Malcolm Farr

Back to the music itself, I've come to the view that the tragedy inherent in this beautiful chorale is enhanced by letting the melody speak for itself, with relatively little ornamentation. I totally agree with David Coram above, that this is a piece that should be allowed to sing, and to me this means, in part, keeping it quite simple. I used once upon a time to play it with much more ornamentation than now, and sometimes still hear it thus, but now find that this really detracts from it. Your thoughts on this? Rgds, MJF

You're right, MM - I did misunderstand you. Sorry about that, chief! And if you were surprised about the Hill firm's use of zinc basses, I'm no less so regarding the use of lead. I would have thought that it would be much too soft, except in the smallest pipes. Has any pure lead pipework at Haarlem (or elsewhere) gradually deformed? Or did builders such as Schnitger know what its natural limits were? Or (perhaps more to the point) am I totally off beam here? Rgds, MJF

First, I must confess that I am (what some would consider) an unmitigated philistine: I have not heard St. Bavo, Haarlem live, nor do I have a recording of it - deficiencies I must surely redress. However, I did hear it on friends' vinyls quite a number of years ago, and remember, in that rather misty way that distance in time provides, that it sounded quite wonderful. However, I can't recall ever thinking that there was any specific resemblance to the Sydney Town Hall. I can't make any comment beyond that on this point. That said, whatever comparisons might be made with other instruments, the STH does have magnificent choruses. They are "classical" in the sense that polyphonic music naturally sits well on them. As I mentioned above, the mixture ranks are broad and fluty in tone, but the overall effect is quite brilliant. They hold the chorus together perfectly. You and I, MM, have expressed ourselves in different ways, but I rather suspect that we agree on this. However, I'm not so sure about any of the STH pipework being "pure lead", with no tin content (or at least very little). I was part of a group many years ago which saw through it with Roger Pogson, who was responsible for its restoration, and he mentioned that the bass metal pipes were of zinc, with the remainder being of spotted metal. City organist Robert Ampt's book on the STH confirms that the metal pipework is of zinc from 6' down, and above it is of spotted metal, and this is broadly consistent with what Mr Pogson had said. Of course, while spotted metal is a tin / lead alloy, the relative proportions of tin and lead may vary significantly. It may therefore be that the proportion of lead is higher than in other instruments by the Hill firm (which I'm sure I've read somewhere was normally around 60%, as against tin 40%), although I wonder if increasing the lead content much beyond this would risk deformation, at least in the larger pipes. Maybe using lead alone for mixture pipes would have worked, because of their small size, but certainly I haven't heard of this in the context of the STH. Perhaps this is something on which someone with far more technical knowledge than me might care to comment. Finally, the Hill firm was chosen, as I understand it, because of the committee's familiarity with other instruments it had built in Sydney, and with the Melbourne Town Hall, which dated I think from the late 1860s or maybe the early 1870s. The STH was expected to be in the same style as those other instruments, only grander in every way (and it was also to trump Melbourne to such an extent that there could be no come-back by that southern upstart). I have never heard any suggestion that the STH did not fulfill these expectations. Rgds, MJF

As Kevin Bowyer said in his sleeve notes to "A Late Twentieth Century Edwardian Bach Recital": "ah ... I should like a drink if I may. And ... think on these things ..." Rgds, MJF

The interesting thing, I think, is that in the end (or at least, given his very long life, in the middle) he chose not to. On the contrary, he stepped up to an entirely new level with the Gothique and Romane. And he moved from what is generally a very secular use of the organ to a religiously profound one. Was there some sort of spiritual turning point in his life in the decade from the mid-1880s? Rgds, MJF

You rummage, and I'll bear. Rgds, Cnut ... er, MJF

Unfortunately, there are to my knowledge all too few unaltered, or substantially unaltered, William Hill instruments about. But I would have thought in particular that the diapasons fit within the earlier Hill style, and the mixture scheme (apart from the big 5-rankers on the Great and Swell, which are "special purpose" jobs) again accords with that style. The individual ranks in the mixtures tend to be broad and on the fluty side, which again I understand to be William Hill characteristics. The chorus reeds on the Great and Swell are on a slightly raised pressure - 5 inches or so, I think - but I see that as being explained by the size of the venue and breadth of the choruses. And lastly, with the one enormous (in every way) exception of the 64' reed (and I am quite unaware why the firm took this step - whether they were persuaded to, or whether they suggested it in view of the size of the scheme), I have always understood Thomas Hill to be very conservative. Whatever the result, I'll be very interested to see what you find out, MM, and if my understanding has to be revised entirely, then so be it. Kind regards, MJF.

