pcnd5584

It did indeed - before 2000. Now that the Choir Organ stops at a Larigot, the Swell Mixture has been re-pitched a fourth lower, the G.O. Sharp Mixture a fifth lower and the G.O. IV-rank Mixture revoiced (or at least re-balanced), so that any brightness it once possessed is now little more than a memory, this instrument, whilst still being fairly good with regard to choral accompaniment, is now rather less exciting - and somewhat more dull and tubby than formerly - which is perhaps a great shame.

I was given to understand that, for large and important occasions, there was indeed a conductor present. Whilst it is possible that Dr. Gabb's memory was at fault, it is now impossible to ask him to verify this statement.

Indeed. In fact, a former Sub Organist, Dr. Harry Gabb (from whom I received organ lessons for a while at music college) said that he used to go in to the cathedral very early in the mornings to practise - particularly if there was to be an important service. Apparently, due to the location of the old console (inside the North Choir case), he had his scores placed diagonally on the right-hand side of the bench, and played, largely looking sideways at the music and (during the actual services) glancing over his shoulder at the conductor, through a small hinged panel in the case.

David, I agree with your observations, here. Having said that, there are occasions (as you also state) where duplexing the Swell sub-unison rank to the Pedal Organ is worth the trouble. One such example is the interesting two-clavier instrument near here, at Holt: http://www.npor.org.uk/NPORView.html?RI=K00571 . This organ, aside from having an unusual Swell stop-list, has the quiet Lieblich Bourdon available separately on the Pedal Organ - which is most useful, the actual Bourdon stop being fairly foundational and a little too large for quieter combinations. apart from the G.O. Gamba (which is 'scratchy' and slightly unpleasant), the whole organ is musical and interesting. At Exeter Cathedral, the recent alterations in the scheme have produced some confusion in nomenclature. There is a 16ft. Lieblich Bourdon on the Choir Organ (which borrows the lowest twelve notes from the Pedal Bourdon, due to lack of space), there is also a Bourdon on the Swell organ (which is an unhappy revoicing of the former Quintadena - a most useful stop). At the same time, the Quintadena was available separately on the Pedal Organ (as was its predecessor, a Double Stopped Diapason, which was labelled 'Stopped Diapason 16' on the Pedal draw-stop). Now, since the revoicing, Harrisons have chosen to call the revoiced stop 'Lieblich Bourdon' - so the natural assumption of visiting organists, is that this stop is borrowed from the Choir Organ rank - which is not the case. Other alterations to this once fine instrument suggest that, once again, upper-work is being whittled-down to undesirable levels. This instrument never 'screamed', but rather glittered (without wishing to be too fanciful). Now it sounds dull - and slightly tubby. There appears to be a further 'addition': the Pedal Organ Violone 16ft', which formerly borrowed eight pipes from the G.O. Double Open Diapason, now only borrows four pipes - it looks as if the cathedral went to the (slightly pointless) expense of adding four new pipes and cramming them into the new internal layout. Since the Violone still borrows four pipes, I should have thought that the money could either have been saved, or spent on a more worthwhile change. I have often wondered why HW III provided 4ft. extensions of the Pedal Bourdon in many of his instruments; it is generally too quiet to be of much use. On the same thought, I also regard the scheme of the Pedal reeds at Saint Edmundsbury Cathedral to be a little odd. Surely at least an 8ft. extension could have been provided. In addition, the G.O. is a little small, at twelve stops - yes, I know that the 'Little Giant' at Truro has the same number of speaking stops for its own G.O., but I suspect that the effect there is rather different, due largely to the voicing of the FHW chorus reeds. With regard to pointless stops, I nominate the Pedal derivation of the Choir Cor Anglais (16ft.), at Saint Peter's Civic Church, Bournemouth. Aside from the fact that it was shorn of its extra octave of pipes in the treble range, by Rushworth's - who stated that they could not get this to work on electric action (Harry Harrison could, in 1914), this stop is almost inaudible. Its availability on the Pedal Organ is entirely pointless. Unless one is playing with only the Swell strings and the box tightly closed (and no other Pedal stops), the Cor Anglais remains stubbornly inaudible.

