pcnd5584

Dear Mr. Derrett, I think I agree with you - but I am confused! I am probably just being stupid, but your footnote appears to give a slightly different reading than the last paragraph of your post. I agree heartily that there have been recent occasions when a mechanical en-fenetre console was specified apparently without due regard to practicalities - Christchurch Priory being a case in point. It is now the proud possessor of an expensive chocolate chastity-belt up in the organ loft. It also has one of the ugliest nave consoles I have ever seen. I cannot imagine why it was deemed necessary to make such a squat console. Watching the conductor from the console of the old toaster in its original position perpendicular to the back of the (Cantoris) stalls was never a problem. They are now encountering real problems trying to locate places for the extra draw-stops for the desired additions to the scheme. (However, that is quite another story.) However, I am puzzled by exactly what you mean in your footnote. Are you advocating mechanical action for (by way of an example) a more faithful performance of a Widor symphony? (Also, do you mean Barker-lever assistance - or even electric?). I am not aware of any action which has 'mechanical assistance'. Please could you clarify?! However, on balance, I am fairly certain that I agree with what I think you mean...

Please may we have your Vicar when you have finished with him? :angry: Seriously, it sounds a good scheme. If you get approval, will the nave console have similar luminous light-touches? If so, will you have them controlled by LEDs (and the choir console, too?) I once had had a few moments of panic some years back at St. Luke's, Chelsea and I also know of colleagues with similar stories at Downside Abbey. As you will know, one of the problems with the old Compton light-touches is that the bulbs kept (keep!) burning out. Unwittingly leaving a stray Contra Posaune 32p wandering around near the beginning of the Coll. Reg. Nunc (Howells) is not something to recommend...

I originally assumed that this was the case. Apparently, technically, it is not. St. Mary's is the actual Parish Church. Whilst Beverly Minster has a Rector (or is it a Vicar?) and is also has a PCC, I presume that it is somewhat in limbo? Does anyone have any further information on ths slightly pink fish-thing...? Nice photographs, though. The only thing I would wish to alter are the nasty square thumb pistons. Having occasionally stabbed my thumb (under the nail) at Gloucester (could not swear - playing for services...) it REALLY HURT!! :angry: Personally, I would rather spend the sermon swivelling round piston-heads around in order that the engraved numerals were correctly aligned. (Well, what else should I do in the sermon?) I await a somewhat pained response from the Rev. Newnham...

This is indeed strange. There is an excellent CD available of the service improvisations of Yves Devernay (on the Grandes Orgues, N.-D.) He was clearly extremely talented. Apparently, he was also much-liked and respected by colleagues and the cathedral authorities. However, you were asking about the specification. That which is given in the link is mostly correct. There are a few details which are not self-evident. The GO Cymbale contains a tierce rank, which can be silenced if desired. The Chamades consist of three sets. The 8p and 4p ranks added by Robert Boisseau in about 1970-1 are visible in many photographs dating from when Pierre Cochereau was Titulaire (and also include a 16p/2p Regal rank). When the instrument was restored, two further ranks of 8p and 4p trompettes were added, ostensibly modelled on the C-C stops on the GO at S. Sernin, Toulouse. They are VERY loud! (Particularly if you are leaning against the case...) The Boisseau ranks are bright and fiery, the 1992 ranks are rounder - but not in the English tuba sense. There is a good booklet available from the cathedral (in english) with several colour photographs. It also contains the history of the Orgue-de-Choeur.

