bazuin

Some quick notes about Alkmaar: The tierces are especially important in the Tertiaan and the 2 Sexquialteras, both of which are at 16' pitch (the only ones in the world?). The message is clear - the Sexquialteras are meant as tierce mixtures and not as solo stops (conforming to Mattheson but not the neo-baroque ideals. After the first restoration in 1949 the Sexquialteras were at 8' pitch and were often used as solo stops, among others by Rene Saorgin in his Buxtehude recording for Harmonia Mundi). The cimbels are exclusively solo stops in the North German tradition, and work especially with the Trompets of Rp and Bw. The nave of the church has been re-plastered since the 1986 restoration of the organ. I have personally crawled around the Hoofdwerk windchest and can confirm Nigel's comments about the scale on which the organ is built. It is breathtaking in extremis. The Van Covelens organ in the quire will celebrate its 500th birthday in 2011. This will be marked in grand style with the inaugural Grand Prix d'ECHO competition, the participants of which will comprise the finalists of the ECHO-member competitions in Alkmaar and Freiberg (2009) and Innsbruck (2010). Greetings Bazuin

A famous example, but remarkably well preserved. http://www.alkmaarorgelstad.nl/index.php?id=129&L=1 and almost as famous but also fabulous: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MWzLvxj_IlQ (Hinsz organ, 1743, pedal by Freytag 1790, many pipes in the Hoofdwerk chorus from an earlier instrument by the local builder, Jan Slegel) Greetings Bazuin

"Are you able to provide more details please, Cynic?" http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa...=R2843&I=-3 (you have to scroll down, but its all worth reading!) Bazuin

Gosh, this nice thread became quickly rather nasty. Anyway, very interesting that such an organ should go to Germany, I think in the States the majority of Skinner organs, even from the period when GDH was starting to make his mark (the period in question) have been altered. I suspect the antiphonal organ in the present instrument isn't original - does anyone know, or whether it will go to Germany too? Am I right in thinking that there is already a good-sized Hook organ in Berlin? I can't remember the details. I agree wholeheartedly with cynic's comments about recitalist-advisers, committee designed organs etc, and echo his criticism of the organs mentioned. I would also like to applaud him for pointing out the disgraceful situation of the organs at Hindley and Warrington. However I can't agree with this: "As a player in recital or service, I know for absolute certain that a kick-stick swell is not in any way as good as a balanced swell." Is chalk better than cheese? Its a question of aesthetic unity, not of what's better or worse. The Usk organ mentioned was never intended to be played in such a way that gradual and fairly consistent dynamic change was possible, that's just the way YOU want to play it. Good organs of whatever style (including the style which began this thread) impose their character on the player, its up to the player to make it sound good. Of course a 'kick stick' as you put it would be entirely crazy on a 1930 Skinner. "but set that against the whole of the rest of the romantic repertoire where the need to play expressively/shade the balance often leaves you having to pedal with one leg as a result. " But in France until Widor, it was very normal to play the organ one-legged. There is even a piece in L'Organiste of Lefebure-Wely (Joris Verdin describes him as the last of the left foot virtuosi) marked "“il vaut mieux abandonner la pédale expressive, et jouer la pédale des deux pieds” You can see the dominance of this style still in the organ works of Franck, look once at the short 3rd section of the fantaisie in C. There is no such thing as a romantic organ, any more than there is a romantic way of playing the organ. In Holland we have romantic organs from after 1900 with NO swell boxes at all. Cavaillé-Coll built Saint Sulpice in 1862 with 'cuivres', preserved to this day. Later he used balanced boxes. Henry Willis III developed the infinite speed and gradation swell box, the idea behind it matches the aesthetic of the famous Liverpool organ perfectly. Why did the Walze never catch on in France or the UK? Does it matter? The beauty of the organ is its non-standardisation, the challenge to us is to respond to its possibilities (assuming its a fine organ), not to complain about what we perceive to be its limitations. The blower argument is a red-herring incidentally, because adding an electric blower affects the aesthetic of the organ (how it sounds, how one should play it) not one iota, at least in organs with modern winding systems (ie reservoirs instead of wedge bellows). Greetings Bazuin