With regard to the duplexing of clavier sub unison ranks on the the Pedal Organ - this can be effective. The trouble with coupling a rank down is that it ties up that clavier for the one effect. Whilst, arguably, Arthur Harrison went too far with this (for example, at Ely Cathedral, where the only independent Pedal ranks were the Open Wood and the Ophicleide, everything else being either extended or duplexed), if not over-used, the resulting flexibility can be most useful. In fact, this does not need to involve either a clamp or a unit chest. The instrument at Saint Aldhelm's Church, Branksome has a Swell 16ft. Bass Trumpet which is also available on the Pedal Organ. The entire rank stands on the Swell reed chest and is made available on the Pedal Organ by means of a dual action. I would agree with you regarding the conversion of Oboe ranks to 16ft. pitch. This is rarely anything other than pointless. The resulting sound is generally too quiet and lacking in tonal 'weight' to support the full Swell adequately and, as you state, the stop is then rendered useless as a unison effect. I also agree that this stop is far more useful with the foundation ranks and as an integral part of the French 'fonds d'orgue'. Clarion stops- I have three (one on the Pedal Organ), and I would not part with any of them. In fact, our swell Clarion is a vital ingredient in French 'tutti Récit' effects, adding the necessary brightness to the reed chorus. It is also very useful in accompaniment - occasionally without the 8ft. Cornopean (or with the Hautbois instead), for example, at the end of the Gloria to Stanford's Nunc Dimittis, in B-flat, where I use the Swell 16ft. and 4ft. reeds, with the Hautbois; the addition of the Swell Cornopean is often too much at this point. In addition, when playing French Classical music, the G.O. Clarion is invaluable, helping to simulate the 'crash' of the attack of good French low-pressure reeds. 16ft. and 8ft. reeds are simply not the right type of sound for this. I was interested to read your statement regarding the use of wind. I should have thought that it depended on the scale and pressure of the 16ft. rank. Ours is quite wide-scaled and I would be interested to know more of this.

Absolutely. By the same rule, there are a few larger G.O. divisions, with both a separate Twelfth and Fifteenth, which also have a four-rank Mixture commencing at 12-15-19-22. Beginning this an octave higher would be far more useful and be likely to add more brightness to the chorus, and, as Colin states, allow for a more flexible scheme of breaks.

With regard to chorus-work, I think, yes. This type of scheme is all very well, but even symphonic music needs some brightness at times - and not simply by the addition of very bright reeds. The Swell is to have no compound stop at all (but will have three undulating ranks, and two others on the Choir Organ), the Choir, something fairly pointless - there is already a separate 2ft. and Tierce. Whilst the scale is likely to be different, with the presence of the separate Tierce, the compound stop should be a quint Mixture. The G.O. Mixture is worse - three quint ranks, and nothing above 1ft. pitch. Cavaillé-Coll (who can surely be regarded as a master at building symphonic organs) included more upper-work than this, even allowing for the twelve or so years he spent experimenting with 'progressive' compound stops. The double enclosure of the Swell, I think is probably an unnecessary gimmick. The example at Llandaff was, apparently, fairly pointless; true, it did not include any chorus reeds. However, if a box is well-proportioned, well-designed, with a good shutter area and a responsive pedal, I can see no need for the reeds to be in a secondary enclosure. In any case, it would probably be necessary to voice the pipes more loudly and brightly, in order to counteract the attenuating effect of the double enclosure; in which case, why bother? The builders' rationale states: 'With all shades fully open, the chorus reeds and mixture are slightly louder than those of the Great.' To my mind, this balance is wrong - the G.O. reeds should provide the final climax. In addition - apparently, there is not going to be a Mixture in this Swell Organ either, so it can hardly dominate anything. With the complete lack of a chorus on the Swell Organ, I cannot see how this instrument is going to be anything other than a collection of foundation stops, with some very loud, enclosed reeds. It appears almost to be attempting to engender some kind of Hope-Jones revival, in so far as the Swell Organ is concerned. The Pedal Organ appears rather 'woody', too. The Swell expression box on my own church instrument is extremely responsive and with an excellent dynamic range. I certainly could see any point in attempting something similar here.

