ to be restored. "Until quite recently, I had always thought that the idea of eclecticism was almost unique to England, (the American Classic close to the same concept). I had always regarded Coventry and Blackburn as ground-breaking internationally" No, the 'neo-classique' idea was really old hat by the time those organs were built. The proposed schemes by GDB for Gloucester and Blackburn were arguably more 'of their time' than the organs that were eventually built there. I suspect, however that neither organ would have found their popularity had the GDB schemes been realised. "There are some very large instruments in the tiny Czech Republic, and of course, a splendid organ-tradition to match....if only they would print the music!" I like that Wiederman stuff as well. Look out also for the amazing Passacaglia quasi Toccata on B-A-C-H by Milos Sokola. The only UK recording I know of which should still be available is John Scott's Priory disc from St Giles' in Edinburgh (the last Rieger organ designed by a Glatter-Gotz!). John Scott's performance is very polite and rather slow... Bazuin

"There is of course a common period, also a comparable technology. This said, the central german organs had heavier actions -and this was a concern for J-S Bach- than the northern ones, for obvious reasons!" This is not true for Holland! Alkmaar/Amsterdam Oude Kerk (in fact, name your favourite with its original action) are all at least as heavy as Freiberg Dom! Altenburg is light by comparison (and rougher!). I wonder if our perceptions of Northern German actions have been coloured by the preferences of Jurgen Ahrend who restored most of those organs? Bazuin

"I mean: from a strict historical point of view, the Van Hagerbeer-Franz-Caspar Schnitger organ of Alkmaar, more, in the state it was during H. Walcha's recordings, is exactly as far from the organs Bach played as the one in Birmingham's Town Hall.....So far, so good; good recordings resulted, no doubt. Bach sounds exactly as well on a Walcker: beautiful, but not authentic ! any "truth" there is an invented one." Well I almost agree except for one thing. The playing techniques associated with the Bach area in the Bach period are far closer to the playing techniques associated with Alkmaar, than those associated with a Walcker organ (assuming a reasonably late one) or with the Willis III/(sometime) Hill organ at Birmingham Town Hall. The Dutch organs at the very least provide a parallel narrative (illustrated by how well the Kauffman registrations from 1733 sound in Alkmaar!) which is not totally without musical relevance for Bach, even if the historical ties are tenuous. Bazuin

The idea of developing a versatile organ from an existing historical style is equally (perhaps more) valid than the 'buffet' eclecticism displayed by Fisk and Pasi. But eclecticism in itself is not a style and this is where too much present day organ building falls down IMO. I understand entirely Pierre's point about the neo-classique - perhaps the organ at Liverpool RC Cathedral is an even better example than St Albans. With the comfort of hindsight it's clear that these organs have their own repertoire (not that repertoire is required to justify an organ style). I rather suspect though that the French label neo-classique and the British label 'neo-classical' refer to rather different things. Is the organ at Llandaff 'neo-classique'? Is St Ignatius Loyola 'neo-classique'? (Pierre, are 'neo-classique' organs allowed to have mechanical action?) While I'm about it - over-labelling of anything in the musicological sphere is dangerous, but I'm very uncomfortable with Pierre's categorising of the Milan Ahrend organ as 'neo-baroque' (as would Jurgen Ahrend be I think). Surely, if you make the disctinction between neo-classique and neo-baroque then one must also make the distinction between neo-baroque (DA Flentrop, S Zachariasson etc) and style-copy (ie where genuine research into old styles replaced the application of theories)? It is worth remembering that eclecticism was seen as part of the 'struggle for truth'. In France this was especially so - Norbert Duforque and others used it as a manifesto to destroy historic organs. In Sweden something similar happened with the organ commission of the Lutheran Church, which insisted that all organs have 2 manuals and independent pedal. The definition of the modern eclectic organ is defined primarily by the norms of the musicians who commission them. In too many cases (especially in the UK) earlier styles are paid only lip service, and then the 'norms' are those of the 1960s (neo-classique?) rather than the present day. I fear there is (too) little which distinguishes Lawrence Phelps's writings on the subject: http://lawrencephelps.com/Documents/Articl...gan4rtime.shtml (for example) which are of their time (although in this instance only just) and Paul Hale's 1996 article on the future of the English organ in 'The Organbuilder'. The root of these ideas may perhaps be traced in an article by Dame Gillian Weir: http://gillianweir.com/articles/english-la...ium-or-message/ I am deeply uncomfortable with this article because it implies that such vital elements of organ expression (in certain genres) as tuning and alternative winding systems (or even the associated playing techniques) are matters of 'minority' importance and should be eschewed in organs of any size. In fact, DGW goes a step further, implying that the craft of making music is 'above' that of creating great organs. I read this it as a manifesto for 'eclecticism as the form of least resistance'. The idea of the 'organ as tool' does not, in my opinion lead to creative or evocative organ building. On the other hand, this article has many aspects, perhaps I 'read' it too narrowly. Perhaps it's no co-incidence that Gillian Weir is one of the greatest 'neo-classique' organists (and perhaps the greatest Messiaen player of them all). I wonder if her philosophy has changed at all since she wrote this... Bazuin