Mr Wyld is entitled to his opinion, and, as I seem to remember he has a background as a scientist, as well as being an organ builder I am quite prepared to take it seriously. "As for casting on sand and THAT being responsible for the wonderful sounds referred to, both in that quote and the subsequent one regarding the Flentrop exercise, I assume that they have copied pre-existing scales" As far as I know the scalings in the Katherine organ were lost, the scaling for the new organ has been done by Cor Edskes. David Wyld wrote "All bunk, I'm afraid! 1. The consensus? of whom?; 2. The freezing point of a metal isn't affected by the rate of cooling; 3. The 'Crystal lattice' - where does that idea come from? The molecules of each (constituent) metal remain as discrete molecules. What makes a metal harder or softer is the sizes of the gaps at the interstices between molecules of similar sizes - if you want to harden the metal, you must find a 'solution hardener' - i.e. a molecule small enough to fit into these gaps, to reduce the movement, as it were; 4. Your ear tells you that this is a scientific/metallurgical breakthrough?" No, I'm a musician, my ear tells me its a musical breakthrough. "This tells ME that there has been no breakthrough at all, just the perpetuation of an already out-dated myth which I feel is simply being exploited as a marketing tool." and as neither an organ builder nor a scientist I am not going to try and answer the charge myself. Instead, here is a quote from Henk van Eeken from the documentation of his reconstruction of the organ in Anloo (the first time casting on sand was applied in the reconstruction of an existing historic organ). I take all responsibility for any mistakes in the translation: "In the context of the acoustical properties of organ pipes, Munetaka Yokota has shown that the metal found in old organ pipes is harder than modern metal with the same percentages of lead and tin. Even when the chemical composition of modern organ metal is as close as possible to that of the historical metal, it has a different appearance and substantially different mechanical properties. This can partly be explained by the ageing process and other circumstances, but research has shown that that different casting techniques result in different rates of cooling during solidification causing significant differences in the crystal lattice and mechanical properties...... ...In the North German Organ Research Project, the casting of organ metal on sand was thoroughly investigated. The metal plates were cast as thinly as possible so that only 0.4-0.5mm had to be shaved off. The chemical composition of the metal was as close as possible to that of historic organ metal. The research showed that organ metal cast on sand is much harder than typical modern organ metal. This increased hardness is caused by the relative warmth of sand, resulting in the metal cooling much quicker than when cast on canvas. Modern metal is mostly cast on a heat-resistant material such as Nomex or Kevlar. Under this material, one or more layers of swanskin [might be the wrong word?] create increased thermal isolation with significant results for the cooling and solidification of the metal. In addition modern pipe metal is often cast much thicker than the final result, which also influences both cooling and solidification........ The thinning of the metal by a machine does cause a temporary hardening of the metal, but the following re-crystalisation results in a softer metal. The elasticity in the metal caused by the machine-process also results in a less dense crystal lattice. The final sound is the combination of a complex interaction of different factors. The mere copying of any number of isolated details is then not only impossible, but also pointless as long as the acoustical properties of the original pipe are not achieved. It is essential that the chemical composition of the organ metal is as close as possible to that of the historic metal and that the acoustical and mechanical properties are the same. The best way to achieve this it to reconstruct, as far as possible, the original production process because this naturally produces the specific characteristics and behavioral patterns [of the original]." I re-state my own belief that none of these findings diminish in any way the role of the voicer, and I don't believe that Henk van Eeken would suggest such a thing either. Greetings Bazuin