I think I may have just shot myself in the foot. Widor 5 seems to have been published around the mid-1880s, at the same time as 6 which of course includes that very banal final movement. So much for the "transitional" 60s-70s thesis! Rgds, MJF

To my ears, the STH has some quite ravishing registers - the Stopped Diapason and Doppel Flote of the Solo, for example - but, in general terms, I know what you mean. But the reason is, I think, because it is of a different class again to any other Hill leading up to, or of, that period. And this is not because it's a Thomas Hill - I'm not aware of anything that he did which was substantially different from what William did before him - but because of its sheer size. It's designed as an instrument of huge choruses, and registering it, even with assistants, often results in a "broad brush" approach. I expect it was built with sure knowledge that this is largely how it must be used. Even the Solo Tubas, by the way, are not good solo voices. They are loud enough, certainly, but they are gruff and course-toned - hardly the rounded, majestic thing that I think is required for Cocker's Tuba Tune, for example. But add them to the full Great chorus, and you have a climax almost without peer. That's the way they were intended to be used - chorus on top of chorus. Rgds, MJF

Am I right in thinking it was Lefébure-Wély whom Widor succeeded at St. Sulpice? "Taste of the times", indeed - at least in the early opus numbers. I suspect that what we're seeing in the 1860s and 70s is a transition period, not only in Widor's output, but also in that of others - think of Théodore Dubois for example, or Franck's Final - from light secular music to more serious works, and perhaps also from "pick me as you need me" individual movements to larger scale integrated works. By the time we get to it (1895?), Widor's Gothique is for me a good "High Art" whole, with no movements that let it down. That said, it is so severe that I confess I'd have difficulty programming it as a complete work - I think the punters would be shifting in their seats, and perhaps vacating them entirely. Rgds, MJF

Thanks - greatly appreciated. And returned - the road to fitness is indeed long and hard. Rgds, MJF

As to this, I always preferred the 1st movement, but the 2nd is quite fine too, and the 4th a very necessary "calm before the storm". However, I was never convinced by the 3rd, and never tried to learn it. Probably says more about my prejudices and pretensions than the music itself, but I always thought it just a little too much like merry-go-round calliope stuff. Rgds, MJF

Hi all, It's good to be back after an accident on the boat put me out of circulation for a while. My ankle and knee have required a little rehabilitation, and I'm back to what might, quite literally, be called "First Steps at the Organ". At least the pedal part of the Widor 5 Toccata isn't quite Manari's Concert Study on the Salve Regina ... To the matter at hand - I use an old Hamelle of Widor 5, which I've always found quite serviceable. In fact, it used to be my father's, although it's not nearly old enough to be the first edition that he used (which I strongly suspect to have been Hamelle, too). And therein lies a story. During WWII, while training in the New World, my father arranged a "pilgrimage" to take a couple of lessons from Joseph Bonnet. He prepared some Bach, Franck, Bonnet ... and the Widor 5 Toccata. This last was apparently received somewhat coolly, although the Great Man didn't give any reason. Bonnet neverthless took my father's performance in hand, showing him what he regarded as the proper way to perform it. Whereas the Hamelle edition shows only the first two right hand semiquavers opening the first few bars as being tied, my father said that Bonnet tied the first two semiquavers with this figuration in each bar. And as to that final long, high F, it was held ... and held, with a long, devastating pause between the grace chord and the final chord, during which that top F screams out alone. This is the way I inherited the piece, and still play it. And now I await your gasps of horror! Rgds MJF

Or could it be a 3rd person, familiar with Stephen's stories, who has assumed the character by way of a nom de plume (or, rather, a nom de clavier)? I haven't looked for any of these recordings, but would suggest that this - 3rd party adoption - would be in rather poor taste if done after Stephen's recent demise, and with knowledge of the event. I sincerely hope this isn't the case. Rgds, MJF

Wait a minute, are we talking about "Liz as she makes her Queeny entrance", Marilyn Monroe's famous scene from The Seven Year Itch, or a combination thereof? The mind truly boggles ... Rgds, MJF

It was Birmingham Town Hall, wasn't it, where the first high pressure reed was installed? So what was it called then? Sounds like it wouldn't have be named tuba from the outset. You could well be right, Vox. Rgds, MJF

To which tuba do you refer, Pierre? The true tuba? Or of the instrument which bears his name - the Wagner tuba, which is more closely related to the horns? Rgds, MJF