Unusual stop-list. With regard to chorus-work, it appears to have regressed to the era of E.M. Skinner.

You may be disappointed, Friedrich. I played this large instrument for a visiting choir a few months ago and, whilst the quieter ranks were quite beautiful, I thought that anything above mezzoforte was ghastly. It is the only organ which I have played where I considered it necessary to remove all of the chorus reeds (in every department) from every single piston. Even the Swell reeds (right next to the player) sounded like a family of Tuba ranks. None of these stops could be used to accompany the choir - which consisted of adults who were experienced singers and who made a good, strong sound themselves. I am afraid that I cannot see the point of an organ so wretchedly loud, that much of it can never be used - unless the building is packed tight with Methodists singing their hearts out.

Presumably the Pedal Mixture is now actually 15-19-22-26-29; or has it dropped a rank? As you note, the fact that the seventeenth rank has been removed is worthy of note. On this instrument (and since one of the compound stops on the G.O. contains a tierce), it is interesting that the Pedal Mixture has be re-cast as containing entirely quint and unison ranks. However, leaving out the twelfth was undoubtedly a good idea. These ranks can produce a very unpleasant effect, if present in a Pedal compound stop (which is not in the form of a bass Sesquialtera, such as was found on the Chancel Pedal division of the Willis/Mander instrument in Saint Paul's Cathedral, until 1988, when it was replaced by a 4ft. Flute - presumably of independent pipes).

Was this instrument built (or rebuilt) by Roger Yates? Whilst it is more recent, the instrument in Kilkhampton Parish Church, Cornwall (rebuilt by Yates, in 1958) still has its electro-pneumatic/electro-mechanical action functioning well. Yates manufactured most of it it himself. The quality of the workmanship is excellent and the ladder switches and wiring looms - all mounted in glass-fronted cabinets - are items of beauty in themselves.

Ours is definitely in this camp - thank goodness. Our electro-pneumatic action is now exactly fifty years old and is generally very reliable. I have an idea that a number of instruments with mechanical action from the 1960s and '70s had what might be thought of as an above-average number of faults and breakages in the Pedal actions. can anyone confirm (or refute) this, please?

Well, I am hardly anonymous, SL. Neither do I accept that my post was inflammatory, or that it used 'emotive language' - if that remark was addressed to me. A great deal of money - someone else's money - is involved in this venture and my thoughts regarding the stop-list were not merely armchair criticism. I am uneasy about your initial reaction. You appear to be trying to mould this forum to accord with your perception of what it should be. This is not your job, or mine, or that of any other contributor. It is the business of the forum owner and moderator. If you object to anything posted here, the proper channel of remedy is to contact the moderator, as you mention having done previously. I do not recall ever stating that I was always right - nor that I expected other board members to think this, or to defer to my opinions. I have in fact learned much from a number of contributors (such as David Drinkell, to whom you allude, and Vox Humana, to name but two), and I am grateful for their erudition. To be strictly accurate, I was not criticising the work of the incumbent musicians at Buckfast - but I was (and still am) concerned that the scheme appears to be too large for the building (I have been to Buckfast on a few occasions and I have played the former instrument, so I am also reasonably familiar with the size of the building). Furthermore, I stand by my comments regarding the stop-list. I would also agree with John Robinson. For one thing, having an organ discussion board in which all debate regarding stop-lists was banned would be like having a discussion board about cars and only being able to write about how to repair parts which had malfunctioned or where one had driven; all talk of performance and engine size being prohibited. In addition, having individual board members attempting to dictate to others what they can and cannot do is likely to be a recipe for disaster.

Indeed, Vox. Although (as you have stated elsewhere), it would be entirely possible to mitre the pipes, suspending the basses from the roof of the box.

Stephen, your snide comments are not particularly constructive. You appear to take delight in ridiculing some of us here. Perhaps you should enlighten us and give us the benefit of your wisdom.

Opinions which are shared by at least one cathedral organist, incidentally. The final statement is not to be seen as contradictory to the first.