"Does mettalurgy (within a few percent) and the material the sheet metal was cast on actually make a significant difference to a pipe's speaking properties - bearing in mind it's going to ultimately be voiced by a human being with human ears, who could probably get a very-near-identical result out of anything vaguely similar in appearance?" This is a very valid question, and I have no doubt that the 'casting on sand' thing is a useful marketing tool for the builders that employ it. The consensus seems to be that pipe metal cast on sand cools at a different rate to being cast on a normal man-made substance and has a different crystal lattice as a consequence. It isn't suprising that the acoustical properties of the pipe are also different. Its worth experiencing some modern organs or reconstructions where this has been applied, I have been impressed in a number of locations. I'm an organist rather than a mettalurgist, but my ear tells me that this is really a breakthrough. However, the skill of the voicer is not in any way diminished by the breakthrough and his input remains the most important part of the success of the final result. Maybe its interesting to mention that Flentrop are currently voicing the Rugwerk (the first phase) of their reconstruction of the organ in the St Katherine in Hamburg (where Reincken was organist). The new pipework was cast on sand and is apparently, to quote one of the advisers, "stunning". Greetings Bazuin

Organ builders have been copying organ stops from historical examples at least since the early 1960s when Ahrend and Brunzema heralded the historically informed reform movement. (Perhaps even earlier, any suggestions?) In recent times the focus among the best builders has extended to reconstructing the processes which went into making the pipes (and of course other parts of the organ as well). Now, for instance, it is quite normal for several builders to identify the material upon which the pipe metal in the historical example was cast, (a piece of Gothenburg-heralded research). Henk van Eeken casts on sand, normal for the Schnitger tradition up to and including Freytag (who was building organs until around 1805!). Reil's reconstruction in Ansbach of the Wiegleb organ has new pipes cast on linen - according to Hans Reil this is what Wiegleb used. Sometimes though, as already pointed out, other circumstances produce results which the original builder didn't have to contend with. Gene Bedient's reconstructions of French organs of different period sound, to my ear, pretty rough because the typical American churches don't develop the overtones in the French reeds that the old French church do. Arp Schnitger's reeds are very fundamental dominated (even in comparison to those of his son) so they sound good even in dry acoustics. Another story about Gene Bedient - he was copying a 2' Schnitger Querfloit, and copied the scaling precisely from the original. Unfortunately, because Schnitger's compass only went to C49, and Bedient's to G56, the pipes for the highest notes were wider than they were high. He had to start again. Sometimes the rule-book has to be tweaked... Greetings Bazuin

"Does anybody know exactly what this means?" For those undecided about CC, I recommend listening to Pipedreams (pipedreams.org) this week as the show is dedicated to him and the evolutionary BWV 565 is featured. I find it difficult to take him seriously in the sense of his being a serious musician. As a performer in the sense of Liberace, Virgil Fox, or even David Blaine, he is of course very impressive. The organ, and indeed the music, is more or less a sideshow to the man. Can you imagine a mainstream non-organist musician (Joshua Bell? Ian Bostridge?) carrying on like that? Having said that I was positively surprised at the interview which he gave for pipedreams, he's very articulate and believes he's on a mission. I think personally that he's missed the point - for me the organ's emancipation will be the result of it being 'sold' as well as, let's say the Concertgebouw Orkest in Amsterdam, rather than its Disney-fication. The organ has disappeared from the public conscience, more than other forms of mainstream classical music, surely, because organ performances are, too often, of a poor quality, and because churches are never the best at PR. Greetings Bazuin

I offer no judgement of the instrument, it sounds well enough on disc. The discussions about whether or not to reconstruct the Silbermann organ, or to build a new universal organ based loosely on his concept was a fascinating one. Many of the arguments and counter-arguments from the mid 1990s are preserved in the archives of PIPORG-L. These include many interesting posts by Ibo Ortgies, one of Europe's leading organologists who argued for a Gothenburg-style multi-disciplinary reconstruction project. http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=piporg-l and then type 'Frauenkirche' into the search box. Greetings Bazuin

