bazuin

Bravo Colin! Have you read Paul Hale's article in the Organbuilder (circa 1996?) entitled something like 'The future of the British Organ'? In it he provides (implicitly) the rationale for the Southwell Quire organ. The 'rationale' is in fact no more than a stoplist, and how it relates to the literature. The links are often tenuous (the North German repertoire requires an "mf pedal bassoon" apparently) and, in my not-always-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion, miss the wider points completely (yes, you can have a Cliquot-scaled cornet on your organ, but if it's winded via Schwimmers and in a dry acoustic in an intimate space you're not going to evoke anything French). Moreover, the relationship between the 'modern British organ' and its liturgical, primary raison d'etre is barely discussed. My opinion of the Southwell organ is well known here so I won't repeat it. Just because you can build an organ with 51 stops surely doesn't mean that you should? I am likely to be without internet connection for some days now, hope this leads to some good discussion in my absence! Bazuin

I only know the Manchester organ from a Howells CD on which it sounds very good! "There is also the possibility to keep, use and respect the Harrison & Harrison organ, and buy a new organ, made especially for the repertoire for which the present instrument is not suitable." But presumably the repertoire which is its bread-and-butter is the repertoire which it is required to do on a day-to-day basis? "You can have the best of both worlds (though not in one instrument)! There are some interesting examples in The Netherlands, like the Grote Kerk in Dordrecht (new Bach organ) and the Bovenkerk in Kampen. See the following links" But both churches are MUCH larger than Manchester Cathedral (Dordt is like a French Cathedral) and the liturgical roles of the organ in that church (beyond accompanying congregational singing) is far less specific. Both organs were paid for by separate foundations. Glancing at the stoplist (dangerous and pretty meaningless if I'm honest), I would prune the organ of its neo-baroquery (2 1's, 2 pedal mixtures!) I hope the Norman Cocker 73-note chests are kept. If the organ doesn't support the nave, build a separate Nave organ, 20 stops, big (16') chorus, mechanical action. A 'gemeentezangorgel' as the Dutch call it ('congregation-singing-organ'). Bazuin

"I think one might say the same of St Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh. Despite its many beautiful sounds up to mf or f, anything more than that soon become oppressive. Full organ, event in the most distant recesses of the building, is painfully loud. On the rare occasions when mega-decibels are needed, a better answer would be to bring in a brass ensemble." Totally agree. And there's not a lot of colour at less than mf to chose from (try finding a solo stop other than the ubiquitous Sesquialtera for a baroque chorale prelude...) A great organ for Petr Eben and....ehhh...... Anton Heiller! Bazuin

"Nicholsons will have fun fitting it all in, anyway. I suppose no new stops are going to be digital? Does it say, have I missed that? If so, whoops.. it pains me to look again actually. [Thinks: Money down the flipping drain.]" Yep, nice to know the economic crisis isn't stopping some people spending unnecessary money on unnecessary 'improvements' to their organs. David Briggs is a brilliant organist but surely even he realises that not every organ needs the pedal division of Notre Dame? <sigh> back to work Bazuin

I think the development of historically informed playing is not as chaotic as has been made out. Inevitably some of the playing from the first wave of the organ reform movement was more influential than others. It is little wonder though that the most influential players were the ones who had contact either with historic organs in their own countries or with the very best of the modernist instruments. Interesting that Heiller recorded on a Zachariasson/Marcussen from the brief period when Denmark (mostly for economic reasons after the war) was leading the organ-reform movement (this was over by 1960!). ""Perhaps in those days players were less fanatical about proving a historical point and more ocncerned about being musical, than some of the more recent players we have been discussing on this topic." This is true only in the sense that the knowledge was more limited - the period in question was one of theories (some would say dogmas) rather than applied scholarship. This is seen both in organ building (think Haarlem or even New College Oxford which started the discussion - that organ obeys every one of the neo-baroque dogmas!) and organ playing, the two phenomena being completely inter-related. "One player no-one's mentioned yet is Gustav Leonhardt." His 1970s recording in the Waalse Kerk remain as fresh and relevant today as when they were made. And this was someone born in the 1920s... Leonhardt was always a scholar, he never blindly subscribed to 'theories'. My first music teacher was a student of Michael Schneider incidentally. He was an extraordinary player! Bazuin