I have never heard BvO play a recital that was less than magnificent. Enjoy!! Bazuin

Really good meaty topic this. I think there are many different factors which define how one perceives an organ. Is it 'flexible' enough to fulfill its (many or in other place very few) tasks in the liturgy? Does it play chunks of the literature in a manner convincing to one's own set of norms (dictated to a greater or lesser extent by the teachers we admired and the instruments we studied on)? But, for me, eclecticism or 'versatility' to put it slightly differently is a much mis-understood concept. Because, in my experience, eclecticism has too often become a substitute for a properly understood tonal style (those things which define the organ as being a child of its creator). In other words, eclecticism can only exist in stoplist form to a very very limited extent. Eclecticism (or at least an organ's ability to behave in different ways in different musical circumstances) must always be the result of an organ's inherent quality. This is why Reger sounds incredible in Alkmaar, Saint Saens sounds fabulous on a Father Willis, and Tournemire is amazing on Dirk Flentrop's magnum opus, the 1965 organ for St Mark's, Seattle. What bores me to tears in modern 'versatile' organ building is "eclecticism as the form of least resistance". In other words, the "crucial" effects (full swell with 16' reed, a cornet separee on the choir, exclusively quint mixtures never at 16' with one squeeky one up to 33 on the choir, at most 1 open 8' principal rank on 3 manual divisions, rock-steady winding, mechanical action which nevertheless sends no real information back to the player, pistons, RCO pedalboard) are present on paper and, as a result, we are told that the organ can play the entire repertoire with conviction. I experience these organs (mostly) as painfully self-conscious, no matter how loud... Surely there are much cleverer ways to build eclectic organs, and again the answer surely lie in a really in-depth understanding of historic organ building styles. Verschueren's house style borrows cleverly from the Konig dynasty precisely because those organs are so flexible (Bach, French Classical, Northern European, Liszt, Schumann, Reubke, Alain all sound well! - go to Nijmegen to see what I mean!). However, the combining of seemingly disparate elements is such a fascinating venture that it surely can't be ruled out as an artistic path. The really clever organ builders in this context are the Americans. Consider this Fisk organ from 1990: http://www.cbfisk.com/instrumentFiles/95/095_Stoplist.pdf Schnitger and C-C Great reeds, flexible winding OR non-flexible winding, tierce plenum OR non-tierce plenum, the C-C fonds de 8 pieds all in place, variable mixture compositions (Great mixture with or without the 5,1/3 quint for example), mechanical coupling OR electric coupling, Barker machine (actually the Kowalushyn lever) OR no Barker machine. Flat pedal board, C-C ventils, but also Anglican pistons... I've only heard this organ on CD but it obviously EVOKES a big C-C uncannily well because those guys crawled around inside those organs and worked out why they function in the way they do. Organs don't have to do everything authentically but they MUST be evocative... Taken one step further: http://www.pasiorgans.com/instruments/opus14.html This organ is more straightforward in some senses (only quint mixtures for example) but with 20-something stops also available in 1/4 comma meantone, the portion of the repertoire it can play evocatively is rendered much greater. Listen to the Naxos Buxtehude recordings of Julia Brown and compare them with the Widor recording on the same organ by Robert Delcamp. It's quite fantastic. Of course, such organs cost more to build but dare I suggest that too many organs built in the UK and elsewhere are simply much larger than they need to be precisely because of the dogma of "eclecticism as the form of least resistance"? Bazuin

