bazuin

Something off-the-wall: Erland Hilden has been organist of Orgryte since the big meantone organ was built (completed 2000). Here he mixes Reich-like minimalism with symphonic rock (alla Idenstam) and 1/4 comma meantone. This and other pieces (including 'Dance of Joy' which my teacher in Holland used to play a lot) are on a new CD dedicated to his compositions and recorded on the Orgryte organs (the Schnitger-copy featured here and the ex-St Stephen's Hampstead 1880 Father Willis). Bazuin

"I would agree with this, although I would state that they are superb." I agree, incredible. Bazuin

"I am staggered to learn this; I had no idea." This is the reason Widor was so significant, bringing the 'German' style (via Lemmens) from Brussels to the class of the Paris Conservatoire. It was a real revolution. "What a deliciously open-ended comment. I am now contemplating what the others might be!" I hope we might perhaps all agree on two: Rouen (C-C, 1890) and Bologna (da Prato 1471-75). My nominees for the others would probably include Freiberg Dom and Poitiers, others might disagree. "The point I was making, concerns the fact that, at Liverpool, you will find absolutely everything needed for Anglican accompaniment and just about all of the romantic and post-romantic English repertoire." Regarding accompaniment - my experience is that in Liverpool a certain performance practice has been preserved which is remarkably close to the aesthetic of the organ. Ian Tracey's accompaniments are really unlike anything else I've heard in England. "Wasn't Cor Edeskes involved at Groningen and Alkmaar?" Cor Edskes advised in Groningen (Martini) - his other most notable projects include Roskilde, Hamburg (Jacobi) and the Nieuwe Kerk mentioned by Nigel. The adviser in Alkmaar (certainly with the big organ but also the Van Covelens I think) was Koos van der Linde. Cor Edskes is the most remarkable organologist alive today. Now 85 he remains both highly active and extremely reclusive. Fortunately an English film maker, Will Fraser, has just completed a feature length documentary about historic organs in Groningen province on which he is interviewed at great length. It is one of the most brilliant pieces of organ-related documentary you will ever see. It is for sale on DVD, together with 5 CDs recorded by Sietze de Vries, and a 12,000 word book (in 3 languages) with which I was (peripherally) involved. I can't recommend this enough: http://www.fuguestatefilms.co.uk/news.html Bazuin

Some quick thoughts about this. "Concertegebouw Cavaille-Coll (rebuilt by Adema)" but since completely unrebuilt by Flentrop. "I'm not sure what these organs have taught me, because they are not really "authentic" in any way, when it comes to the music of contemporary composers in other countries." I am beginning to suspect however that the question of the relationship between literature and historic organs is sometimes rather restrictive in terms of how we understand those instruments. In Holland the organs were built for two things: 1) Congregational singing 2) improvisation. To a greater or lesser extent this applies elsewhere too (congregational singing less in the Catholic countries). In the case of pre-romantic organ literature, we really don't know much about often the 'pieces' which came down to us were played, or how much they were preserved on paper as aids to illustrate improvisation techniques. Don't forget that even Franck, whose oeuvre we associate exclusively with C-C, had an extraordinarily limited repertoire and taught his students improvisation, almost exclusively. "As our friend 'Bazuin' rightly points out, the great Netherlands organs really didn't inspire much in the way of genuine repertoire." Indeed. However the point about the Dutch organs (from 1511-1900 roughly speaking) is that they draw on enough sylistic links from other places (as does the Dutch language) to make valid contributions to the performance practice questions. More importantly, the best of those organs are of a quality which is almost unimaginable elsewhere, with the few famous exceptions we all know in France, Saxony, Italy etc "Consequently, while they are broadly compatible with the German baroque style," There is no such thing, this kind of generalisation is really unhelpful in understanding a historic organ with manifold subtle stylistic links to different evolving traditions. As a random example, consider the question of reed construction and voicing in the Schnitger tradition. Arp Schnitger's reeds (with the layer of leather on the shallot) produce almost no overtones. This was studiously copied by his pupil Rudolf Garrels (see Anloo, Purmerend). Schtniger's son, Franz Casper does something different (Alkmaar, where the reeds have more overtones and seem, generally, louder). "they are not really what Bach and his predecessors and contemporaries would have known; save for the handful of Schnitger organs found in the Netherlands." Bach's links with Schnitger were minimal, however Alkmaar has one of the world's greatest Bach organs. This illustrates neatly the point; you have to be able to think outside the perceived stylistic boundaries to appreciate the musical marriages and objectively dismiss the non-marriages. At the end of the day, there is not a better organ in Northern Europe, and perhaps only 5 in the world which deserve mention in the same breath. The fact that the organ is essentially from Bach's lifetime, and has survived 95% intact is highly fortuitous happenstance. "You don't even need to travel abroad; nice though that may be. A visit to the school-hall of Eton College would reveal quite a lot, I suspect." Really? Mittenreither represents the Dutch style at precisely the period when no organ music was being written anywhere. It has nothing to do with any of the Dutch styles we (loosely) associate with the repertoire. I don't know whether Flentrop left behind a Flentrop organ or a Mittenreither organ, but the Mittenreither organs I've seen in Holland have a peculiarly sophisticated, soft, enlightenment-period feel. Think Haydn, Mozart, but not Buxtehude! "On the other hand, there are Fr.Willis organs which will demonstrate a Barker-Lever action admirably, so it is simply a matter of mentally splicing the two together; assuming that it is possible to gain access to the relevant instruments." Father Willis organs are marvellously good, although like the famous Dutch organs there is little famous literature linked with them (much as I like the Ouseley sonata.....why do you never hear that piece?). You can't appreciate Father Willis fully until you've seen and played some C-C, Sauer, Ladegast, even Akerman and Lund (!). Once again, you have to appreciate the subtle stylistic links to understand why the non-British Romantic literature sounds so good on Willis I organs. And, of course, to appreciate the significance of that shamelessly high quality. " there are probably more authentic examples here in the UK than in many parts of Europe. Liverpool Cathedral will teach you all you want to know about "authentic" Anglican accompaniment and the UK organ repertoire" Authentic Anglican accompaniment circa 1926, meticulously passed on from teacher to pupil. Unique and special but not authentic except in Liverpool at a certain moment. Likewise, UK organ repertoire post 1900. Bazuin