I agree, those Heiller recordings are the work of a genius. Its interesting to note that while Heiller spawned (is that a fair comment? Maybe Fiffaro can comment?) a Vienna dynasty including, most notably, Radulescu and now, subsequently Peretti, he was also enormously influential in the Netherlands through his teaching at the Haarlem summer academy. I think its fair to say that AH was the idol of Jacques van Oortmerssen for instance (I remember JvO saying that he had never seen a better organist). Jacques's way of playing is very much linked to those Heiller recordings, in terms of tempi and feeling for affekt (Heiller is the polar opposite of Hurford for example, and was ultimately far more influential). For my feeling, Heiller was the most important Bach player of his generation. My favourite Bach recording of 'our' time is this one: http://www.gothic-catalog.com/Bach_One_of_...p/lrcd-1025.htm but I doubt anyone else here knows it. Or? Bazuin

In Holland, paying to play organs is normal. I know places where you pay EUR 25 per hour. One of the great things I've always found about Britain is the (comparatively) generous culture among organists in granting access to their instruments. In the situation discussed here, we're talking about an adult who wants to improve his playing and who may provide a useful talent to the church (in general) in future. I think its a shame, given how little it will cost the church, to insist on his paying to be able to practise, they should see it as an investment in their own future! Bazuin

"I really like this; For my choice it is a perfect match of music, instrument and player. And, yes - it does sing beautifully. I even like the tuning, which is not nearly so 'violent' as some forms of mean-tone temperament." The organ is tuned in 1/4 comma meantone, more violent is impossible so I'm wondering what you had in mind. The organ does have sub-semitones, but the piece in question barely needs them I think (I don't have a copy in front of me and the link doesn't work on this computer). Perhaps we've converted you to the joys of meantone pncd! The Aubertin organ is the one thing I like about U S-H's recording. U S-H used to study with Jacques! And he was/is a rock musician in his spare time I think. Greetings Bazuin

I agree the pieces are like chalk and cheese, sorry I couldn't find any better examples. The way Jacques plays is to do with his rhetorical analysis of the music. I find the insertion of time to point up the figure in the way he does, frankly, maddening - although I understand why he does it. I prefer a more supple rhythmic 'bending'. Still, I can't deny the beauty of the playing. When every note gets as much love as this, it's hard not to admire. The tempo question is difficult - the piece is marked 'Vivace' which on the scale of Bach tempi is slower than Allegro. On the other hand, vivace implies liveliness which, even with the best will in the world, this doesn't have. "He's not the only world-famous player who currently does this sort of thing. I'm sure we will be told that this is highly (historically) accurate, I would just throw out one passing thought: where would one get as a chamber music performer if one took such liberties with pulse" I take the point, though I think even Jacques would acknowledge the personal aspect of his playing rather than it being 'historically accurate' (today such language is rare, most scholars speak only of playing in an 'historically informed' way). I think its important to consider that the organ(ist) has to use expressive devices unique to the instrument to overcome the lack of the expressive means available to the chamber musician. I find some pulse bending (for beat-hierarchical, harmonic, or rhetorical reasons) a valuable tool. It also introduces an element of personal individuality in a standardised world! For me, sewing-machine playing (the 'Stylus Locomotivicus' as Ewald Kooiman used to call it) is still too prevalent too often. Nice that Ian Ball worked on the Jacques studies, I use them with all my pupils - it is fantastic material - even with amateurs I've had remarkable results. In the Conservatory in Amsterdam, its a rite of passage. Nice also when we all listen to a recording and share our, inevitably diverse, impressions. Greetings Bazuin