Hmm - I think that I would ask myself a few questions, first: 1) Does the replacement mixture blend satisfactorily? 2) Was it installed and voiced by H&H? 3) How musical and useful would a new 17, 19, flat21, 22 mixture be? (Have you heard the surviving stop at Crediton, Devon?) It is original, but it is also anti-social. It is no use for Bach or other Baroque composers and whilst it is brilliant (it does not break back until well up the compass) it is strident and very reedy. I am all for authenticity - but never at the expense of musicality and general usefulness. However, it is, of course, your decision. The rest of the organ sounds superb, though! Best wishes

For the record, I cannot currently write in html either! However, I often experience difficulty with the italic feature - whole posts often decide to slope off stage right, leaving me perplexed - why is this?! A small point, but it would add to my enjoyment. I have been unsuccessful in uploading an avatar (or even selecting one from the prescribed list) they just will not load! I have ensured that they are saved as jpegs, within the size perameters specified, but I always get an error message - usually 'no avatar selected' - huh?? If anyone knows what I am doing wrong or whether (whisper it) there is an error in the programme-writing code of this board, I would be pleased to know! No, it is not a world-shattering point, but it would just brighten things up a little to have one or two avatars dotted around the board, livening-up everyones' days!

Thank you, MusingMuso, for the details. However, I am uneasy - just how much 'transcribing' did Jos van der Kooy have to do, to make the big pieces 'work'? I must agree with M. Lauwers. I still think that it is a bit of a waste of effort! As for registration in JSB's time - there is still a well-supported school of thought that he would have expected to play entire movements without altering the registration. Even, some maintain, remaining on the same clavier throughout a movement/prelude/fugue, etc. A colleague heard a very able young organist play a recital at Sint Bavokerk some years ago - he kept stopping during JSB preludes and fugues, in order to adjust the stops - that is not 'transcribing' - that, to my mind, is 'butchery'! (I trust that this is not the normal course of events at recitals in Sint Bavo's?) Last point - honest! The perfect Reger organ? Passau? Nah! Riga Dom, Latvia - now that is the perfect Reger organ! However, each to his own!

This is an interesting concept. I would not necessarily agree that a mixture of musical styles can be very challenging. I further find it hard to accept (personally) a mixture of worship styles. Many people often do not, in many other areas of society, welcome the juxtaposition of diversity. For example, some people like football, but cricket bores them stupid. Whilst they both involve balls and people running about on turf, not only is the level of excitement different, but the pace of the two games is also different. Then, some people like a good hot curry after a concert - others prefer to go home for a mug of cocoa. To try to suggest that each might get equal enjoyment if they tried the others' sport/method of socialising, etc, sounds ever so slightly arrogant. We are, after all, different people! The point of this is, I get quite weary of clergy injecting unusual/unsuitable/badly thought-out styles of worship in my own church, purely because they think that it is 'a good idea' or because of the young people. Yes, of course we need to attract people of all ages to our services. I just do not think that serving up the ecclesiastical equivalent of kippers and custard is necessarily the best use of our resources. There is still the problem of lack of tolerance - from both camps. If you doubt this, I suggest you try going to your local charismatic church and suggesting that they offer a monthly High Mass with Benediction, in order that by all means some [Anglo-Catholics] might be saved.... I would suggest not that one style is better than the other, but that they do not mix effectively - in some places where it has been tried regularly, it merely created two quite separate congregations -which preferred not to socialise together. Anyway, why not do whatever we all do best, and do it with all our strength unto God - that way, we may even stop bickering with each other!

Iinteresting point - we often seem to go off topic - I am as guilty as anyone. Unfortunately here in the UK we often seem to be good at decrying our heritage, in a way. Or, if you prefer, knocking the things we actually do well. Insofar as church music is concerned, I think we are in serious danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. In our society to-day, there is much evidence of 'dumbing-down' - church music included. We feel the need to make things over-simple, to over-explain things. It does not matter if it is done well, as long as we enjoy it. Some clergy (I know at least two) actually take a perverse kind of pride in things going wrong during services. This disgusts me. Personally, I think that we should only dare offer our best to God. Whilst Rev. Newnham has reminded us that there is no one way in which to worship God, I would ask him to remember that some of us are definitely not happy in 'both types of worship' (paraphrased). I have experienced many types, including charismatic and I have to say that I observed at least as much backbiting and un-Christian behaviour in these type of congregations as I did in those of a more traditional nature. In addition (and I can only speak personally as an experienced church musician) Graham Kendrick-type choruses drive me to distraction - I realise that to some they are encouraging and attractive. I can respect that. All I ask is a little tolerance in return from those who look down on myself and others who prefer a fully choral 'cathedral' style of worship. Let us not forget due reverence and genuine awe of the Creator of all things in our worship - not merely be a clanging gong or a jangling cymbal. (I know that this is a somewhat mangled quote, but it is now 01h28 and I was at school by 08h01 this morning.... yawn!)

