Malcolm Farr

A quick question: Is a "titulaire adjointe" of a French church a co-principal or deputy organist? Malcolm F

In some of his larger instruments, Cavaille-Coll included both a Prestant 4' and Octave 4' in the Grand-Orgue. The former was part of the jeux de fond, while the latter was part of the jeux de combinaison. Am I right in thinking that one of the main purposes of this arrangement was, using the ventil arrangement, to enable:- 1. the addition of the Octave (as part of the jeux de combinaison) to the fonds 8' or 16' and 8'; or alternatively 2. the addition of the jeux de combinaison to the fonds 8' and 4' or 16', 8' and 4'? In this way, one would seem to have the greatest possible flexibility at 4' pitch. Regards, Malcolm F

Another very worthwhile book - one that might well be read in conjunction with the latter part of the "The Life and Work of Ernest M. Skinner" - is "The American Classic Organ: A History in Letters" by Dr Charles Callahan (pub. The Organ Historical Society, 1990). It covers the period 1924 to 1956, and not only shows how the dispute between Skinner and Donald Harrison developed over the years, but also shows clearly the positions taken by Henry Willis III and Senator Emerson Richards. Quite illuminating. Regards Malcolm F

My first instinctive thought, in responding to Alan's last post, was (despite his caveat) to comment on the respective legal responsibilities of Trustees and Appeal. Perhaps analysing matters in these terms is now too ingrained in me. But that is hardly appropriate, and I would agree with him that, one way or another, we risk descending into talk of "good guys" and "bad guys". Suffice it to say that I have never heard the "Ally Pally" organ live, but only through old recordings recovered by way of the "Cedar process". I dare say that I have heard far more about it, than I ever heard it from it. My late father was just a boy of 7 or 8 when Cunningham gave the re-opening recital in the late 20s, but that, and recitals by the likes of Goss-Custard, Dupre and Thalben-Ball that followed in the 30s were something that he impressed on me when I was a boy, first infected with the "organ bug". And above all the instrument on which they played. It is surely one of the great heritages of the English organ world, and it deserves to be saved. I would like to think that there will be a solution to the difficulties that the Ally Pally organ is facing. Somehow I feel that my life would be a little poorer if I never to have the chance to hear it live.

Yes, a truly sad and sorry tale it certainly seems to be. I assume that the authors of the website are quite sure of their facts, and satisfied that publishing their account of the Ally Pally's recent history is in the public interest. Indeed, I wonder sometimes if exposure of this type is the only real way in which to provoke a reaction. Who knows, maybe a current affairs show might pick up the story and run with it ... Some years ago, considering it quite a worthwhile cause, I sent a small donation to the Appeal. Not unnaturally, I expected to be favoured with a receipt. I received nothing. (I wonder how many others, including perhaps contributors to these discussion topics, have been in the same position?) If even a part of the recent history is correct, then I would have to say that I am not surprised. And I must say that I now wonder for what purpose my donation ultimately was used ... Regards Malcolm F

Further to my post above, the rebuild work apparently includes a cancel on the Grand-Orgue called "Annulateur Tierce Cymbale". In view of Pierre's comment above, I expect that this would enable the Cymbale Harmonique to be used, in effect, as a II-IV "contre-progression harmonique" quint mixture. Again, can anyone shed any light? Regards Malcolm F

Hi Pierre I understood that the Grand-Orgue Fourniture Harmonique II-V and Cymbale Harmonique II-V were restored in the 1990-1992 work (along with the Plein Jeu Harmonique III-VI of the Positif) - or at least that they were to be restored at that time. A statement from the French Ministry of Culture included a reference to (subject to the correct accents being inserted!), "un retablissement des progressions harmoniques de Cavaille-Coll a leurs emplacements d'origine au Grand-Orgue et au Positif ...", which I would translate roughly as "a return of CC's progressions harmoniques to their original positions on the Grand-Orgue and Positif". Can anyone shed any light on what has happened? Regards Malcolm F

Cavaille-Coll included in the Grand-Orgue of Notre Dame two "progressions harmoniques" - one, a II-V Fourniture Harmonique of a standard type (at least for this sort of mixture), and the other a II-V Cymbale Harmonique that seems quite unique. Its composition grows in the following way - 12:15, 12:15:17, 12:15:17:19 and finally 12:15:17:19:22. I haven't been able to find a reference to any other stop like the Cymbale Harmonique. First, its ranks increase upwards rather than downwards. Second, it adds the 17th rank, and once it's included, it's there for the rest of the compass (very unlike most English tierce mixtures, in which the tierce drops out as the scale ascends). Is anyone aware of another stop like it? Was it totally a CC original? Regards Malcolm F