Jacques van Oortmerssen: "Early mechanisms are, technically speaking, quite simple and give the best opportunities for good sound production. During the 19th century, new systems were developed as solutions for the organ's increasingly unmanageable touch. The size of the instruments, higher wind pressures, and especially the increased complexity of the music (think of the influence of the piano) encouraged these developments. Cone chests, Barker levers, and pneumatic actions were all solutions to the problems, but such answers came at the cost of sound production and the player's influence on it. The priority, stylistically speaking, was no longer the speech of the note, but the quality of the legato. With our new instruments, this tradition still has a negative effect. On the one hand, these new mechanical instruments are expected to have the same light touch as the pneumatic and electric actions of the pre-neo-baroque instruments, while, on the other hand having the same technical and timbral features as one finds on an historical [sic] instrument. These two elements are, however incompatible; a light touch has negative consequences for the sound's profile. Too many technical compromises have to be made in order to realize a more comfortable touch; wind pressures, pallet forms, groove openings, etc., all have to be radically changed. A good touch must have one point of resistance (a pluck or pressure point) which, with the correct technique and use of natural weight, can be overcome. The pluck must be in the right relationship to the depth of the key, Period-specific Applikaturen [playing techniques], based on the individual qualities of the fingers and feet, are indispensible. Modern Applikaturen on the other hand, can, in many cases, be held indirectly responsible for the mediocre quality of many new organs and restorations." 'Organ Technique', Gothenburg, 2002 Bazuin

"I am also interested to note your suggested explanation of Bazuin's unfortunately-worded phrase; I hope that you are correct, since it is also possible to read it as a personal comment...." It was personal in that I was referring to my own experiences and, therefore, shortcomings. It was certainly not a personal comment about you as I have never heard you play a note. I understand your experience with organs as a travelling accompanist - I have had the same experiences and have come across plenty of organists from the UK and elsewhere in the Netherlands doing the same. Maybe you realise, therefore, that even the organs you have played you haven't 'learned' because, in most cases, you were asking them to do things which they weren't designed to do on overly-limited practise-time. My invitation to travel was as a service to your own musical and organistic curiosity. Go once to Saxony (or even to Amsterdam) without the choir and pressures. Book some lessons with people, throw your instincts out of the window. It might be difficult but the world you will open up will make it worthwhile. And you will learn the relationship between touch and action. I agree with your comments about Romsey. Pierre sums up my position about what makes an action good perfectly. As usual, its all about context. The Barker machine in Antwerp makes you, sorry ONE, play that organ in a certain way. It goes at its own speed and imposes its own discipline. If that organ had been rebuilt with an EP console from Durham (perfect in Bristol!) that aesthetic link would be lost. There is no one right way to make an action (though there are plently of wrong ones I think!). Colin's description of the prejudices which detemine modern mechanical actions reflect my experiences entirely. On a French Classical instrument the action is light, but will punish a sloppy release on the Cromorne. See how complicated this issue is? As late as the 1990s there were ('enlightened') commentators telling us that arm-weight has nothing to do with organ technique - this belongs the piano world. Trying playing in Alkmaar or even in Merseburg without significant arm weight. You will DIE and get tendonitis. Not necessarily in that order. Oh, and the organs will sound hopeless, (I remember a famous Japanese organist coming a cropper in Alkmaar because she tried to play it like a harpsichord, the organ sounded horrible). Recordings: Ton Koopman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dpwyGzGSGg (BWV 547) vs van Oortmerssen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnv8gjbx-0Q (BWV 530) The context is different, and try to to think outside whether or not you like the interpretation (I actually also admire Koopman for playing the way he does). Listen how much better the organ sounds when JvO plays it! No wind fluctuations for a start. And neither is 'molto grave'. I just noticed one of JvO's famous lectures on tempi has been added to Youtube. Unmissable stuff! Now I am going to sleep. I just found a paragraph from JvO's book on organ technique which describes the modern action problem perfectly. Will copy it out tomorrow. Greetings Bazuin

"To pick up on but one point (since I am tired and have only just finished work for today) actually I have - in several other countries and quite a number of instruments. I have written this in reply to one of your posts already." Then please relate to these experiences in your postings rather than referring exclusively to modern mechanical organs in the UK. Thanks Bazuin