This is interesting news indeed. I believe MM of this forum has first hand experience of the present instrument? "Looking at the two stoplists and all that Fisk has done in between it is significant that the new organ has a much more 'romantic' and almost 'churchy' look to it's stoplist - as has been commented on in thse pages and elsewhere - styles do seem to go in cycles." Actually, I think its more important to see the stoplist in the context of the Fisk company's development of the last 15-20 years (especially since the early 90s). In a sense its an extension of the concepts (if not the execution-ideals) of Charles Fisk himself, especially as they began to develop in the 1970s. Fisk researched the work of Cavaillé-Coll as evidenced in his organ at House of Hope Church in St Paul MN. Even the Tuba in the new organ echos the Calvin Hampton-inspired and Charles Fisk designed (though not completed until a decade after his death) organ in the concert hall in Dallas, which has defined their work since. "The old organ is not being disposed of totally however - it is to be intalled in another church." Its loss would be unthinkable given its position in North American organ history. E .Power Biggs was involved in its commissioning, and the organ was played at both his, and Charles Fisk's funerals. Anton Heiller also recorded there I think (Hindemith Sonatas?) "Furthermore it also means that instruments of character and undoubted use such as the little 3 man. Mander from Jesus College are preserved and can be appreciated elsewhere." Hmmmm, I think perhaps equating that organ with the current Harvard Fisk is stretching a point. Now if New College Oxford decided they wanted a new Fisk...... Greetings Bazuin

"Pierre's opinion ignores totally, in my view, that organs are by and large artefacts that are intended to serve a particular purpose. This is, generally, to be played in worship, mostly but not always christian. If they do not adequately serve this purpose, no-one schould be forced to repair them, keep them in shape, or even to give them house-room." I find it quite astonishing that Barry should re-state the position which caused the loss of so many valuable historic instruments across Europe. Good, representative organs should be preserved precisely because they are significantly more than "artefacts that are intended to serve a particular purpose." Given Barry's geographical location, where many churches are served well by historic instruments of different sorts, (Ladegast especially, a little further afield Gottfried Silbermann), I wonder if his colleagues who have to serve 21st century church culture with the supposed 'limitations' of their historic museum pieces agree with him? If an organ has significant historical value this must take priority over the supposed transient requirements of the 21st century. "I am annoyed by the view that it sn't really to possible to distinguish between a good and a bad orgen in the same style, which lies behind most extremely conservationist approaches (alternatively: even bad instruments must be preserved as a sort of dire warning, which seems prima facie absurd). " I have tried already in this thread to distinguish between good and bad organs, I believe firmly that historic organs (in the broadest sense) can be objectively judged on their technical qualities, and the inherent craftsmanship. Whether we as musicians happen to like them or not, it is not our place to judge, or to condemn them on subjective grounds. I appreciate that where Barry comes from, there are spectacularly bad organs from the DDR time, cheaply made from poor materials, and little artistic vision. If these are the organs Barry refers to, then I agree with him that saving them on conservationist grounds is absurd. If we are discussing the typical 10-stop Victorian organ in an English village church (even from the second rank of builders) I would strongly disagree. Let's take another example. In Sweden, from the early 1930s onwards, an influential organisation called the Organ Council of the Friends of Hymn Singing, decided that church organs in Sweden "should have a good organ with the resources to play liturgically". In other words each organ had to have 2 manuals and an independent pedal. Unfortunately this led to the destruction of many smaller 18th, and especially 19th century organs (mostly single manual with pedal pull-down) in Sweden which were of a uniformly far better quality than anything being built at the time. Attempted restorations were "almost always disastrous". Fortunately many instruments were saved by the enterprising efforts of one individual, Dr Einar Erici. "Erici's idea was that was than an organ with two manuals and pedal was totally unnecessary if the historical one had worked for 100 years". * This is just one example of transient circumstances causing the loss of organ heritage. There are countless others as we all know. "When is an organ so venerable that it's holy? After 10 years, or 20, or 100? And NEVER forget: if organ builders had always left the past untouched, we'd never have had St Sulpice, or St Ludgeri Norden, or Jakobi Hamburg, or hundreds of others." For me this is a red herring. All the given examples are those of builders rebuilding organs in the same tradition in which they worked but from earlier generations. Such circumstances simply don't exist any more. The fact the builders in question were also among the greatest of all time (who can we say that of now?) is also of some significance I think. "There is simply no ONE answer." No, but if the answer isn't obvious, surely its better to preserve than to change! Greetings Bazuin * quotes from Axel Unnerback 'The organ as Scrying Glass', from 'The Organ as a Mirror of its Time', Oxford 2002