Malcolm The best way is to incorporate it into your holiday, it means that you're not competing with others for console time etc. The Netherlands is great if you want to hear fantastic organs (thousands of organ concerts during the summer), but getting access to them can be difficult. The organists there are inundated with requests for access and often become very possessive as a result. You can also end up paying a lot for your hour or two of exploration. There are exceptions and if you PM me I'd be delighted to put you in touch with some great people. Remember that the smaller organs often teach you at least as much as the larger, more famous ones. "Over the past year I have become accutely aware - more so than ever before - that if one wishes to play music of a particular "school" (ie Bach, Buxtehude, Franck, Widor or French Classical) and play it authentically and with understanding one really needs to go to hear and play the organs for which they were written. I don't think anyone would argue with that." Absolutely, except I that am allergic to the word 'authentic' which is no longer banded about in the way it was 25 years ago. Then it was a useful way to sell records, but of course in an different time and era we can never get beyond 'historically informed'. In other words, a historic organ won't give you an 'authentic' experience but it will challenge your perceptions in more ways than you can imagine and you give you the insights you need to help you find your own truth. "I found that my forrays abroad have made me appreciate the organs we have in England" Yes, 100% agree. Bazuin

"I always maintain, that as a work of restoration, what Marcussen did at Haarlem was dreadful, but as re-build, it is almost peerless. It is, in every way, THE most beautiful musical-instrument; visually and aurally." Visiting and playing in the Bavo is always a very special experience, not least because the church is so extraordinary and sounds so incredible. The work Marcussen did was indeed, from a technical point of view, peerless. Tonally the organ lost out, nearby Alkmaar beats it all ends up (the individual stops, the plena, and especially the reeds) as do the well-preserved Muller organs. Klaas Bolt (one of the most influential organists and organ historians of the 20th century, but perhaps one of the least known internationally) noticed it immediately, "why are my flutes so much less beautiful than before?" he is supposed to have asked. The red stain in the case is also just slightly 'too' red by the way, Marcussen mis-judged the colour. "The only other connection I can think of, was the organist of Doncaster PC....I forget his name. (Simpson?)" Jeremiah Rogers. Bazuin

"The main point of my argument (for which I fully expect to be shot down in flames by some, but would hope for some support from others) is that many of the smaller instruments to which I (obliquely) referred would be excellent for teaching, study and recitals of a narrow range of organ literature in an academic institution, but much less suitable for accompanying the liturgy." I think the incredible size of the USA is also reflected in the un-imaginable diversity in liturgical traditions. It is no wonder, for example, with so many German settlers that the Lutheran tradition has remained alive and well. And, in such instances, the organs you referred remain as relevant in a liturgical setting as in any other. I have an Austrian colleague who visited a service at this Mennonite College: http://www.goshen.edu/ where the gorgeous Taylor and Boody organ accompanied the congregation singing Lutheran chorales in 4-part harmony... "There are still isolated incidents of someone spec-ing a totally unenclosed Baroque-inspired organ for an Episcopal (Anglican) parish, but they are more rare as those folks who loved the shriekers slowly pass to their eternal reward." Meanwhile in Catholic Huddersfield... Bazuin