"Do you therefore imply that old actions are generally better?" Yes. Which is not to say that there aren't good actions built today. "If so, could you define 'better', please? Do you mean, for instance 'heavier'?" In the right context, yes. An organ designed to play French Classical music won't and shouldn't have a heavy action. The action is kept simple, the grooves are kept narrow and the reeds and mixtures are, of course, never used together. Nothing happens by accident. In Alkmaar (Pierre's question was a clever one!) the action is original and, to quote Pieter van Dijk, "like a Rolls Royce". It was copied for the Göteborg project by the way. It is deep and heavy and perfectly in tune with the scale and nature of the organ. As usual its horses for courses. Jürgen Ahrend's unbushed actions work perfectly in his chamber-musical instrument at Edinburgh and in the restoration in Leiden. In the larger organs he has restored, the action, however beautiful, is at odds with the nature of the instrument in my opinion. This is evidenced by some very strange recordings of the Hamburg organ which have been released in the last 15 years. "This idea of 'affecting the way in which the pipes speak' is arguably spurious. There is little point in being able to open a pallet very slowly, thus emitting wind to a pipe or pipes gradually* - this has little practical value in music played faster than molto grave." Sorry, but you NEED to go and play a lot more organs in a lot more places. But first, listen to one of the Novalis or Telarc Ton Koopman recordings (or the ASV James Johnstone recording) at the Waalse Kerk in Amsterdam, a really punishing organ (with a modern action!). Then compare it with the recordings of Jacques van Oortmerssen. Then come back and tell us if you still stand by your comment above. "I must confess that, whilst I find the actions of the instruments in the cathedrals of (for example) Chichester, Christ Church (Oxford) and Portsmouth well balanced, comfortable and responsive, there is little one can do in the way of control (at any reasonable speed) that I cannot do on my (still responsive) 1960s electropneumatic JWW Walker organ." Once again, and (quite genuinely) with the greatest of respect, please go and see something of the organ world beyond your shores. Take your Couperin (and even your Widor!) to France and your Buxtehude to Alkmaar, and even your Reger to Berlin. "In addition, I can see little virtue in a mechanical action being extremely heavy. Under such circumstances, it is likely that it will affect adveresly not only speed but also mitigate against good articulation - purely because one will have to tense one's fingers too much - not something a good concert pianist would expect to have to do." One good way to understand more about your organ technique and the way it effects the sound of an organ with a first rate action is to study clavichord for the while, and, if you can, get access to a pedal clavichord. I can recommend some clavichord-playing-for-organists courses if you're interested. It gives you a frankly terrifying (aural) glimpse into the shortcomings of your organ technique. Greetings Bazuin

"I think Bazuin's generalisation would assume a good mechanical action." Precisely. The number of modern builders who can make a beautiful mechanical action (ie one which punishes your tehcnical weaknesses by affecting the way in which the pipes speak) is very limited. "Not quite. This is not at all the same as the effect of adding departments (or at least the reeds of each department), to achieve the terraced dynamics beloved of many French symphonic composers. "In addition, there are places where rather greater compromises would need to be made." You're right. But once again, we are talking about a teaching instrument! Where else can an organ student in the Uk have regular access to an organ which gives him or her a direct link to the aesthetic of one or other major school of organ building? Its a pity the organ isn't better, but its only having 2 manuals is neither here nor there! In Amsterdam, the new Conservatory has a 19th century 2 manual organ by the Van Bever brothers, and the students have regular lessons on a 2 manual 1880-something C-C. They do not go around complaining about the lack of a third manual on either of those organs, believe it or not. Greetings Bazuin

"Follow-up: I ran into Mr. Fritts the other day and asked about the Aa Kerk transept organ. He said it was in discussions and the deal was still on, the obstacle being the funding. So if any of you wants to underwrite this venture I am sure it would be appreciated. Just wanted to update us on this exciting possibility. " Many thanks! Good to hear about these things - in Holland obtaining such information is difficult indeed. Groetjes Bazuin

At the risk of monopolising the board this afternoon, (I'll go away after this I promise) "Equally important to how an instrument feels under one's fingers is knowing how it sounds." But making the link between the two is the special bit. Which is why a 1920-something Sauer with all its 8's works beautifully with pneumatic action, why St Sulpice works beautifully with its Barker lever and Liverpool works beautifully with its EP action. The point is that the action in each case reflects the sound-aesthetic of the organ, and, hence, the way you play it perfectly. When everything is in harmony you are inspired and so is your audience. If you said to an orchestral player, 'you can play manually, but for this or that concert you won't be able to hear any nuances of your playing at all clearly'... The quite-soon-to-be-Mrs Bazuin is a professional (orchestral) violinist. She plays in many different concert halls and frequently can't hear much of what she plays at all. As organists, even in big Dutch churches, we are spoiled by comparison. Bazuin