Dear Sir, I did not read the comment as if it were decrying a particular type of worship. However, my experience has been, sadly, quite the opposite. I have noticed extreme intolerance from those who favour the more evangelical and charismatic type of worship. I am often given the feeling that I am in a 'lower class' of worship and really, choruses are much better. On a practical point, based on years of experience with many different types of worship, the organ is often the most suitable instrument with which to accompany massed voices. (Unless, of course, you can only see merit in the 'Spring Harvest' type of band, with electrically-amplified guitars and drums.) Perhaps one day, we will all get to the point where we can worship in churches which stick to their own particular styles of worship, without attempting to ape that of another church - often on the pretext of 'making it more attractive to the young people'. Again, my experience has been that this pleases no-one and can occasionally achieve the opposite - and empty a church. Surely this is not glorifying to God - I think that it is dishonest. Sorry, I am probably not explaining this well - but it is 01h01 - I am tired!!

Whilst I would be interested to hear this, I am still not convinced. Playing Romantic music on this organ must still be something of a compromise. If nothing else, it must be extremely hard work. I have no desire to trust registration to friends or colleagues - this also must substantially increase rehearsal time, in order for the registrants to remember and practise the stop changes. Swell box effect....hmmm... I would like to hear him play Franck 1 (or 3) there. How about restricted compass in the big works - Reger and some French pieces would surely run out of notes at the top of the keyboards? Since Reger wrote many of his works with Karl Straube (and therefore the organ of St. Thomas, Leipzig) in mind, I cannot agree that the Sint Bavokerk organ is more suitable than a large Walcker with a rollschweller and freikomibationen or whatever. Whilst it plays Baroque music well, there is, inevitably, a compromise when playing Romantic music. However, I would be interested to know further details with regard to the Jos van der Kooy recording!

So which mixtures screech at Gloucester, then? Knowing the instrument quite well, I think that the mixtures are voiced well. The Swell Tierce Cymbel is bright and contributes clearly to the full organ, but does not scream! The case roof.....um, actually, the panels were removed before the 1999 rebuild. Actually, it does give the organ a fuller, richer sound. But, 'too loud for the building'? Definitely not. It only just copes with a full cathedral singing hymns - God help it if the cathedral were to be full of methodists singing....

Just occasionally, they can also make amusing reading during the dull parts of the service - particularly if you are playing for a wedding. Not infrequently, it is possible to spot a recurring fault which has apparently defied the best efforts of the tuner and his colleagues. Such an organ should be treated with extreme caution, possibly with a reed knife and a bottle of vodka kept close at hand.

No, sorry - but I did see a flying pig yesterday. Actually, I think that edited highlights were at least available at the time on CD, but if that is correct, you would probably have to trawl around e-bay in order to acquire a copy.

How about the 'dark' verses from the Psalms of David? Or the odd, quiet mysterious pedal part (if nothing, else the 'darkness over all the land' bit from everybody's favourite Crucifixion?) Then there are those moments when you require a thin but intense 'full Swell' effect, but a fat Fagotto or Double Trumpet just will not do. H&H (and others) occasionally used them in smaller instruments as the Swell double (and, occasionally in larger instruments, as at St. Alban's Abbey). So did Downes/Walker at Buckfast Abbey. I have often found such a rank useful in creating subtle timbres when accompanying.