"So that would be pure conjecture on your part, then..." Indeed, but I hope quite realistic conjecture given that Haarlem was the destination of choice at the time. Bazuin

"Of course, Boston (where I went), is very much the organ-centre of the US, and really quite mesmerising in its breadth, quality and complexity." I think Boston is somewhat further down the tree now, especially since the closure of the organ department at the New England Conservatory. My American colleagues regularly nominate Seattle as THE organ city of the US. "As regards new installations and building styles: one thing that has struck me is the profusion of "neo-baroque" instruments, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, where these seem to be in the majority (mostly by builders beginning with B, F and P). In some of these cases "authenticity" for its own sake has been taken to ridiculous extremes with counterproductive results (e.g. keyboards to fit the perceived size of 18th-century fingers). These are no doubt very fine for playing 18th-century repertoire, and possibly for hymn-accompaniment, but not much else." The builders in question do not build neo-baroque instruments, the neo baroque movement was starting to be superceded in the USA in the early 70s already when Brombaugh started to build his iconic and genuinely historically-informed instruments. I don't understand this comment: "has been taken to ridiculous extremes with counterproductive results (e.g. keyboards to fit the perceived size of 18th-century fingers" are you promoting the standardisation of organ keys? It has nothing to do with the size of historic hands and everything to do with the techniques associated with playing 18th century (and, more especially 17th century) music. If the middle three fingers on each hand are doing most of the work small keys are a great advantage. The remarkable point about those builders you mentioned is that they have taken a whole generation's worth of scholarly research and are now applying to modern organs designed to function in enormously diverse music programmes in big Cathedrals. This is completely unique and has nothing whatever to do with the neo-baroque. Check out Pasi's new organ in the new RC Cathedral in Houston: http://www.pasiorgans.com/instruments/opus19spec.html (Also worth a look are the construction photos and the description of the proportional key action). That's going to be a fabulous organ. "There seem to be very few Skinners (or similar) in the western states." The reason there are few (Aeolian/)Skinners is that they were based in Boston on the other side of the country. They had a smaller factory in California (which produced among other things the organ at Grace Cathedral in SF). The idea that there is no neo-symphonic organ building going on the west of the US is nonsense with Schoenstein, of all firms, operating in California. Bazuin

"Certainly, in the origins of the German "orgelbewebung" mistakes were made" It has nothing to do with mistakes, it is simply a question of identifying different style-periods for what they were and admiring them as such. The problem (especially in the UK) is that the neo-baroque theories are still too often taken to be the 'truth' while other places have moved on. Hence me having to justify the artistic merits of Arthur Harrison (which Pierre, among others must find bizarre), and organs still reaching these shore like the Lyme Regis organ mentioned by another contributer. "What did Wm Hill and Thos. Hill know of Trost, Silbermann or Schnitger? Absolutely nothing! " William Hill is known to have made two study trips abroad between 1834 and 1843 and also visited Cavaillé- Coll in Paris in 1847. I don't believe it is known where he went during the first two trips but if the travels of his English organist contemporaries are any guide he probably visited Haarlem! "I've never been to Thuringia" Please do so. Then you'll understand why your assumption about the organ blower is incorrect. "There's quite a lot of repertoire associated with the era of Arthur Harrison and John Compton; the latter associated with Percy Whitlock and John Ireland to name but two. As for Ernest Skinner and American orchestral-organ romaticism, I can think of some remarkable repertoire. Names that come to mind are those of Robert Elmore, Leo Sowerby, Pietro Yon, Wilhelm Middelschulte (not just the pedal "Perpetuem Mobile"), John Cage (a bit ongoing), Samuel Barber and Walter Piston among others. Also, on the wider front, Dupre wrote the "Passion Symphony," having first improvised it at Wanamaker's Store, Philadelphia. (Now Macy's department store....been there, played it, wear the T-shirt). (I seem to recall that Flor Peeter's "Lied Symphony" was composed on the hoof in America)." OK, great, so those instruments don't require any further justification after all! "The "orchestral" organ didn't start with Hope-Jones or chuch-organ builders at all! It began with automatons," Or perhaps even with the changing orchestral practices of the time? "With the organ more or less banned during worship, unless it was acompanying Metrical Psalms" Could the Geneva Psalter really be described as metrical? Bazuin