"I used to be organist of a huge Binns organ in Shrewsbury. That was new in 1912 and still plays with its original action, without rebuild and very largely still with all its original leatherwork." I've played it. It still has (or had) its original console furniture as well. I had the impression that it was crammed into a chamber far too small for it, but it had an undeniable something! "As for reliability, as already said, we have in Belgium some Kerkhoff organs which can do for 50 years without any maintenance at all. Not even cleaning -the thing will be off-tune, but working-." I've played one of those too (Lennik if you're wondering PL), also VERY charming. "I sit 'Crushed'" Oh please, I didn't intend to crush you! "Provided a player learns from the historic instruments he or she meets, the instrument used for a particular performance subsequently need not have a pure mechanical action, need it?" But why re-invent the wheel if the historic organ builder did it so well? The problem is that most modern mechanical builders still try to make actions which feel as close as possible to electric actions (too light, no pluck) to satisfy customers who want the mechanical action to satisfy their conscience but don't want to play any differently than if they were playing on a non-mechanical action. Mechanical actions, if done well, justify themselves in terms of longetivity alone. As a musician I don't like to play my instrument by remote control, (most other instrumentalists would also find it strange). Nobody would claim that Alkmaar, Freiberg (fill in your favourite large historic pre-1800 with its original action) have anything other than fantastic actions, but they're seriously heavy and you have to adjust your playing to accommodate. This doesn't mean that the concept is irrelevant in modern organ building. "Please suggest any French organ symphony by any composer that can be correctly registered and played on two manuals." The point is that this is a teaching instrument. If the Rieger (not Reiger PD, this is the Dutch word for heron!) across the road can be considered a relevant teaching tool then why do we have to be so picky as to insist that a C-C copy has to have 3 manuals instead of two? The biggest problem is perhaps the addition of the Anches Positif. So add the Trompette and the 2' and leave the Fourniture and Clairon for the Anches GO. Problem solved. "The point is, he did nothing that other contemporary firms did not do to historic organs. I challenge you to name me any major firm that turned down this sort of work and stayed in business!" But HW IV seemingly did. In Liverpool. See the previous post. "Not trying to battle this one out, merely to stand my ground, you understand." Me too! And trying to put off the inevitable translating chores. Bazuin

Hello boarders "Gently mocking or not, it is my firm opinion that mechanical action is (in the final analysis) for either the players' or the builders' benefit. Assuming that excessive wind-pressures are avoided, I am confident that no listener would ever be able to tell the difference in an instrument of any size." I disagree, if only because a good organist will play differently on a good mechanical action. "this may be true for instruments laid out after the manner of Germany or Holland two hundred and more years ago, but modern trackers do not seem longer lived than their contemporary assisted actions, far from it!" which says everything about the quality of the modern instruments in question, but nothing about the argument in general. "I'm thinking of such sounds as come from the Klais at Smith Square or St.Lawrence Jewry" Yuk. "Part of the remarkable success of USA firms in this regard must be put down to the revealingly harsh acoustic into which many of their instruments are installed." A nice idea. But assuming we're talking about the same US firms (Fritts, Pasi, Richards/Fowkes, Brombaugh etc, the greats in other words) then it also has to do with a generation of research into historical practices in Germany and Holland. Remember also that the vast majority of smaller historic organs (and some larger ones) in Holland, Northern Germany, Thurinigia, Saxony etc are in very dry churches. The big famous organs in the big churches are the exception. But who today can make a trumpet as beautiful as Arp Schnitger could in those dry village churches in Northern Germany? "It doesn't take long to oust an unpopular organ if you have the money to do it. Heard what is going on at The Royal Academy of Music? The much-vaunted Van den Heuvel (new in 1993) is to be taken out very soon! " There was a report on a website in NL about 2 years ago I guess that Flentrop had had to repair that organ because the façade pipes had started to collapse under their own weight... The idea to build an organ in a style specific to the literature was a very good one. The idea to order it from Van den Heuvel wasn't. "but I still couldn't understand why two manuals could possibly have been considered sufficient for the job of work this instrument was intended to do. When one thinks even casually of the French music that everyone wants to play, virtually all of it requires three manuals." It is perfectly possible to understand the C-C aesthetic from a 2 manual instrument. Such is the genius of the C-C aesthetic and its relationship to the literature. "Never one to shy away from giving his true opinion, he roundly declined to do it, saying that he would not ever be responsible for desecrating what he considered to be his father's greatest work." While we are very very glad that the Liverpool organ was spared, it seems a pity that his conservationist streak didn't stop him desecrating other people's organs. http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/JCH.html Greetings Bazuin