Hi Pierre It was a Hill Norman & Beard organ. (Or was the firm still just Norman & Beard at the time when it was built? I tend to think of them as HN&B regardless of the date.) Just to clarify, the original consol was to control the organ as it would have come to us from its former home. The second consol was to control it as altered. However, nothing was to be removed entirely, and a summary of the changes would be as follows: Pedal: Add Trombone 16' (new stop, extended from Trumpet 8' on the (unenclosed) Solo). Borrow Fagotto, 16', Cornopean 8' and Clarion 4' from Swell. Great: Diapason Phonon 8' and Tromba 8' removed to new 4th manual, Solo. Solo: Diapason Phonon, 8', Tromba 8' and Clarion 4' (extended from Tromba as on Choir) playable from this manual. Add new Trumpet 8'. In some ways, I still think these proposed changes were relatively conservative for the time. (I'm pretty sure it was 1988.) Kind regards Malcolm F

Overall, I agree, although I think there is often a wish when looking for and purchasing a 2nd-hand instrument to go beyond what is strictly needed. And when one does this, trouble can follow. I suspect I'm opening myself up for a fair bit of criticism now, but here we go ... Quite some years ago - and I'm looking back about 17 years here - I was a member of a church's committee briefed with finding and acquiring a 2nd-hand organ. What the church really needed was a good-sized 2 manual or moderate 3 manual instrument of 25 to 30 stops, and we certainly had that primarily in mind. However, we didn't find one that we felt was good enough or otherwise suitable. What we did find was a large 3 manual organ of almost 50 stops. It was solidly built, tonally quite nice (subject to what I will say below), and in quite good condition as it had had periodic maintenance. The organ we found had been built in the early part of last century - during the late 20s, I think from memory - and was fairly typical of its time. Its action had always been all-electric. The Great Organ contained, in addition to a fine diapason chorus of 16', 2 x 8', 4', 2' and 3 rank mixture, a leathered Diapason Phonon of great power but not the least hint of blend. It also contained a Tromba on high pressure, supposedly voiced to do double duty as both the organ's primary chorus reed and as a quasi-Tuba, but in fact being far too powerful for reasonable use as a chorus reed, especially (we surmised) in the more organ-friendly environment of our church where it was to have been installed. The Pedal reed was a match for the Great Tromba, and was therefore simply overwhelming in all but full organ combinations. At some stage, apparently after (but not too long after) the organ was built, the Tromba was made playable from the Choir Organ at 8' and 4' pitches (although an extra ovtave of pipes was not added). The former organist had normally used the Swell Organ chorus reeds - Fagotto, Cornopean and Clarion - as the primary reed chorus, although they weren't really quite big enough to balance the Great Organ diapason chorus. As it was, this was one of those happy situations where another party was interested in the same instrument, and beat us in acquiring it. However, before it did so, we had preliminary discussions with a certain builder - not Mander Organs, I would add - regarding a few changes and additions that would be made to render the instrument more suitable to our church. The proposed changes were apparently rendered possible by the organ being all-electric, although I confess I have little knowledge of electrical matters, and simply don't know how easy or difficult they would have been. These were: - Keeping it playable in its then-current condition from the existing console; - Adding a 2nd console that would be for normal use. It was to have had a 4th manual - we were really going the "whole hog", weren't we? - from which the Diapason Phonon, Tromba and its extension would be available (these last two, however, still being available on the Choir Organ). A more normally scaled Trumpet was to be added, playable from the 4th manual, which could then be coupled through to the Great Organ to provide a full Great when necessary. - Finally, with respect to what would have been available from the 2nd console, extending the new Trumpet down to provide a more generally usable Trombone 16' on the Pedal Organ, and also allowing the separate drawing of the Swell chorus reeds on the Pedal. In retrospect, I see these as fairly substantial changes, although at the time we were able to rationalise them with easy consciences. However, a friend of mine still occasionally calls me "the vandal", although not with the same feeling that he once did ... Regards Malcolm F