"that aesthetic would have been impossible in Bach's day, and even if it had been possible, it would have been musically alien to the period." Indeed. I hope we can agree that the exactly the same can be said about the neo-baroque aesthetic. "Tonal colour and gravity are one thing, but the winding of the instrument is another. I think it is unlikely that the 8ft registers were used "en masse." " Sorry, you're way off the mark here. Go to the Trost organs in Thurinigia, are you going to use all those 8's one at a time?! "You fail to mention that Straube became involved in the "orgelbewebung" and inspired the rather bright, clear, chorus-sounds which emerged from the Steinmeyer organ-factory." I did, this is true. But his later Bach edition has registration instructions for the Hamburg Jacobi organ (which became the focus of the movement after 1926) without the front pipes, which had been taken for military use so, IMHO, this is less symptomatic of the period in question as his previous Bach edition intended for the Sauer organ type. My former teacher played a Bach recital, incidentally, in the Jacobi using all the Straube registrations as part of a conference. He said it was interesting but that he wouldn't repeat the experiment. "Cameron Carpenter continues that rather odd German/American romantic tradition of re-composing and embelishing Bach to this day" I doubt CC thinks of it like that, but you could be on to something there! Or a misunderstanding of the true nature of Bach? "Which is?" EXACTLY! "With absolute respect for what Stephen Bicknell was and achieved, I suspect that he was judging others by his own, limited musical abilities." Were they really so limited? "Of course, you may hold the view that the a-typical Thuringian instrument is the only one for Bach" I don't, that's Pierre! "but Bach never presided over the best instruments, even for his own music." Also true. But we know he had enough contact with enough first rate instruments for us to make a reasonably sound aesthetic assessment. Think (among the survivors) of Naumburg and Altenburg to name just two non-Silbermann examples. " but it is important to understand, that it represents a very brief and rather eccentric musical detour into a blind-alley." No, once again you've confused your subjective opinion (which I may or may not agree with!) and fact. I rather feel you would have to tar Ernest Skinner with the same brush. I admit that there is little significant repertoire associated with the organ-genre but equally you would have to admit that there was no significant organ repertoire associated with the famous Dutch organs until the early 20th century. When Alkmaar, Haarlem (fill in your favourite) was built, those organs were improvised on, exclusively. "Anyway, what has this got to do with Straube, the expressionistic style and Bach? Not a lot, I suspect." I think it does because you can't assess the importance of the English-Imperial organ style without also comprehending the contemporary styles in other parts of Europe (in the 1910s and 20s, this means Germany more than anywhere else). "This is not quite true!" You're right, I over-simplified the story. After 1900 I think my assessment holds true. "Of course not, unless they want to emigrate to England or the Netherlands, where they would probably be frowned upon." I doubt it. In the UK I think Tom Murray would do very well. In the Netherlands he has only played once (on the Walcker organ at Doesburg) and that recital is still talked about with reverence. Look at the aesthetic behind the Orgelpark in Amsterdam - the artistic director Hans Fidom has specialised almost exclusively in German and Dutch organ aesthetics of precisely the period in question. They commission new transcriptions of orchestral music and organise seminars about Bunk, Straube, Sauer et al... Thanks for your long mail and especially your historical details about Manchester etc. Bazuin

" I would merely observe that musicology being worthwhile and insightful doesn't necessarily prevent it being a depressingly lifeless experience." But, in the instance I cited, this is musicology with an intensely practical application. There are now recordings, concerts, seminars etc dedicated to the Bach/Straube aesthetic, and how it further relates to the performance practices surrounding Reger for example. These are not the Bach performance practices of OUR time, but this doesn't make them irrelevant, any more than it makes the organs associated with them irrelevant. "Let's put the horse before the cart and phrase this question properly. Since organs of the Bach period have multiple 16' mixtures, tierce mixtures, 8' stops, etc., why then did the neo-Baroque conclude that clarity and transparancy was required for a Bach plenum?" Firstly, the post-war period was a period of RE-action, not of a developing tradition. Secondly because functionalism was all the rage; the organ's internal layout had to be visible (Werkprinzip!), organ cases became 'tone cabinets'. Equally, one had to hear every line of Bach's counterpoint. Thirdly because the second half of the 20th century in particular was a time of theories and not of applied knowledge. This is as true of organ building (which at its best was iconically modernist, although we were told that this was how organs from the Bach-time sounded) as playing (where in the sources do you find the gap registrations considered so essential 30-40 years ago for the trio sonatas?) This doesn't mean, incidentally, that the best organ building and playing from the post-war era was any less relevant than the Straube aesthetic. It just means that we have to be able to appreciate all of these things in the fullest context. "The fact is that, for many British organists, the neo-Baroque brought Bach's music to life in a way that they had never experienced before." Of course. This was true almost everywhere. Even in Holland, the Bach organ of choice was, for a while, the Marcussen organs of the 1950s. "As far as I am concerned, that alone justifies the neo-Baroque. The fact that it was founded on misconceptions does not belittle the musical value people have found in it." I agree entirely. All I'm trying to say is that i) the neo-baroque is in the past. Its dogmas can no longer be treated as gospel. ii) that the lessons we took from the neo-baroque MUST not undermine the importance of the good organs built prior to this period (during what Peter Williams calls the 'nadir' of organ building), nor the significance of the performance practices associated with them. iii) The British organbuilding and performance practices in the Edwardian era cannot be taken out of context of the European practices of the same eras. Bazuin