I don't share Pierre's cynicism about Gothenburg, having visited the festival there twice and seen first hand what has been achieved and the ways they have set about doing it. "to build, if possible, a replica of the Casparini organ as a basis for knowledge development, quality assessment and application of research results" "What is it save chinese Public relations stuff?" Please remember that by using what, to us 'organ-people' seems like empty PR speak, Gothenburg has managed to secure vast sums of money for their research programmes. The North German project cost, even then, something approaching EUR 3.5 million Euros, the sponsors included mobile phone giant Ericsson. What is "quality assessment" ? "Application of research results" ? I don't know if Pierre has had the chance to see the documentation of previous research projects done in Gothenburg, the publications are freely available. Their way of research has always been 'multi-disciplinary', involving, for example, Chalmers institute of technology in their research about the acoustical properties of organ pipes, (the resulting research has been published by GOArt). Like it or not, Gothenburg have a track record of achieving astounding things, but you have to go there yourself to see it! "The U.S. copy is well under way - I have my informators there-, but what about the restoration of the original ? Pffft.... I am VERY anxious." I am not. The building of the replica is an important step in the restoration of the original. I'd rather they made their mistakes on the replica than the original. Greetings Bazuin

"We largely agree, Bazuin, but Göteborg rises many questions. To me, it is an opaque bureaucracy you never get any answer from." Although I am not involved directly with ECHO, I am heavily involved in the activities of another ECHO city. I am aware that not everything works as smoothly as it should when dealing with Gothenburg. That said, I have to ask Pierre directly whether he has visited Gothenburg and seen for himself what has been achieved there? "Have you any news from Vilnius, a file they are engaged with ? Inacceptable, since this organ is one of the most important in the world." Which is ackowleged on the website of GOArt. The page about Vilnius can be read here: http://goart.gu.se/cgi-bin/hpslev1/projlis...A366122CC4C80C5 Among the goals of the project is listed the following: "to build, if possible, a replica of the Casparini organ as a basis for knowledge development, quality assessment and application of research results" The organ in question, built in Gothenburg, for the Eastman school in Rochester, USA will be opened in October. You can see it here: http://esm.rochester.edu/eroi/c-s.php I hope this answers Pierre's query. "I believe it is better to have unplayable organs than "bettered" ones," And I agree wholeheartedly. Barry Jordan wrote "I believe that it is irresponsible to try to judge all instruments by the same criteria." and I agree with this as well in as much as we can distinguish objectively between organs which have a high technical quality and those which don't. The question of losing instruments as a result of subjective judgements based on perceived artistic merit is another matter altogether. Here, Pierre's comments are, in my opinion, absolutely correct. Greetings Bazuin

"This is a golden ideal perhaps, but surely works out cheaper in the long run." To be fair, I don't think Pierre's, as usual excellent, discourse had anything to do with money (at least not as its chief concern). I agree with almost all of what Pierre wrote. The question of conservation is always a vexed one and Pierre's view of it is necessarily coloured by the 'problems' of Belgium. However, I feel that two important points need to be made in addition: i) The first wave of the reform movement (the age of theories rather than knowledge) was surely as much to do with modernism as it was to do with reformism. All the more reason to leave its results rather than destroying them? ii) The state of organ research at places like Gothenburg is now so advanced that reconstructing historical instruments has become a worthwhile goal in a way it never was when Pierre was training in Belgium. When reconstructing an organ like that at Ansbach (Reil reconstruction of Wiegleb, there was next to nothing left of the original) leaves us with such a compelling and interesting instrument offering us new insights even into the music of Bach, then such projects are surely worthwhile. Pierre's second option: "2)- We accept our limits, and keep the organs in the state they mostly are in, that is, hybrid ones, in order to keep at least "historic layers" we shall need tenths of years to commence to understand." In Holland this is now what happens, more or less. The additions by Van Dam, Van Oeckelen etc to earlier instruments are preserved, because they too were fine builders, and most often they worked in the tradition of the original builder anyway. The point about the UK, and why it doesn't even stand comparison to Belgium is simply this: conservation is not seen to have anything to do with music making. The link doesn't exist there yet. The organ is simply upgraded (with the latest computer gadgets) whether the organ underneath corresponds aesthetically or not to such things. Because then it becomes more 'flexible'. The good work done by BIOS is the exception rather than the rule. Surely the exciting thing about Belgium is that there are many historic organs which are as yet un-restored, and even unplayable. The potential is enormous... "This suicide must be stopped, and for this reason we cannot permit ourselves any value judgment, because it is well known fashions change, and that the human beings always "hate" the previous one." And this is where the Dutch must take some criticism, many of the best neo-baroque organs have been made softer, rationalised etc. Greetings Bazuin (recently having played an unaltered 1950s Marcussen organ in Sweden and hoping it will be jealously preserved)