"do not need to be as heavy as they are." One of the great misunderstandings of this conversation is that "heavy = bad" and "light = good". In Britain, as soon as non-mechanical actions became the norm, organists lost the playing techniques for playing on heavier actions and fell in love with 'light' actions as much as they did with scattering the organ around the room. (I have letters from my great grandfather who was a reasonably prominent organist in the NE of England in the first half of the 20th century, and who had his organ electro-pneumaticised in the 1930s, deriding the dreadfully heavy trackers he sometimes had to play on). Of course this wasn't just the case in Britain, and, of course, the fabulous organs with non-mechanical action and their links to some pretty important repertoire (most especially late German Romantic) entirely justify non-mechanical organs (allied to a particular tonal style) as a musical alternative. The Orgelbewegung (in its first incarnation) didn't recognise this. (As a side note I am presently studying some Bossi for the first time - this is so clearly music intended for a non-mechanical action and it's wonderful!). However, if we go back to, let's say, the 18th century and compare the mechanical actions of, for example, France, with, for example, Holland, we find that there was a great variety of taste even then about how an action should feel to the player. In France, the grooves had to be narrow, and the key as close as possible to the pallet. Result: light action, not dis-similar to that of a French harpsichord of the same time (Taskin...?) WITH pluck and punishing every sloppy release. Not for nothing does the Grand Jeux consist of so few stops and the language of ornamentation was so complex! In Holland there were psalms to accompany and 16' super-plena (coupled) were the order of the day. The grooves are wider and the actions much heavier. Even in Bach's corner of the world this is true to an extent (Hauptwerk and Oberwerk coupled at Freiberg may be lighter than Alkmaar but it's not for the faint hearted). In the UK, Victorian organs with mechanical action usually feel pretty chunky. This is all part of the fun... What is interesting in all of this is that an organ builder like Jurgen Ahrend (whose contribution to 20th century organ culture can be compared in importance to Aristide Cavaille-Coll's in the 19th) clearly preferred the French way of doing things, even when restoring organs of Arp Schnitger. My feeling is that this is one objective criticism one can have of his achievements, even if the actions themselves are remarkably beautiful, and his combining of the best of all worlds an extraordinary feat! Back to the UK - The problem for the reformers was in trying to sell mechanical action organs to organists who for 2 generations at least had come to love their light, pluckless non-mechanical actions, and who now wanted it all: mechanical action, electric stop action, light action, big effects... In general, organ building today has moved on but even now there are builders (in the UK, Scandinavia, Germany and elsewhere) who build mechanical actions WITHOUT pluck, without any possibility for the organist to make a bad sound, and as light as possible. I played a concert 2 years ago on a brand new organ in Germany where the builder was very proud of his ultra-light mechanical action and the advisor likewise. They might as well not have bothered - it felt precisely like a direct-electric action. Likewise, the (balanced) actions produced by the Danes don't seem to feel much different from the ones they were making in the 1950s (allied to a wonderful and very justifiable organ type which, as yet, has not really been recognised in its historical context outside certain small groups). Back to the original question, does mechanical action make for better performances. The answer is yes, but only if the mechanical action is good (ie punishes the bad player as much rewarding the good one) and aesthetically related to the sort of music the organ is supposed to play AND the playing techniques associated with it. Otherwise, why bother making one? The lightness or otherwise of the action is a side-issue and the result of a series of aesthetic decisions at the planning stage of the organ. Bazuin

Joyful congregational singing at a Dutch wedding... http://www.youtube.com/user/JohanD1984#p/u/4/briAFHILYTE (The organist plays for 90 seconds at the beginning to ehhhhhhhhhhhh get them in the mood?) Bazuin

"I'm rather sorry I started this thread - albeit on a different topic - which has caused quite a lot of personal animosity. These subjects to tend to crop up every few months - tempers flare, hasty things are said, positions become entrenched, sometimes somebody leaves the board. It's a price to pay for instant shared written communication, I suppose. As musicians, I guess our nature is for us to generate our own very personal motivation, and often in a passionate way. As organists in particular - often a lonely musical pursuit - perhaps we are used to 'going it alone' and fighting our own corner." I agree, and I apologise without reservation if any of my comments were taken personally by any member of this board. "My comment was not at all nasty and am rather mortified to think that it was construed so." It wasn't by me. I think the point is valid - however great Henk van Eeken might be, he certainly isn't the most original organ builder on the planet. "we are constantly looking at methods and materials (and style), often reinventing what has been lost in this firm in the past. For instance, I've spent a great deal of the past four months re-drawing ALL of our shallot scales and trying to get back in time, past the 1949 and 1958 revisions of the scales - with a deal of success I think." Which is fantastic, and, I think, fairly unusual in modern factory-scale organ building. Can we agree, therefore, that research really does play a vital role in first-rate organ building? "To be honest, I think that some of the antagonism exhibited in this thread has arisen from the fact that you tend to make very strong claims about many things - and that this may be exacerbated by your refusal to state your identity. I have, on a number of occasions, gained the distinct impression that you feel you are absolutely correct about everything on which you comment." About making strong claims - guilty as charged. I hope at least that my occasionally unwarranted bluntness doesn't mask the fact that the claims are made on the basis of (comparitively extensive though hardly exhaustive) personal experience and travels. With notable exceptions, I don't always have the impression that those who like to shout me down do so based on such extensive experience, but rather because I dared to challenge a comfortable perceived wisdom. If nothing else it gets people talking about things like subcontracting which is worthy of discussion. I make no claims to be absolutely correct about anything at all. For one thing, I am just a musician, and certainly no organbuilder. The Youtube clip of the (unjustly neglected) Leonce de Saint-Martin Toccata played by Carleton Etherington on the Grove organ is extraordinary - the organ sounds every piece the international treasure David Wyld calls it. Bazuin