"In trying to prove that this music could be played effectively on such an instrument as Redcliffe, I am not sure that Kevin Bowyer succeeded in doing anything other than showing how alien the design of this organ was to any music which required clarity and transparency of texture." So, please tell us your assessment of the Straube Bach aesthetic and the related organs. Is the rediscovery of this aesthetic worthwhile, insightful musicology? Or a misunderstanding of the true nature of Bach? Presumably you come to the same conclusion as about the Bowyer recording? The idea of the Bach plenum having to be geared for clarity and transparence of texture is almost as much a 1960s cliche as the balanced choruses. If it were true then why do so many organs from the Bach period have 16' mixtures, tierce mixtures, multiple 8' stops etc? The problem with your assessment and MM's long post is this - your ideals are noble (MM's post reminds me of the books Peter Williams was publishing 30+ years ago), but the generations of organ reform SUBSEQUENT to the one which told us that Bach had to be played on clear, transparent, balanced plena, taught us that there is no hierarchy of organ styles, only a hierarchy of quality. This is why organs such as the Norman and Beard at the Usher Hall in Edinburgh now receive fabulous restorations, whereas in the 1970s everyone wanted them thrown out. "Of course, the whole "orchestral" movement would have died a death, but for the support of many otherwise respectable gentlemen in the musical world. What does that tell us about the British organ-establishment of the day? (Answers on the back of a postage-stamp please). The whole ethos of organ-playing was concerned with orchestral expressiveness and organ-transcriptions, and I recall digging out a pile of old music at one church, which had been sitting inside an Arthur Harrison instrument ever since it was built. This pile of music consisted almost entirely of transcriptions; mostly Wagner, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Grieg, Handel warhorses and Elgar. The "real" organ music was restricted to the sort of sentimental rubbish written by minor English and Scottish composers of dubious ability; the music of which was appallingly popular at one time." While I agree with your assessment of the artistic merits of the dubious English and Scottish composers, I am less appalled about it than you are. At the end of the day, the entire English Town Hall genre of organ was developed to play orchestral reductions and transcriptions and there are (or at least were) many remarkable organs of that kind. It wasn't just the English organ establishment that 'danced with the devil', in the USA the playing of orchestral transcriptions was at least as popular. Even today, truly great organists like Tom Murray or Peter Conte have made their names playing in that style on the ultra-late romantic American organs associated with it. Does this diminish their achievements as organists? I hope not. Back to BWV 538: "Even this is not really effective on a vintage 'Harrison'." Good. So play something which is. Bazuin

"I found that the recording at Redcilffe actually got in the way of the music - which irritated me" Kevin Bowyer's recording was at least 25 years ahead of its time. The playing of Bach's music according to other aesthetics than the 'perceived wisdom' (which in Britain has seldom got beyond a limited number of 'rules' from the first generation of the neo-classicists) is now very common in Europe where the matching of Straube's or Widor's Bach editions, and the related organs in commonplace. If you apply your Bach ideals to an organ like Redcliffe you will be endlessly disappointed. So don't. Get our your Novello editions and try to find the organ in question's message! "Except that, on a vintage 'Harrison', playing the 'Dorian' Toccata (for example) with Bach's prescribed clavier changes only makes aural sense if played quietly - which immediately robs this music of its dignity and energy." But the Dorian is exceptional in requiring these balanced choruses. The idea of balanced choruses is almost a neo-baroque cliché. And actually, if you play it on historic organs whether in Holland or Thuringia, you'll find that it works better with 8' and 4' principals on both manuals this especially because of the trio texture section on the second to last page. "So in reality, was this controversial 'restoration' a disaster - did it, whist rejuvenating the mechanical parts of the instrument, rob it of its essential tonal characteristics? If so, can anyone here tell us what it should sound like now? Clutton's article (and an earlier appraisal by W.L. Sumner) in The Organ give a somewhat confused picture. " The Marcussen restoration at Haarlem is very regrettable because it destroyed so much of the original sound. It's important to realise that changes made to to historic organs in the 20th century (often called restoration) often did more damage to the instruments than anything that had happened in the previous 2 centuries. Haarlem is the key collision in the 20th century between neo-baroque dogma and a significant historic organ. Technically, the modern action at Haarlem is brilliantly executed. If you want to know what Haarlem SHOULD sound like, listen to the recordings of the 1953 improvisation competition: http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=domguCsHtGAkBbCeBwJ http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=vlsiuCsHtGAkBbCeBA http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=looluCsHtGAkBbCeByH as well as any recording of Leeuwaarden, Mueller's other large surviving organ - from 1727. Perhaps the most turbo-charged historic organ I've ever played. Try Koopman's Leipzig 18 on Teldec, or this offering from Sietze de Vries: http://www.jsbrecords.nl/catalogue/index.a...detail&id=3 (there are some sound clips here). Bazuin