I don't know, but would guess that the answer relates on the one hand to the relative stridency of the tone produced rather than its compass, and on the other to greater awareness of the tuba than the euphonium. The trumpet, baritone and trombone of the orchestra or wind band have a cylindrical bore, and tend more towards a blaring sound. On the other hand, the cornet, euphonium and tuba have a conical bore, which gives a more mellow tone. With the typical (organ) tuba generally being rather close toned, I expect that it was felt to be more reminiscent of conical bore instruments than of cylindrical bore instruments. Hence either tuba or euphonium might have been adopted. However, in my experience, many fewer people are familiar with the euphonium than the tuba; and some think of it as a tenor tuba in any case. Tuba may have been chosen because it was a sufficiently well known name for the type of instrument The question of compass in the organ definitely seems to be a moot one - see the thread "Pedal Note Naming Conventions" - and I think that the best that can be said is that the fact that the compass of an orchestral instrument and its would-be organ counterpart did not match was never a deterrent to the name being used. Come to think of it, there may be another reason too - the name euphonium, or at least something close to it, may already have been in use. I don't know when it was first adopted, but the name euphone has occasionally used for a free-reed stop. Cavaillé-Coll's magnum opus at St-Sulpice (dating from 1862) has a euphone in the Positif, and the name was at least known amongst organ builders at that time. It may have been in use earlier. If this is the case, it may have been a deterrent to adoption for (what was to become known as) the tuba. Then again, it's easy to think of stops under the same name that can have very different tonalities. I know of two organs, only a few kms apart, one of which has an almost principal-sounding gemshorn as the major 4' Swell flue, and the other of which has a very mild 8' gemshorn of quity stringy tone. So perhaps it might not have been such a deterrent after all. (That's hedging my bets for you!) Rgds, MJF

Rather than risking hijacking MusingMuso's thread "Pedalling for Little People", I thought I'd raise a loosely related issue as a new thread. It is this: Although (unlike what MM says of himself) I am reasonably tall, I do have smallish feet (a blessing, I think, for pedalling) and certainly quite small hands with short, stubby fingers (a positive curse, albeit that they are quite lithe). Because of this, I have sometimes taken to rewriting manual passages so that, where I am physically unable to play what is written, I can at least make (what I hope is) a passable impression of it. Some passages in eg. Franck and Liszt, who were noted for their large hand-spans, and wrote for them, would otherwise be quite impossible for me. Do any others have such difficulties? What solution do you adopt - omitting notes altogether where these can't be managed, or fudging as I do? Rgds, MJF

Ah, the Vierne 6 - there's an ankle-cracker for you ... I have never tried the Final to the Widor 6, although a friend played the entire Symphonie in concert last year, and I thought (again) that I should get around to learning it. Not in the same class as the Vierne, but still in my view it shows very clearly that Widor knew what would sound good on the organ and come across well to listeners, even if the content is slender. The Dupré P&F in B is very fine, such a contrast to the Carillon in effectiveness. I didn't mention it above because the first group of Trois Préludes et Fugues is too far removed in time (1912?) from the Sept Pièces. Rgds, MJF

Interesting. I had of course assumed a 16' Pedal unison, and I must admit that I haven't read or participated in any arguments where an alternative position has been argued. Of course, where the Pedal contains solo stops - and I suppose I had carefully allowed myself to forget that only a few weeks ago I played an instrument where I was quite happy to give out a choral melody on a 4' Schalmey - perhaps different considerations again must apply! As to the mixture composition, that's it exactly. I agree that specifying the lowest pitch avoids the confusion, although with respect I would not go quite so far as to say it's very common. It would perhaps be better if it were. Rgds, MJF

Indeed. However, Widor's (in)famous Toccata is surely no less relentless, yet for all its banality it remains effective organ music. Yes, I tire of it for a while after playing it or hearing it too often in any given period, but I can come back to it fresh - and once again find it exciting. This isn't the case with Dupré's Carillon. Rgds, MJF

Using such a distinction seems very sensible, pcnd. The unison of the Pedal being 16', it is a good idea to adopt a system for it, which differs in nature from that applicable to the manual claviers. I suppose it's also too much to ask that we also strive towards consistency in the way specifications are presented? For the most part, the commencing ranks of Pedal mixtures are based on a 16' unison, but recently an acquaintance invited me to try the organ at his church, and obligingly wrote down the specification. However, he wrote down the commencing ranks of the Pedal mixture as if they were based on an 8' unison, rather than 16', and it took me a little while to realise what he had done. I've seen this in a couple of CD booklets too (although I can't remember which off-hand). Rgds, MJF

Yeeks - sorry, I'd meant to start this under "The Organ and Its Music". MJF

Recently I was asked if I could provide a postlude of the joyous, thunderous variety, and decided to take another look at Dupré's Carillon from the Sept Pièces. Now, I had first learned it umpteen years ago, but had given up on it, disenchanted. But, wait a minute - it comes from the first, (to me) by far more creative half of his composing life, chronologically just after the magnificent Deuxième Symphonie. It can't be all that bad, can it? Unfortunately, trying again to make something of it hasn't changed my opinion. Put simply, I think it's plain boring. IMHO, it hasn't a shadow of the writing of, say, the two Symphonies or of the Suite Bretonne, or of the wonderful Prelude & Fugue in A flat which showed, some years later, that Dupré certainly hadn't lost it. Or have I completely failed to recognise greatness? Rgds, MJF