I'm sorry this perfectly legitimate discussion has turned so nasty. "Bazuin seems to want to play his cards very close to his chest...." Do you blame me? Pierre wrote "Bazuin, some comments from Henk van Eeken on those videos are to be regretted." I think this needs further comment. I admire Henk van Eeken because his new organs are the best new organs I have ever touched in my life. But I am also aware (from knowing him personally) of his weaknesses so I'm not star-struck in any way! Please elaborate. Nigel Allcoat wrote "Perhaps the latter we didn't see here as Mr van Eeken seems locked more into the fashioning of instruments in the 'old style' without using the old to influence more new schemes that bring them into the present. I may be wrong, but I wonder if he has any instruments that are his alone - not copies." and David Wyld added "It seems to me that this vexed question of 'best' is propelled by a certain "only old-fashioned is good" attitude which is destructive, demoralising to those of us who have worked for a long time to bring standards up in the UK and so opinionated as to make one shudder." Don't shudder! I agree entirely that Henk van Eeken's house style is limited to the North German school with elements (especially in the principal ranks) of Muller. In that sense his organs are never likely to find their way into Anglican churches. In the liturgical situations he builds for in Holland, his organs function spectacularly well. Go and play one, David, you will be stunned. (Perhaps you already did?) You might also be interested to know that Henk is very interested in Father Willis, and even owned the ex-St Stephen's Hampstead 1880 III/30 before it went to Gothenburg. In this sense, he is already far more open minded than Peter Williams, for example, whose much-admired standard texts of a generation ago denegrated anything built after 1800. There are many ways to build a fabulous organ, it just happens that Henk van Eeken's style is quite focussed on one era. This doesn't invalidate the quality. Can I politely suggest that once again we are confusing qualitative judgements with stylistic ones, just as the neo-barockers did? Or perhaps you simply have no interest in that style, David? Or actively detest it even? "when the new (ex Fritts) man has fully acclimatized and dragged himself out of the distant past in terms of hammered lead, we will make some of our own flue pipes." Like Colin I find this slightly disrespectful. What must be interesting about having somebody who has worked for the house of Fritts is that he will have had direct contact with the application of scientific research into 17th and 18th century organbuilding techniques to the building of new organs in churches with diverse modern music programmes. If it really doesn't matter, then why do you even state the ambition for your ex-Fritts man to make your own pipes for you eventually? I, for one, am very interested in the line taken by Willis in re-applying its own heritage (Willis levers, tierce mixtures) - it's actually not dissimilar to what Henk is doing. I'm sorry that your new magnum-opus is going to the other side of the world. About myself, I really don't like to bleat about my credentials. If you must know, I spent 7 years studying and working outside the UK, and have performed solo concerts in half a dozen countries, largely on historic organs of various kinds. Bazuin

The issues which this discussion has raised are neatly illustrated by this documentary on YouTube abot Henk van Eeken - a fascinating glimpse into the working methods of perhaps Europe's most accomplished organbuilder. This vividly illustrates the limitations of subcontracting: Part 1 Part 2 Bazuin