"As Pierre often points out, the great continental organs usually have very subtle mixtures made from almost pure lead," Beware of sweeping generalisations, the 'continent' is a place of great contrasts. In France or Austria you're not going to find as much lead as in Friesland I think. "They would not think of "re-balancing the choruses," simply because many are more or less perfect as they are. It is surprising, but if a listener wanders eastwards at the Bavokerk, Haarlem, the great west-end instrument, projecting sound eloquently straight down the nave, starts to sound quite distant quite quickly," Yes, the sound of the plenum falls flat on the floor unless you double all the 8's, add the Sesquialteras and at least one trompet. This is due to the work of Marcussen in 1960. The wind pressure is much too low (among other things). Actually, compared to other churches in Holland, the Bavo organ carries quite well because all the walls are plastered. In Leiden, the sound of the beautiful Van Hagerbeer organ in the Pieterskerk is badly compromised by the fact that the plaster was removed from the walls in a church restoration from the first half of the 20th century (removing was plaster was fashionable because it allowed the viewer to see the mason's art. It was also completely anti-historic). "Had Dixon and Arthur Harrison studied THOSE instruments a little more carefully, they may have changed the course of British organ-building history rather more favourably, but of course, the agenda of the Edwardian period was that of producing orchestral rather than symphonic tones, as well as massive "devotional" power to drive congregational hymn-singing along." I am still struggling to understand why this board seems so anti-Arthur Harrison. Harrison was the most succesful English organ builder of his time and in my humble opinion his contribution to the English organ was far greater than the English neo-classicists of the 1960s and 70s who were already far out of step with what was going on elsewhere. Whether you or I happen to like the 'devotional' power, it found enormous favour in the UK at the time and was done with great panache (As Henry Willis III knew to his cost). Helmond, by the way, is one of the most incredible organs you will ever hear. I know highly respected organists in Holland who consider it the most beautiful organ in the country! Bazuin

"How on earth can anyone claim that the Walker re-build at York was somehow neo-baroque?" Massive lowering of wind pressures? Adding mutations and high pitched mixture to the Choir? Adding a Larigot to the Great? Deleting the 'non-PC' tierces and 21st from the Great Mixtures? Deleting one of the Great Opens? Swell 4'reed becomes a Shalmey? Solo Clarinet becomes a Crumhorn? Deletion of a Pedal Open Wood? Addition of a Pedal Mixture and 4'Flute? I rest my case. "I can never understand the obsession with the work of Arthur Harrison/Dixon, which although beautifully crafted, was always second-best tonally as compared with organs from other builders." Jonathan Ambrosino has suggested that in fact E.M. Skinner was trying to imitate this style following his trip to England in 1924, (despite his politically clever communications with Henry Willis III). Was Skinner second rate too? "If we skip back a few years to the eras of William Hill, Thomas Hill, Walker, Lewis (more or less contemporary with Fr Willis) and even lesser builders such as Wilkinson, Isaac Abbott, Taylor, Binns, Forster & Andrews and Brindley & Foster (random examples), then THAT is the REAL romantic style; not what happened afterwards." This is personal view of yours. Apart from the fact that several builders you mention have little in common (William Hill AND JJ Binns both represent the REAL Romantic Style?), I'm wondering if you apply the same hierarchy outside the UK? 30 years ago almost everyone in the UK would have agreed with you, but if we apply the doctrine as Gospel today, we repeat history by destroying whatever we don't like from our predecessors. If we agree that what Harrison and Dixon produced was beautifully crafted (can we say that of Walker in the 1960s?) then let's leave it for our children to appreciate, not condemn it on the basis of fashion. I've said here before, Edwardian English organs are NOT my thing, but I can admire the style nonetheless. Your dividing of good and bad smacks of judgemental 'British' Duforque-ism with all that that implies. "I can never understand why anyone should want to go back to the Edwardian style, which actually only lasted about 35 years or so. The romantic organ in the UK started around 1840 or thereabouts, and lasted more or less unchanged until around 1920 for the majority of builders" Really? For some local builders of the third rank, perhaps. The changes between 1840 and 1880 among the major builders were already seismic. "So the vast majority of the romantic British organ repertoire was written for the Victorian style of instrument, rather than the Edwardian style of instrument." Really? Whitlock? Bairstow? Hollins? "Hull City Hall to good effect. (An instrument not a million miles away from the York/Jackson/Walker concept)." I rather imagine that neither Walker nor Francis Jackson would thank you for the comparison. "So I would suggest that Francis Jackson and the "York sound" are almost as inseperable as the Vierne/Cavaille-Coll sound, and this is what makes the Walker re-build so very important musically." I think this is a valuable point. If York were to be preserved 'as is', then the obvious justification is the Jackson legacy. (Although, equally, the Bairstow legacy, and his compositional output, could be used as an argument for re-instating Arthur Harrison's concept). Jonathan Ambrosino (whose writings I like enormously) has written "Too often, our rationale for changes seems based upon an instrument’s stylistic, not its musical shortcomings; it may do one thing well while we condemn it for not doing another. Or it may be mechanically limited in ways that prevent us from playing expected corners of the repertoire. For this reason, we must acknowledge our own shortcomings: must every organ fit the core expectation? Besides, what one incumbent considers hopelessly unmusical, the next may find subtly magical. More interestingly, a third organist might return after twenty years to discover something of deep beauty (or sheer mediocrity, for that matter). The elegance of this phenomenon is how the organ remains uncannily intact, unharmed, always ready anew to tell out its story. After all, leaving organs alone is the only way to allow history to reach its eventual admirers." Bazuin