"Thank you for this, Bazuin. It is excellent. I would be interested to know when the DVD (?) is actually released." The DVD will be released on the 12th of September. Greetings Bazuin

"Thank you gentlemen, for this discussion. Bazuin, if I am ask, in what publication did you see that mention of Mr. Fritts in connection with the Raphaelis organ in the Aa Kerk? You are right, it would be exciting news indeed." I believe it was De Orgelvriend, the magazine of our esteemed fellow-boarder Gerco1956. This was a while ago now and it occurs to me that I haven't seen anything about it since. I notice Mr Fritts is your local organ builder, you are one lucky Hesperion. Greetings Bazuin

"For that we also need to reverse the hierarchy; the organ comes first, the player, a poor limited creature, is at the service of the organ. Not the reverse. An organ isn't a fridge! and if it does not fully fit the "needs (1)", just say "but wait a minute, those needs will change in a fortnight". Hurray for Pierre! "I am convinced we ow the speeding races in Bach to the prevalence of electric actions during Dupré's period" I think something else plays a role in the speeding races. Until now most organ builders since the start of the reform movement have tried to make light mechanical actions, even when restoring large organs (this is perhaps the only criticism one could imagine of Jürgen Ahrend, probably the most important organ builder of the 20th century). Many recordings have been made in Hamburg since 1993 which bear this out. Now organ builders are realising that heavier actions are normal for larger organs. "Now if we want to re-start the machine of the progress, and warrant the organ a future, we first need to repair as much ancient organs as possible." This is the point precisely. In the late 19th and early 20th century we lost, for various reasons, several centuries of knowledge about organ building techniques. Preserving jealously, and reconstructing the past is vitally important, not as an end in itself but to provide a basis of knowledge with which to build a worthwhile future. I've said it before, but in the US this has already happened. This: "http://www.pasiorgans.com/instruments/opus14spec.html" is, on the face of it, eclecticism gone mad (why do we never discuss dual-temperament organs on this board?) but I doubt there has been a better organ built yet this century. Why? Because that school of American organ building copied the past for almost a whole generation (and at a level only equally by Ahrend in Europe!) before they developed this form of eclecticism. This is undoubtedly the most progressive organ building in the world today. There are 2 reasons we are having this discussion: i) because organs in the prestigious places in the UK have a social function (to be rejoiced). But this brings with it responsibilities which have been, often disgracefully, disregarded, resulting in the ruining of thousands of organs on the command of their organists. ii) because British organs uniquely in Europe have no state protection. This sort of discussion simply doesn't happen elsewhere. That organs are preserved is taken for granted, (mostly, sometimes it goes wrong in Belgium!) "I am not sure that I understand your last sentence. If I play a piece, it is usually because I like it - the whole piece, not a part of it. I generally try to avoid playing pieces which I do not like." I was referring to the instrument, not the piece! Greetings Bazuin

"The organ is there to perform a job - whatever one's tastes in organ design might be. If we take the view that the music is there to serve the organ, rather than the other way around, then I am not sure that this is not equally flawed." Its a two-way street. A good organ, of whatever sort has as much artistic value as the music. The one-way street you describe applies to steam trains and washing machines. But not organs. "Incidentally, the reeds in question were installed (or at least revoiced) by Arthur Harrison, in 1925. If you never either heard them, nor had to accompany a choir or congregation on the instrument - or for that matter, give an organ recital, then surely it is folly to disagree with one who had daily contact with the instrument?" But now we revere anything Arthur Harrison touched. No? Are the trombas at Redcliffe defective? "Yet, if the '100-plus y/o pneumatic action' works only up to a point - or with inadequate repetition (thus rendering a lot of brisk music either unplayable or sounding absurd), is this really worth keeping?" Yes. Play slower and admire the whole canvas. Not just the bits you want to. Greetings Bazuin