Having read the scheme, I regard it as wasteful, badly thought-out and, in places, gimmicky. Buckfast Abbey is not a large building;yet there are two 32ft. reeds, two big solo reeds - but no chorus reeds on the Gallery G.O. Perhaps more inexplicable, is the apparent lack of any kind of 32ft. flue stop - which is of great use liturgically. To answer the question from firstrees: I believe that there would be room for at least a 32ft. Sub Bass, since (as Vox has already stated somewhere), there was such a stop on the Walker/Downes instrument - although the lowest four notes were resultant. Even so, it was a reasonably good stop and sounded effective in the sensitive acoustics of the abbey. However, with regard to the two 32ft. reeds and the two fanfare-type reeds, I should have thought that, in this building, this was somewhat unnecessary. There is also a certain amount of duplication in the mutation scheme, yet the Quire Swell Organ has no 8ft. Open Diapason (which is invaluable for choral accompaniment) and only a half-length bass to the 16ft. reed. I note also that this scheme perpetuates one of the few flaws of the previous instrument: there is no proper 16ft. chorus reed anywhere. Surely if the G.O. is not to have a stop at this pitch, then it is imperative that the Swell sub-unison reed is of trumpet scale, voicing and power. A Basson with a half-length bass is unlikely to provide enough sub-unison reed tone. A further point about the mutation scheme is that, with the exception of the Positive 1 1/3ft., all of the solo mutations are under expression. I realise that I am not the organist here, but I do wonder about the inclusion of the Glockenspiel, Nightingale, Drum and Bagpipes; I wonder how much use these fripperies will get during services. It would be interesting to know which of the Pedal 16ft. flue stops are to be constructed of metal - or are they all to be of wood? The Gallery Expressif division is somewhat small in comparison to the other divisions, with nothing above 4ft. pitch, no 16ft. register - either flue or reed. In fact, the exact purpose of this division is puzzling. Again there is no unison Open Diapason (so nothing to partner with the Prestant - either above or below). However, there are two undulants, with their attendant unison ranks. Surely at least one pair of these (perhaps the Violoncelli) would be of greater use in the Quire Organ? There are two chorus reeds here - but both under expression. Thus, with the lack of a chorus reed (even if only at unison pitch) on an open soundboard, there is likely to be a huge jump between these reeds and the fanfare-type Pontifical Trumpet. Neither does this division bear any particular resemblance to the schemes of Aristide Cavaillé-Coll. Nor, for that matter, does that of the other two departments, other than the nomenclature of three of the G.O. foundation stops. The Solo Organ has six unison pitch ranks (including two undulants), but one solitary 4ft. stop. There are also only two quiet solo reeds. The Vox Humana might have been better placed in the Swell Organ and its place taken by something more generally useful; if one did not wish for a Romantic voice, such as an Orchestral Hautboy, surely there are other choices which could have been included. There is no quiet 16ft. reed, for example. (If the Swell Basson is intended to fill this role, then it will be even more unsuitable to form the basis for the Swell reed chorus.) Again the Pédale Orgue looks to be rather 'woody', with a distinct lack of metal stops at any pitch. (If the Soubasse is to be of metal, why call it that?) For that matter, I note that all the clavier flue doubles are Bourdons - not even a Quintatön. The lack of at least one metal flue double again suggests that the instrument is likely to be lacking in gravitas (until the 32ft. reeds are drawn). Clearly the time to judge it will be when it is finished. No doubt the incumbent musicians have thought carefully about the scheme, and this is what they want. Apparently.

Is there any possiblity of the hardwire re-connection of the superb 32ft. ranks in the South (North - if they have already moved) Transept, in the forseeable future?