Good to see you back MM! "You may make a case for any partiular style you may wish, but in a million years, no instrument will ever fill York Minster, unless it is a collection of instruments gathered together under the control of one console." I agree. Strange that the Hill nave organ of 1863 didn't last longer than it did. "As I once stated previously, the central chancel crossing, (witout the tower roof space), is almost exactly the same size as Sint Laurens, Alkmaar, which gives some indication of the vastness of the space." Not just that, but it isolates the quire acoustically. "Now think in terms of accompaniment and recitals heard IN THE CHOIR, and then criticise if you will. What Francis Jackson and Walker's achieved was remarkable, because the effect from that particular point was marvellous. The organ had (still has), great clarity in the choir, in addition to a remarkable pallet of beautiful sounds. To hear Francis Jackson accompany was pure magic, whilst his recitals were peerless in their day. To quote a much used and maligned phrase, "He made the organ talk." I agree entirely with the comments about Francis Jackson, although my experiences have only been via the famous recordings. A great artist. This doesn't change the fact that the organ was changed in a neo-baroque vain because it was the fashion of the day. I have no reason to question the commentary provided by the current DOM at York in a previous posting. Perhaps you should take Robert Sharpe to task rather than me. "Say what you will, but the Eliott & Hill organ was a disaster; the Harrison not much better." I'm interested on what basis you condemn the Harrison rebuild? Again, is Robert Sharpe barking up the wrong tree when he describes it as having been a "magnificent super-Romantic organ"? "It was only the Walker re-build which put the organ on the musical map, and it certainly succeeded in making York a focal-point for all things good in organ-music, organ-recitals and choral-accompaniment." I don't believe this, sorry. Francis Jackson may have done this, his recordings certainly did. Walker rebuilding the organ didn't. Bazuin

"Learning a new piece is very hard, often discouraging work, almost impossible to do if you come home tired after a day of work doing something else! I've learned to motivate myself with little things, such as setting myself a goal of fingering a new system every day, on average, until the piece is learned. I even rough out the pieces I want to learn at the beginning of each calendar year. " Yes, absolutely. What also helps, I find, it to learn pieces backwards, or at least to tackle the bits you suspect are the hardest first. Then you have a pretty good idea whether it's going to fly or not. Your pencil is your best friend, notate as much as you can (especially fingering) at the initial learning stage. When time is short it saves you re-learning the next day what you'd already mastered the day before. Bazuin

I would also like to thank Robert Sharpe for his extensive posting! And also to add my admiration for his Truro Vierne recording. I hope I don't sound in any way presumptuous if I say that your story of the organ's metamorphosis in the 1960s and the resulting problems illustrates my point in far more detail that I could provide. "The sliders vacated by the Trumpets made room for the Cymbal and Cornet introduced in 1993." Is it only me who finds it crazy that the 1993 work in a sense continued the aesthetic begun in the 1960s?! "Perhaps I may meet some readers at one!" In fact I was sitting about 20 feet from you at one all of 3 weeks ago. I'm sorry time didn't allow me to come and ask you difficult questions about the Great reeds. Although I'm sure you're not! Your choir sounded very fine indeed. Bazuin

"He's not dead yet, you know!" Of course! But he's no longer a Cathedral musician (or, to say it another way, he's a retired Cathedral musician). Bazuin