Even so, I think that there will always be dispute as to what consitutes a "genuinely important organ". An instrument may be relatively modest, and neither be particularly well built nor have a fine tonal character. Yet, as it ages, it can assume an importance out of all proportion to its real quality, simply because other, more worthy instruments no longer exist or have been altered to such an extent that they no longer represent the relevant historical tradition. I also find interesting the following point related to organs of merit. Sometimes worthy instruments can be found in churches or civic halls, where the authorities have effectivly left them to rot as being irrelevant to the needs of modern society or liturgy. Better of course is where those authorities see some value in selling to groups looking for second-hand instruments. But herein lies a problem. Transferred to another venue, the organ's tonal balance might in fact be rather unbalanced in the new acoustic. Undoubtedly you (as the purchaser) want to have it sound as it did in its glory days. So, aiming for its original sound (or what you reasonably believe to be its original sound), do you revoice it to suit its new environment? Or make additions in keeping with its original style, aimed at producing a proper tonal balance? Or perhaps a combination of these? Or fearing that any change could be seen as a form vandalism, do you merely keep the organ in its original state, and make the best of it that you can in the circumstances? Malcolm F

Yes, but still I wonder. What about CC's 1890 Recit Expressif at St Ouen? It is very big - 20 stops - and hence must necessarily be accommodated in a large box; and it includes three (relatively) delicate solo reeds in addition to the more powerful Tuba Magna, Trompette Harmonique and Clairon Harmonique. Although I now have to reach quite a long way back in my memory, I recall the Clarinette and Basson-Hautbois as being very effective, and by no means entirely lost despite the size of the church. After all is said and done, maybe the answer is a matter of individual perception. To me, the St Ouen solo reeds had the effect that I expected of them in the space. However, perhaps it may be that someone else would find them a little lacking in presence or immediacy. I was going to say that this might particularly be the case in the playing of Franck, although he seldom calls specifically for the Basson-Hautbois, but more often for the Trompette. Here is the modern organist's problem: the Swell / Recit chorus reed is generally a much heavier, thicker-toned stop than Franck was apparently blessed with at Ste Clotilde. As to your second point, I agree entirely that St Ignatius Loyola's having both the "Grand" Recit Expressif and the Petit Recit Expressif is an excellent feature, and must surely give the organist great flexibility - and whether or not he / she is playing Franck! Regards Malcolm F

My question certainly wasn't meant as a trap; and, although in retrospect I can see how it could be taken negatively, it wasn't intended in this way either. Nor, despite the quote, was I implying that Mander Organs isn't, one way or another, capable of producing something that could, in the right organ, be described as a miracle. However, I remain intrigued as to what was meant by the original idea - to produce a Franck-style Recit Expressif in an organ that, while based around the mid-19th century French organ, is not one that can be compared directly with Franck's instrument at Ste Clotilde. (Indeed, how could it be? The organ that Franck knew has, for better or worse, been altered irretrievably.) The organ at St Ignatius Loyola is a much larger instrument than that at Ste Clotilde and I think it is probably fair to say that it is rather different overall (despite its basis). For example, the Positif at St Ignatius Loyola is a Positif de Dos, and its resources are in some ways abbreviated with respect to that at Ste Clotilde, while in other ways they are expanded. The relationship between the Petit Recit Expressif and the Positif at St Ignatius Loyola in particular would seem to be quite different from the relationship between Franck's Positif and Recit Expressif. Nevertheless, the team at Mander Organs were obviously aiming towards something with the Petit Recit Expressif at St Ignatius Loyola that had at least the spirit of Franck's Recit Expressif. I expect that this may have been rather more than the obvious similarities in their specifications, and my question was directed towards this. Was it perhaps in the solo qualities of the Trompette and Basson-Hautbois? Or was it in the general dynamic qualities of the division, perhaps trying to seek something that may colour strongly the fonds of the Grand-Orgue when the box is open, but disappear behind them when it is closed? Was the box perhaps placed and / or constructed so as to accentuate this? Or was it perhaps a combination of these (and maybe other) qualities? Personally, I am against direct historical copying other than for research purposes. However, I do not see anything wrong at all in taking the mid-19th century French organ as a basis for development (whether of a particular instrument or of a "house style"). On the contrary, I view both the goal and the achievement at St Ignatius Loyola as worthy - and, I believe, intrinsically artistic. The keys, I think, are what the organ builder does with the source material, what discoveries he makes (to misuse Widor somewhat), and the musical integrity and beauty of the whole. But surely that should not stop us asking what the organ builder's intentions were regarding any particular feature?