Much as I can enjoy the kind of organs which started this thread, for multum in parvo organ building, Cavaille-Coll takes some beating. No-one suggested this as a possible stop-list: http://lammert.boeve.org/site4.html To briefly translate some of the Dutch, all the pipes are on one windchest, and almost all are enclosed. Note the lack of pedal stops, but remember that even in C-C's slightly larger organs (often of 20 or even more stops) the pedal stops are often all borrowed anyway. I have played the organ in the link, its extraordinary. It was sold by some monks in Antwerp who'd had it for nearly a century, because they wanted something neo-baroque..... OK, this organ has 9 stops, but my memory is that the Clairon is a later addition (it is operated from a pedal next to the swell box). Greetings Bazuin

As far as I am aware the passing of Dennis Townhill OBE on the 18th of July has not been mentioned here. For many years Organist and Master of the Choristers at St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral in Edinburgh, he was also largely responsible for the founding of St Mary's Music School, a specialist school for young musicians of school age, which functions alongside the choir school. As an organist he performed the complete works of Bach, Buxtehude, and Franck, and recorded the completed organ works of Kenneth Leighton. He was 83. Greetings Bazuin

"The performance was grotesque." I am in full agreement. Greetings Bazuin

"Apologies - I must have missed CH saying about the derived 64'....I thought I heard him say that the longest pipe was 64' in length rather than a double quint +32' effect." You did. "Far from being "God is with us"....... more like God is belting up the M1 in a Ferrari. Still, he made up for it in the last chord, which lasted 2 weeks." Spot on. Greetings Bazuin

"Unfortunately, I never heard Leeuwarden, but I have played the Waalsekerk, with the modern upperwork which tends to make things a bit too lively in that building." I disagree, if you visit Beverwijk (Muller 1756) or the Kapelkerk in Alkmaar (Muller 1760-something), the effect of the upperwork is at least as intense. Greetings Bazuin