Perhaps the contributors who have vented their spleens at St Gladys de la Croix might like to read the whole story? Part the First: http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...G-L&P=R9321 Part the Second: http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...-L&P=R10667 Part the Third: http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...-L&P=R11049 Part the Fourth: http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...-L&P=R11486 and some fantastic postscripts: http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...G-L&P=R4932 http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...G-L&P=R5766 http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=in...G-L&P=R6931 I hope this truly brilliant work of organ fiction brightens up your day! Bazuin

"It seems a little inconsistent to me that you can trust the judgement of Stephen Bicknell regarding the effect of one organ, yet you are unable apparently to trust the judgement of a consummate musician (with many years' experience) with regard to the rebuilding of another instrument." Not really. SB was an organ historian/designer and commentator of the first order. Francis Jackson was a Cathedral musician of the first order. Organists' opinions about the instruments under their fingers are important but organs should be (and are in almost every country outside the UK and the USA) protected by higher authorities for this simple reason: organists have a bad track record of destroying valuable organs. As Hans Steketee used to say "an organ's greatest danger isn't fire or flood, it's man". "I have to confess that I am at a loss to think of a musical use for such stops. Perhaps sometimes one simply has to admit that a particular feature simply took a wrong turn." You may feel that this is the case but I suspect you might even be in a minority. Redcliffe is a universally admired organ, although you don't happen to like it (or at least its trombas). If you're wondering about the musical validity of the style, listen once to Tim Byram-Wigfield's absolutely sensational recording of Hollins (Delphian) on the organ of the Caird Hall in Dundee. I'm not sure that York today has nearly as many admirers as either of the organs I've mentioned. As an idle thought, I wonder if Bairstow disliked the trombas at York as much as his pupil? If not, was Bairstow wrong? Equally, it is silly to condemn Francis Jackson - his era was a highly reactional one of which his work at York was simply symptomatic. It doesn't stop us finding it regrettable with hindsight. "Organs are not musical museum pieces - they have jobs to do, in addition to being snapshots of whatever last historical period/musical fashion last altered them." Please don't forget that usefulness, eclecticism etc was used as the justification for the organisation in France led by Marchal and Duforque which destroyed more historic organ material than two world wars. The UK has a deplorable legacy on organ conservation - as a random example read Maurice Forsyth-Grant's cheerful descriptions of the destruction he brought to various Victorian organs which didn't conform to his ideals (interesting though they were). Surely the inherited legacy we leave to future generations is more important than the passing fashions of our own? At the risk of going round in endless circles probably it's good and healthy to agree to disagree for the moment? Bazuin

"It still remains that the incumbent organist (who had lived with this particular instrument since, I think, 1948) chose to have remodelled stops for which he could no longer find any musical use." Indeed. But the operative word here is 'he'. And while his legacy is incredible, his period as custodian of the organ was temporary and he was and is (as are we all) a child of his time. "with a keen ear for beautiful sounds." But the whole concept of beauty is subjective. You don't like any mixtures which have tierces in them, lots of people do. Does that make either of us wrong? "I assume that you have heard some extant H&H trombe ranks somewhere? Personally, I can think of few less musical sounds." Yes I have. It's not my cup of tea either but those things must be preserved because Arthur Harrison was a great organ builder, truly representative of his era and as such far more important than either you or I. It's up to us as musicians to find the way of playing those organs which makes them come alive, not to screw up our noses when they don't behave as we would like them to. I often think the most important figures in organ history are those who can truly respect the ethos of a totally different generation's work. Cavaille-Coll once advocated the re-introduction of meantone temperament to the Compenius organ in Denmark... Bazuin

"Your last sentence: do I detect - ever so slightly - a hint of sarcasm, Bazuin?" Not in any way. "I could equally ask - "who do I believe?" Indeed. "However, having actually heard and played this instrument (including whilst walking around the cathedral), I think I know where my opinion rests." Good, I'm sure your opinion is perfectly valid. But it's always good to consider the opinions of others, especially of the calibre of the person I quoted. Bazuin

"The G.O. Mixture - why? The Tierce rank (when it was present) usually dropped out after the first twelve notes, at which point it became a quint mixture. In any case, I doubt that it was much use in the bass." Unlike Southwark, here I can speak from extensive first-hand experience. The tierce in the bass is genius, it sets off the whole chorus, and especially gives the trumpet enormous drive in the bass. "Oh my God. Are these people serious? I wonder how it is being funded - or perhaps, why it is being funded...." Stephen Bicknell said he couldn't believe the number of people who asked him for directions to St Gladys de la Croix. I hope you'll forgive my wry smile at your reaction... Bazuin