It does - bet they will be glad to replace their toaster.... So what is going to happen to the old Mander organ which was at Sheffield? There was a possibility (about five or six years ago) that it was going to replace the sadly-lamented Nicholson organ at Newquay, in Cornwall. However, this scheme seemed to founder fairly quickly. It would be nice to think that a good home could be found for the instrument. For the record, I found the Worcester organ an absolute joy on which to accompany choral services (and play voluntaries) - is it really necessary for the incumbent organists to resort to such subterfuge in order to create 'acceptable' accompaniments? Certainly, none of the faults or problems mentioned by Mr. Lucas were apparent to me on playing this glorious and exciting (and, for me, well-behaved) organ! Perhaps Mr. Lucas is unkind to it - organs can tell, you know!!

I would agree about N.-D. de France, Leicester Square - I went to a recital there, some years ago, and was nearly blown out of the church (as it were). I like loud organ music, when appropriate, but this organ sounds neither French or particularly musical (to my ears) when driven hard. I was sorry to hear about the Parr Hall, Warrington, However, I do wonder why it is in such a parlous state - having played S. Etienne, Caen on several occasions (C-C, 1895) with its original console - everything worked perfectly. Ventils stayed on (or off!) and the key and pedal actions were responsive and not over-heavy (neither were they particularly noisy when playing quietly). And, what a glorious sound! The reeds are not harsh or particularly uneven in timbre, or over-powering. The tutti was, in fact, the very antithesis of the Leicester Square C-C/Walker/Shepherd organ.

I would concur heartily with these sentiments. As it stands now, the organ represents an uneasy compromise between Arthur Harrison's original ground-breaking 1908 scheme (many of the changes specified for Durham, although being drawn-up in 1905, were not actually inserted until 1935) and the infinitely more exciting Wills/H&H scheme of 1975. I still think that the '70s rebuild was tremendously exciting and used carefully, musical. Now the chorus reeds (to my ears) are rather boring and duplicate many examples to be heard elsewhere in the British Isles. I do not see what is so bad about a slightly more 'continental european' timbre. Well, it may have gone a little further than that, but there was so much excitement and life to the sound. Now we have yet another tuba and very 'polite' reeds. (As Downes said, apart from the piece by Norman Cocker, little real music has been written for tuba stops.) Yes, I suppose that they can be used in fanfares, but so can fanfare trumpets - often more effectively. For the record, it is also worth noting that the 1975 rebuild introduced a Positive Organ, supplying useful mutation ranks and a balancing secondary chorus (as originally voiced, I think that it is fair to say that Arthur Harrison's Swell Organs never balanced effectively - works such as the Dorian Toccata have to be played quietly if Bach's manual changes are to make sense.) There were also one or two quiet unison ranks added, including a beautiful flute céleste on the Choir Organ. In my view, all these changes helped to make a thoroughly good instrument. The quality of the H&H voicing was certainly not sub-standard! And, no, I do not know why my post has decided to italicise itself - presumably I have forgotten to cancel something, or pressed something else at the wrong time - frequent problems for organists.... Ah - fixed, I think

According to the late Lionel Dakers (and possibly Norman Sterrett) prior to the 1965 H&H rebuild, Exeter used to swamp the choir in a sort-of 'windy thickness'. This was largely due to the big Open No. 1 (when there were three on the GO). Given the fact that the Swell Fagotto and the Pedal Trombone were revoiced with French shallots on lower pressure, I would have thought that it growled more after the rebuild! However, I can only judge from recordings because I am too young to remember it pre-1965 Some of the Willis pipework was partly altered by Arthur Harrison and again in 1965, I believe. In its present incarnation 1999/2002, (or whenever - I forget!) it is now excellent, in my view. Having said that, I would have changed the pipework of the two GO mixtures; even though the Sharp Mixture commences at CC as 29, 33, 36, neither of these stops adds much brilliance. The IV rank in particular just sounds quinty - it is a really odd effect. Possibly the cut-up is too high? Perhaps Mr. Mander could shed some light on this, from a professional point of view?