"This may be overstating the case. There exist in this country many Romantic instruments in a variety of sizes, a number of which have either had little or no alteration (tonal or mechanical) and others which have been treated with respect by virtually any standads, save thos of the most fanatical preservationists - which itself could be considered restrictive and occasionally obstructive." It is true to say that such instruments still exist, however this was more by luck (they don't exist in the high-profile places!). Like elsewhere in Europe the organs that were (mostly) saved were saved due to lack of money. The fanatical preservationist is only considered as such in England where organs have no state protection. "Take the organ of York Minster, for example. Prior to the 1960 rebuild, the Minster organist (no less a person that Dr. Francis Jackson) disocvered that several stops were falling into spectacular disuse - for the simple reason that they were virtually useless in a musical context. The G.O. heavy pressure reeds were prime offenders, here. In addition, there were a number of defects in the scheme - which were highlighted after about fifteen years' daily use by one of the country's leading players, himself widely travelled and who brought a wealth of experience to bear to the deliberations regarding the redesigning of the Minster organ." I'm really sorry but you've also missed the point. Francis Jackson's alterations of the scheme simply reflect the prevailing attitudes of the era of which he was (and still is) a key British representative. Was the organ really defective or did it just not fit the new ideals of 1960? Those Great high pressure reeds would, in 1960, have seemed useless. Were they from the 1903 Walker rebuild or where they even from Arthur Harrison? (I ask because I don't know). Either way, I don't believe they were 'bad'. My point that the mistakes are still being made is heightened by the fact the last rebuild had both narrow scale and wide scale jeux de tierces added. What on earth does that have to do with the core remainder of the instrument? The Sesquialtera allows one to play Buxtehude chorale preludes before Evensong according to the aesthetic of......1960. "neither would it be easy to class the Minster organ as anything other than a large Romantic organ (I am aware that Pierre disagrees with regard to the period in which an English organ could be termed 'Romanitc'). However, it is certainly not either neo-classical, or neo-baroque. Neither does the term post-modernist really apply." Precisely! Its no longer any of the above because in York there was always money to 'improve' it! "I confess that I find it difficult to either understand this argument. Is it not equally valid for someone to maintain that, actually, the era of Henry Willis and William Hill was the height of achievement for English organ building?" Only subjectively. The biggest lesson the second generation of the reform movement taught is that there is no hierarchy of styles or eras. All eras produced good organs, most produced plenty of bad ones (prior to 1800 in fewer numbers). The questions about which previous state the organ should be restored to have been long argued about in the Netherlands (most notably), now a good degree of common sense is saving the high-quality 19th century additions to the earlier organs. "Why, pray, should one accept that it is incorrect or undesirable to return them to this state?" There is only one factor. Is the organ good? Eg Is it well made of good materials? Does the 100-plus y/o pneumatic action still work? NOT "Does it conveniently what I want it to?" Greetings Bazuin

"Do you at least accept that the neo-baroque era provoked thought, scholarship, more thought, experimentation, learning and understanding about subjects fundamental to organ design, construction and musical performance? Where would we be now, in your view, had not those experiments and discussions taken place?" You've missed Pierre's point. Pierre has always argued for the preservation of good organs of all sorts including the best of the neo-baroque. He is the conservator par excellence of these discussions. In Britain the neo-baroque was used as a justification for the destruction of the country's Romantic organ heritage. Elsewhere in Europe the mistakes made then (in terms of changing existing instruments) are now being reversed - pneumatic actions reconstructed, mutations thrown out in favour of the original 8' stops. In Britain, precisely because the lessons of the neo-baroque era, and their application beyond the initial wave of ideas, have never been applied in more than the most embryonic forms, (we still ask questions here about whether 'New College was a good idea?') the same misunderstandings are endlessly perpetuated, both in rebuilt and new instruments. The result is that most organs fit Pierre's description of those in Southern Belgium. Greetings Bazuin

This is AWESOME Greetings Bazuin