As usual this has nothing to do with the original topic, but I like this sort of dicussion a lot because it gets to the root of a lot of contemporary organ philosophies and problems. Thanks again to MM for his post. "It seems to me, that many of the scholars of my own generation and the one before, were so hooked on the idea of Schnitger/Silbermann organs, they possibly failed to see the wider truth of a far more varied and rich tradition than they gave credit for." I think that we can pretty much accept that today this is a widely accepted fact. "What I can never understand is the idea that "eclecticism" is somehow a dirty word." I can understand this. The idea of eclecticism in modern(ist) organ building is seen primarily in the large organs of the German speaking world built since the war. Whether from Bonn or Vorarlberg is actually irrelevant, the style peaked in the 1970s with a certain way of playing and thinking about the repertoire (cf Peter Hurford for example). The players of that generation didn't in any way accept the musical qualities of any late 19th or early 20th century school of organ building but were quite happy to play the literature of that time in a heavily ' neo'- influenced, sanitised way, (cf Peter Hurford, but also even a genius of the calibre of Anton Heiller!). Now that we have moved that step beyond Peter Williams, anyone with a broad interest in the literature can understand why even a Sauer organ from the 1920s is more beautiful and fascinating than any modernist Germanic post-war organ, (with perhaps one or two exceptions). Most of the really wonderful organ builders of the last generation (they don't come from Bonn or Vorarlberg incidentally) built organs within a single aesthetic, mostly one or other 16th/17th school. Think of Ahrend, Brombaugh etc. The re-defining of eclecticism took place primarily in the US, but not exclusively. To be clear, I define the 're-definition' as an eclecticism based on the genuine research and understanding of historic models (of all kinds), as opposed to the eclecticism which grew from the neo-baroque/modernist/Germanic post-war model (of which plenty is still being produced in Bonn and Vorarlberg and many other places). In terms of European examples consider the Flentrop organs in Chicago and Enschede (and the one in Scotland), or the Gronlund organs in Sweden (like the one Gillian Weir played on the television - I've heard it live and its more wonderful than anything I've heard elsewhere in mold from 1975. Their later organs are even better.) Jurgen Ahrend's son is now going down that route too apparently. In the US the examples are more obvous, the big Brombaughs in Christiana Hundred, Collegedale, Toyota City, Springfield etc, as well as the big Fritts and Pasi organs I've mentioned. What is perhaps still lacking is an eclectic style based on the German building from the Bucholz and Ladegast time (some influences in modernist organs by Muhleisen for instance notwithstanding). " yet many scholars tell us that the reverse is somehow inexcusable, and that any classically conceived instrument should be restricted to "authentic" or at least "informed" performance practice." To be fair, I don't think many people write things like that any more, this is the philosophy of Peter Williams. "If we expand our imaginations a little, it is not beyond the realms of the possible that the Bavo Orgel, Haarlem, COULD have sounded the way it does when it was first built. We know that it doesn't, but it would have been possible and certainly within the style of the period for the organ to sound much the same as it does to-day, with the exception of rock-steady wind." I have never heard a historic organ which speaks the language the Bavo organ does now. You cannot put Bavo in context until you've been to Leeuwarden (which you may well have done being a fellow traveller!) "So on that basis, it is also possible that a genuine baroque organ may just have been sufficiently tonally flexible to enable it to be remarkably "eclectic." Which is why, for instance, Verschueren build their 'house-style' organs borrowing significantly from Konig and the Middle-Rhine school of building. Those organs are very flexible (Bach-Couperin-Liszt-Mendelssohn-Brahms all work very convincingly!). But the basis has to be in genuine historical knowledge (and a lot of experimentation - if you don't make your own pipes for instance, such experimentation is impossible!). "What do we thus find other than classical choruswork, French style reeds, solo voices, swell boxes, electric action (as well as the original mechanical action in good working condition) and even chamades?" Enjoy it while you can, I am quite sure the modern additions will be removed when the money is available, (this isn't the Liepaja organ in Latvia we're talking about after all). "I'm afraid that I have considerable sympathy for the eclectic philosophy of Larry Phelps, and having played the Fisk at Harvard Memorial Church, Cambridge, Mass., I have played an organ which brings a similar philosophy to a successful conclusion." But done in a totally different way to anything Larry Phelps envisaged. The philosophy of Phelps is nice (even if it only recognises C-C as worthwhile from the 19th century) but it took a Fisk to take it to a much higher level. Greetings Bazuin

to quote Peter Williams: "It seems to be true that the Organ Revival in England 'really took root only with the opening of the organ in the Royal Festival Hall in 1954' (Clutton 1963), but even then the roots were thin, weedy and unprogenitive.... At the Festival Hall in 1954, despite the thought put into it by the consultant (Ralph Downes) and the builder (Harrison and Harrison), the quasi-comprehensive nature of the organ results in little more than an out-moded compromise organ of a period, still with us [1980], in which eclecticism seems a possible and worthwhile aim. The Festival Hall's 103 stops provide German Flutes, Anglo-German choruses, French reeds, and other elements carefully calculated to allow many types of organ music. But the size of the organ, the sprawling, largely un-encased construction and electro-pneumatic action make it impossible for either player or listener to achieve true sympathy with any musical style other than the town-hall transcription,of which it presumably hoped to sound the death knell." Even if we accept that PW's writings are always conceived from his version of organ reform, which stops short of embracing late 19th/early 20th century developments, and even if we also accept that his writing in 1980 meant that he hadn't yet been able to experience the re-defining of the eclectic ideal by Fisk, Brombaugh and disciples, can we really argue with his assessment? (The question isn't meant to be rhetorical!) Greetings Bazuin