"Are you suggesting that a firm which makes its own pipes is somehow better than a firm that doesn't? NO!" Ehh, in most instances, yes. Sorry. This doesn't mean that there aren't organ builders who sub-contract and come up with a first-rate result (Bill Drake is a good example), but they are the exception rather than the rule. I think Grenzing falls into this category as well. "There is nothing new in Organ Building, just a re-cylcing of ideas." Yes, this is true, but we don't yet understand fully why the historical examples(of all sorts) which still impress us so much are as impressive as they are. The best organ builders all involve research in their organbuilding to a greater or lesser extent. Peter Williams was right - the future of organ building lies firmly in the past. Although perhaps not exclusively as long ago as Williams suggests. "The list of firms Bazuin provides are not, as s/he states, the best organbuilders in the world." I'm really sorry David, they just are. You could add a small number of other names to the list (Aubertin perhaps, probably Ahrend still, although I haven't seen anything from the son), perhaps also Taylor and Boody or Patrick Collon or even Koegler. Occasionally other builders rise to that level (Gronlund at the German Church in Stockholm, or Marcussen at Helsingborg, or Porthan at Kotka) but their product doesn't always reach the giddy heights of the others. They are the best organ builders in the world, because they are working at the highest artistic level. I can't believe anyone who has played some organs by any of these builders would disagree. In the case of Flentrop, they also have the best restoration portfolio in the world. "They are merely the most successful" I doubt any of them are among the most successful either in terms of number of orders, or turnover, or profit, or even securing the most prestigious contracts. "I know of one builder Bazuin particularly admires that is a 1-man company and yet he makes everything - metal pipes, keyboards, etc - himself." The gentleman in question works for Henk van Eeken but has his own small business as well. He does everything from casting the pipe metal to doing the calligraphy on the stop labels. See here: http://www.martinbutter.nl/instrumentenen.htm (listen to the new sound samples on the house organ page - have you ever heard a more beautiful house organ? It's incredible...) Bazuin

"Indeed. I should be far more concerned about the quality of the in-house voicers. After all, if subcontracted pipes were of an inferior quality, that supplier would quickly go out of business, since few would buy his products." The quality of the pipes of Terry Shires, Stinkens etc, isn't in question. The fact is that the best organ builders in the world (Flentrop, Verschueren, Metzler, van Eeken, Fritts, Pasi, Richards/Fowkes etc) all make their own organ pipes. Apart from anything else, it allows them to experiment with all kinds of different factors (casting techniques for example). This isn't to say that making a organ with sub-contracted pipes can't produce an artistic result. Bazuin

"I have not been there, but since we have no idea what Cavaillé-Coll might have wished to build here," If you've been about a bit and seen what Cavaille-Coll did in different situations, and know, for example, of his refusal to match the number of stops offered by Schyven or Walcker at Antwerp Cathedral (C-C offered 75 stops, Walker 102 and Schyven 87, the jury asked him to increase the number of stops, C-C refused stating that his 75 stops would be perfectly adequate) then you can assert with some certainty that C-C would have built an organ of around 20 stops for the church in question. Christ Church, Port Sunlight springs to mind as a highly decadent PC organ (albeit a marvellous one - the specification has a Truro-like discipline). The Edinburgh organ is 20 stops larger and the church is approximately the same size (CCPS is longer, Edinburgh is higher and slightly broader). Bazuin

"Already during the 19th century, organ-builders like Dalstein & Haerpfer and Stahlhuth bought their reed stops from Mazurie in Paris; the Van Bever brothers in Brussels had all their (Zinc!) pipes made elsewhere, and their organs are among the best if their time." Of course Pierre, but this was a completely different age when building organs on an industrial scale (and with a good deal of duplication) was the order of the day. Some builders did it will, Van Bever was certainly one of them. Post-organ-reform, the goalposts have changed artistically and the demand for organs is comparitively small. "to make one's pipes is the best means to build something really personnal" Exactly my point. Keeping it in house gives an organ builder complete personal control of the artistic result. Bazuin

"The situation there is exactly the same as here: the larger Houses will make some, possibly the larger part, of their own pipes and buy other stuff in; many of the others will have their own metalhand who is capable of making an occasional stop and doing excellent repairs." Indeed. As a rule of thumb can we at least agree that the best organ builders in Europe and America make their own metal pipes and that really first-rate organs with sub-contracted metal pipes are the exception? In Holland, all the better organ builders make all their own metal pipes. Bazuin

I offered no judgement of the aural effect, only the concept, which, knowing the Cathedral, I think I am entitled to comment on. Cavaille-Coll would have hesitated to build 20 stops in that church. An organ with 60+ stops and three 32's in a small-ish parish church sized room is outlandishly unnecessary. Period. Bazuin