Dear John Just a quick question about the Petit Recit at St Ignatius Loyola. In your description, you say that "[t]he important requirements of a Franck-style Recit, which could not have been realized in a large department, were satisfied by the Petit Recit on the fourth manual ...". Sure, at a very basic level, its specification is quite similar to that of the Recit of Franck's organ at Ste Clotilde - just swap the Cor Anglais for a Clairon - but what did you do in trying to capture the "mystery and poetry", as Dufourq called it, of Franck's Recit? Durufle described it in the following terms (from L'Orgue no 162, trans Rollin Smith): "The quality of the Recit was something of a miracle. Undoubtedly, a number of technical reasons contributed to this: the dimensions of the swell box, the responsiveness of the shutters, its location at the back of the organ case, the large sonorous space surrounding the box on all sides giving it an extraordinary resonance, the acoustics of the church and, above all, the genius of the builder. All these factors produced a miracle.". Your comments please. Malcolm F

While I agree that reaching up to the Recit Expressif would have been awkward, I wonder if we are looking at the matter in quite the correct context. In particular, we are very used to the manual system - Grand-Orgue - I, Positif - II and Recit Expressif - III - as indicated in French composers' works from the late 19th century onwards, and I think that we have come to regard their registration indications as representing, not just their own thinking with regard to their instruments, but perhaps also what CC had in mind from St Denis at the very beginning. In any case, with the notable exceptions of Widor, Vierne and Dupre, I think it is reasonable to say that most of the composers during this period presided over three manual instruments with exactly the above disposition. Personally, I think that they found more in CC's organs - that is, in the way that their resources might best be utilised, and the possibilities they contained - than he had foreseen. CC clearly could not have had such eventual use of the Recit Expressif in mind when he rebuilt the organ at St Sulpice. Rather, his original conception of that division was one that developed and changed during his long career. It grows from a small 8 stop division of solo registers on manual IV in his 1834 revision of the St Denis proposal, accounting for less than 14% of the total number of stops, to a huge 20 stop division, of more than 31% of the total number of stops, in the St Ouen organ of 1890. The latter organ is, I think, particularly significant in the context of our discussion (apart from its obvious intrinsic merits) since the Recit Expressif has now moved to manual III, while the Bombarde - which is equivalent in its structure to the Grand-Choeur at St Sulpice - has now been relegated to manual IV. By this time, CC seems to think in terms of coupling the Bombarde to the Grand-Orgue in order to complete the latter's chorus, rather than shifting the hands down to the lowest manual. (The only "abnormal" feature at St Ouen, which was fully explained in earlier comments above, is that the Positif is played from manual I: here it is in the Positif de Dos position rather than within the case.)

I would just like to add that CC's 1875 proposal for St Peter's Basilica, Rome - as is fairly well documented, most most recently by Eschbach and also in the later Julian Rhodes' "Dream Organs" website (www.ondamar.demon.co.uk/organs.htm) - included 6 manual divisions playable from 5 claviers. These were to have been: I - Grand-Orgue (22 stops) and Grand Choeur (16); II Bombarde (16); III - Positif (16); IV - Recit Expressif (16); and V - Solo Expressif (16). Like the Bombarde at St Sulpice, that proposed for St Peters was to have included an almost complete 16' flue chorus (see below). Interestingly, the full complement of 8' mutations would no longer be found in the Positif on III, but rather in the Solo Expressif on V. (The chorus in the Positif was to be quite abbreviated.) Although this is somewhat at odds with my earlier comment that the Bombarde (Solo) at St Sulpice seems out of place on the 5th manual, I do wonder if in fact it had more to do with CC's apparent fixation - I hope that is not too strong a word - with having the right number of stops in each department. I mentioned above that each department at St Peter's, other than the Grand-Orgue, was to have 16 stops, while the Grand-Orgue was to have 22. So too was the Pedale to have 22. The "fixation" with number is also evident in the Bombarde, which was to include mutations at 3 1/5', 2 2/3' and 2 2/7' pitches, although none at 5 1/3' pitch (although one was to be included on the Grand-Orgue, which was also to include a Quinte at 2 2/3' pitch) - seemingly so as to ensure that the "principle" of having a common number of 16 stops in all departments other than the Pedale and Grand-Orgue was not violated. MJF

It was always my understanding that the manual order at St Sulpice had been changed early last century, and I recently purchased a copy of Jesse Eschbach's "Aristide Cavaille-Coll : A Compendium of Known Stoplists" which seems to confirm it. Eschbach lists the top three manuals as III - Bombarde (now called Solo), IV - Positif and V - Recit Expressif. This order makes a lot of sense when one considers the disposition of the Bombarde and Positif, built up around 16' and 8' series respectively: they act as tone-building factories centred upon different pitches. On the other hand, while the current order of the first four manual - Grand-Choeur, Grand-Orgue, Positif and Recit Expressif seems natural, the disposition of the (now-) Solo, sitting up on the 5th manual, makes it seem somewhat out of place. Mind you, I'd love to hear what Daniel Roth or Sophie-Veronique Cauchefer-Choplin would make of that!