Gerco and others "Except in the "Grote Kerk" in Weesp, where you can enjoy a good glass of wine and some fine snacks after the recital. Try it, when you can!" This is true! I had forgotten! The wine even has pictures of the organ on the bottles, (they sell it to raise money for the organ!). Apart from the wine, Weesp closely matches MM's imagined scenario. "And, of course, in the Amsterdam Orgelpark. They have excellent wines, by the way!" As Gerco knows, I am very aware of the situation in the Orgelpark, here the format is that of a (relatively) formal concert hall, with front-of-house with bar, and all employees wearing uniform. Its the 'ivory tower' of organ concert venues, but I think Holz Gedackt probably doesn't have the resources of the Stichting Eutopa at his disposal! Greetings Bazuin

Playing concerts in all sorts of places I have found that audiences in different places like different things. In general (even in Holland) few of us have organs on which either Buxheimer or de Gringy sound well enough to seduce anyone, so think about the strengths of the organ as well! Whatever you do, the most important thing is to do it really really well! Then you can persuade an audience of (perceived) non-organ lovers to appreciated more (perceived) high-brow music. The situation probably isn't as polarised as you think. In Britain organising committees are masters of turning such concerts in real social occasions by feeding the public as well. In Holland nobody does this! If you bake some cakes and advertise the fact you can also build up a bigger public I think. Last, and most important, widespread PR, as professional as possible, the more time, effort and imagination you put into the PR, the more reward you will get. 'nfortin' wrote "the absolute perfection of the Tierce 1 1/3 on the choir" That must be a very special tierce indeed...... Good luck and greetings Bazuin

Thanks to MM for his excellent posting. The kind of broader context in which you put the story is fascinating and essential to fully understanding it I think. I like the idea of Ralph Downes leaving the US ' too early' (to quote you slightly out of context) and its interesting to think that had he stayed in the US he would have encountered not only organ building which went further down the line of the reform movement on the one hand, but which was also of a technically superior standard to that in the UK at the time, (primarily because the hostilities had lasting effect in the US than in Europe I guess). Perhaps here lies the key to the whole story: Downes missed (just) the most important part of the American story. And however much he made people think, he spawned no obvious successor in the UK, (the work of a Maurice Forsythe Grant, for example, can in no way be equated to that of a Charles Fisk). Does this lack of successor perhaps prevent the UK in general from seeing Ralph Downes in an accurate and 'healthy' context? (as the Americans now see Walter Holtkamp for example?) Perhaps it is also important to differentiate between Carl Weinrich, E. Power Biggs, and even Ralph Downes going to Europe and visiting historic organs, and Charles Fisk repeatedly doing the same. Weinrich, Biggs and Downes were primarily musicians, Fisk was a scientist whose approach to documenting these organs was, I suspect, far more methodical, (his organs would suggest so and, if I remember correctly, so do his writings). Here is the genius of Biggs - the reason for the popularity of the Flentrop at Harvard came primarily through his extraordinarily enterprising use of the recorded (and broadcast) genre and especially the thousands of radio programmes for CBS (for which he sourced his own funding). On the other hand, despite spreading the iconic sound of the first wave of the reform movement throughout the US and beyond, his encouragement of the work of Fisk even links him to the second wave of reformism as well. Isn't is odd incidentally that despite GDH's "certain adherence to the style of T C Lewis.....and more particularly, the Walcker organ at Methuen" that he rebuilt the organ out of all recognition? Greetings from "your friend" Bazuin

'I really enjoyed Jimmy Biggs' performance of the Dupre from St George's New York' As promised I re-listened to it yesterday afternoon, the organ is indeed pretty yukky, but you have to admire Biggs's playing, its extraordinary (if more in spirit than in letter, I don't know what MD would have thought of it..) Greetings Bazuin