RC Cathedral in Edinburgh - not heard it, but seen it in the flesh. The organ is absurdly large for the room (larger even that St Giles' in a room half the size at most). Mr Copley omits to mention on his website that the majority of the pipework came from the tragically lost Wilkinson organ at Preston Public Hall. The flamed copper 32' foot front looks (IMHO) completely ridiculous in the room. Three 32s in a church so small is surely a triumph of ego over reason. Back to a truly wonderful organ at St Stephen's - I'm not sure the divider needs to be taken out. The room sounds (perhaps by accident rather than design) fantastic as it is and has a certan panache - the audience sitting 'in the round' on what was previously the church's gallery. The whole downstairs could then be the front of house. It's only just outside the city centre as well (10 minutes walk from Princes Street). The current situation is too tragic to believe, one of the best-preserved Father Willis organs (III/30-ish) anywhere in a great-sounding room and nobody seems to care. In France they would organise a festival. There are noises in Edinburgh that the Queen's Hall may be replaced at some point with a new hall. However things move SLOWLY in Edinburgh as well as being late and over budget. So don't hold your breath. They were arguing in the pages of the Scotsman about the Norman and Beard organ in the Usher Hall 30 years before it was finally restored. Bazuin

I believe Kenneth Jones has retired. I haven't been to Tewkesbury and can offer no judgment of the organ. However, some things put me off this and Kenneth Jones organs in general: 1) A reputation (deserved or otherwise) for mechanical unreliability. A close friend of mine had one of the worst experiences of his career playing a recital on his organ near Edinburgh for the entire school in which it is housed (I think there was an audience of over 500 and a big screen downstairs). The organ ciphered dramatically in the middle of the Franck 3rd Choral... I have many similar accounts from elsewhere. Once again, I offer no judgment. 2) The subcontracted nature of much of his instruments (the new metal pipework at Tewkesbury is by Stinkens). 3) The part electric, part mechanical action. As if the mechanical portions were just to satisfy the conscience of the organist...? 4) My one experience of playing a KJ organ - the organ already mentioned in Cambridge which I found dreadfully dull (albeit hampered by its chamber and by the dry acoustics of the room). 5) The presence of the Grove organ (which could have been on my 'want to play' list yesterday...) However, I would be interested to hear the Milton live and would do so with open ears! Bazuin

"However, the 4 second acoustic is no longer there." I haven't been there for about 5 or 6 years. The acoustic was still there last time I was there (as documented on Priory's '12 organs of Edinburgh discs). I don't know if anything has changed in the interim. The building itself is remarkable, and its division on two levels (which happened already 50 years ago I think) suggests potential for an excellent concert venue (chamber music, choral music etc) with substantial front-of-house facilities (like the Orgelpark in Amsterdam but better!). The organ is to die for but its future may be doubt again I believe. It badly needs somebody local and high-profile to champion its cause. Bazuin

"Organs heard live or played, in no particular order" Are we doing organs we've already played or ones we want to play? "10. Kampen, Choir organ (Reil)" But the Hinsz organ at the other end of the same church is so much more beautiful... I'll restrict my list to the organs I've played rather than the ones I've heard from downstairs. After no 1) the list is in no particular order. 1) Alkmaar, the larger 2) Alkmaar, the smaller 3) Anloo (Garrels 1717, but mostly Henk van Eeken 2002) 4) St Antoine L'Abbaye (Samson Scherrer/Bernard Aubertin) 5) Toulouse, St Sernin 6) Kampen, the larger 7) Freiberg Dom 8) Orgryte Nya Kyrka, Goteborg (North German reconstruction) 9) Kotka (Martti Porthan reconstruction of no 7) 10) Edinburgh, St Stephen's Church Centre (1880 Father Willis in 4 seconds of acoustic, neglected by its owners and to a lesser extent by the Edinburgh organ fraternity who seem to prefer the far less beautiful but more politically correct contributions by Rieger and Frobenius in other parts of the city). (The list of honourable mentions would be much longer and would include Altenburg, Schlagl, Naumburg, the big Akerman at the Maria Magdelena in Stockholm, Glasgow/Kelvingrove, the John Nicholson organ at Schagen, the Ahrend organs in Edinburgh, Amsterdam and Toulouse etc etc) My want-to-play list in no particular order: 1) Bologna 2) Omaha (Pasi) 3) Collegedale (Brombaugh) 4) Merseburg (which I've least heard from downstairs) 5) Rouen 6) Poitiers 7) St John the Divine, NYC 8) Ottobeuren 9) Hamburg, Jacobi 10) Groningen - der Aa-Kerk (which will remain a pipedream for many I fear) Bazuin