I think that this needs qualification, David. Occasionally I have to play at cathedrals or large churches for visiting choirs. One such occasion was Norwich Cathedral, at a few days' notice (the schedued organist had a family emergency). I did not know at least half of the music , and was not able to obtain the scores until the Friday night, with the first service on the following day. Since no-one was able to let me in to the Song School for a few hours, I had to practise on the cathedral organ - which I did so, as I always do: with only the Swell 8ft. Flute (or Stopped Diapason), coupled to everything to which it could be coupled - and with the box shut tightly. I simply had to learn the notes. (Not all of us have the luxury of a home organ.) I certainly disagree with the notion that one should not practise in a closed building. For my own needs, I have neither the room nor the finance for a piano or organ at home - if I need to practise, I go to the Minster of an evening and use the instrument as I requre. I did the same thing at Chester Cathedral a couple of summers ago. In each case, there were no complaints at all, in fact, at Chester, the clergy thanked me for practising so quietly. Unless, as David points out, the organist is hopeless, a few wrong notes, during quiet playing - when one absolutely has to learn a piece - are likely to go un-noticed by the majority of visitors.

I must agree with Vox regarding the Solo reeds - I have played both the Windsor and Coventry instruments on a number of occasions (including a couple of recitals and several services). I also had the great pleasure of being locked in Coventry Cathedral for thre late evening sessions several years ago (before the Solo Orchestral Trumpet was ruined by misguided revoicing). I though that both instuments were superb - although I favoured the Coventry organ. As Vox says, the point about those two pairs of Orchestral Trumpets is that they could provide a thrilling climax to the full organ without the opaque wall of sound which often ensues when organists couple Tuba ranks to the full organ. (Salisbury is one exception, as is Exeter - which has one of the most musical Tuba stops I have ever heard).

I must confess that I am not at all sure about all of this. Like 'keyplayer', I am saddened that the Walker/Downes instrument has been discarded. Aside from the fact that it was important historically (actually paving the way for the larger instrument in the RFH), it also sounded well in this building, with its glorious acoustic. I would be interested to learn how they have managed to raise £2.5 million, apparently just for a new organ. I understand that Buckfast Tonic Wine sells well - but that well? As Vox has pointed-out, the abbey is not that large. It may even be that the church which houses the 'foghorn' is barely much less in cubic capacity. (My memory may be faulty - it is probably about twenty years since I was last in this building, but I do recall it being quite large. Looking at images of the building, whilst there is no triforium or clerestory, the Nave and aisles appear to be somewhat wider than those at the abbey, it also looks to be at least as long.) I wonder if such a large organ is really needed? If the organist liked the Walker instrument at Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (and also likes to play Messiaen), I can understand that the old Walker/Downes instrument would not appeal tonally; it was very flue-dominated, the actual chorus reeds all speaking on fairly low pressures. In addition, there was (it must be said) a slightly odd timbre to some of the foundation stops; this can be heard clearly on David M. Patrick's LP recording of the Duruflé Suite. I am sure that a large instrument by Ruffatti would be very exciting, particularly if placed in the west gallery. However, one thing which the former organ possessed in spades was a great variety of colourful, fairly quiet unison flue ranks, several of which were quite ethereally beautiful in that acoustic ambiance. The Echo Organ in particular would surely have been most useful in the accompaniment of plainsong. This instrument also possessed three contrasting undulating ranks. It sounds as if the emphasis for the tonal design of the new organ might well be biased in favour of repertoire. Perhaps one of the divisions in the Quire will be an Echo Organ, as before.

The front of the building remains, but the main hall (and, I believe another hall below this) were largely destroyed. http://news.sky.com/story/1445029/battersea-arts-centre-fire-damage-photos-emerge http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10108150.ece/alternates/w460/Battersea-Arts-Centre-fire2.jpg http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/81636000/jpg/_81636674_61adb294-04bc-4d42-98e2-492b5a71bf45.jpg

I note (somewhat wryly) that the NPOR has already updated the entry for this instrument with a short note about yesterday's fire. If they can do that so promptly.... (Tony, I know that you are all volunteers, but some of us have submitted updates, corrections and new surveys years ago, and these have yet to appear. As has any reply to my offer to be trained in order to assist in the inputting of data on to NPOR surveys....)

Incidentally, I appear to have lost the ability to split quoted posts, in order to reply to specific points in order. Could anyone suggest what I may have clicked inadvertently, and how I could revert to the former layout, please? Thank you.

Deleted. Computer had a hissy fit.