Surely Mr. Sayer has answered his own point. It is precisely such actions which are about to be perpetrated at Worcester (where we are about to throw out a perfectly good example of our organ-building heritage) which mitigate against the UK being included. Here in Britain, we seem to be quite good at doing ourselves down - often in (but not limited to) the field of organ-building. In some quarters, there is a tendency to think that unless an instrument is foreign, has tracker action and less than three 8p foundation stops per manual, then it is not worthy of retention. I would have thought that there were many instruments in the UK which were deserving of a place in the survey - abd not just those from the 18th C., either! Incidentally, Mr. Sayer, if you take the trouble to scan my posts (as well as those of others, here), you will see that not all of us are quite so inward-looking! For the record, I have played the organs of S. Etienne, Caen; S. Malo, Valognes; N-D, Paris (O-de-C), S. Eustache, Paris; La Madeleine (O-de-C), Paris; Bamberg Cathedral; Bonn Cathedral; a church in Naumberg; Stavanger Cathedral (Norway), Antwerp Cathedral, Belgium and several other instruments in smaller churches. This, in addition to half the cathedral organs in the UK. I try to keep in touch with new developments in the organ world, be they the US, the UK or Europe. Consequently, I believe that I am reasonably well-informed. Yet, the wonder of it is - I still think that Worcester is worth saving. It may be that the thread here has run its course, but if nothing else, it has shown that there are many who do like the instrument and who can tolerate other sounds beside a plethora of mixture-work and weirdly-pitched mutations.... (I did not include the O-de-C at Chartres Cathedral - this instrument is possibly the worst which I have ever played - its current state is execrable.)

Good grief! Where??

I suspect that this would now be too late. If contracts are not actually signed already, then I will be surprised. To reply to one of Jeremy Jones' points: I do not see why Worcester could not have invited some internationally-known recitalists. Surely it is the musicians themselves who invigorate (or re-invigorate)? Any arguments about reliabilty of the organ needs still to be placed in context. Several of us have played the Worcester organ in the last few years - presumably at different times. The fact that we all enjoyed it and that it did not fail in any way is, quite frankly, the most unbelievable co-incidence I have ever been asked to accept. As for convincingly - so far, nothing which has been said in favour of ripping-out the H-J/H&H has induced me to part with one penny towards these new organs. As deadsheepstew has said, why not undertake a thorough renewal of the action and wind system and leave it alone tonally, as a tribute to several builders? (Possibly also replacing the music-desk with one of solid construction.) Incidentally, Mr. sheep - if you ever find a use for the Pedal borrowing of the (virtually inaudible) Choir Cor Anglais 16p at St. Peter's, do let me know.... Carpe cerevisum!

Well, that may be when the 'Christe' system was fitted. The new (and rather crazy) 'Scope' system dates from 2000 (or possibly 2001). No, I must admit that I do not like the GO reeds either. How about some nice second-hand C-C ranks?

Any instances of clergy being stolen?

3) I do not think so - the capture system was an insurance job (post-2000), after a lightning strike (apparently...) The change to the Choir was simply a case of moving the old Salicet 4p up and tuning sharp to the Viole - no new pipes were added (in fact the top twelve became redundant). Personally, I would leave the Swell Mixture alone. I think it works. Added to which, at present it culminates in a unison rank (at CC), if you move it down, it will end in a quint rank. There will also be a slight loss of brilliance - something this organ definitely does not need! The cost of the rebuild - yes, I believe that they sold a church hall in order to finance the work. It has to be said that the console workmanship is bucolic - and ugly. I do not understand why, if John Belcher needed a detached console (balance was difficult when it was en fenetre) he did not simply keep the H&H 'innards' and get a new case built around them. With the money saved, an elegant case could have been built around the retained keys, stops, jambs, music desk and inner frame.