Malcolm Farr
-
Posts
242 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Malcolm Farr
-
-
=======================
You misunderstood what I wrote, I think, unless I have gone barking mad and started writing in tongues.
I haven't checked, but I hope I wrote that, whereas Schnitger (for example) used almost pure lead for his Mixtures, that would never apply to a Hill organ. (I was implying that Hill always used spotted metal for his diapasons, save for the zinc ones you mentioned. That came as a surprise, actually).
I don't suppose that flutey voicing (Hill) and almost pure lead (Schnitger etc) are exactly interchangeable tonally, but in both examples, there would appear to have been a conscious effort to limit the riotous overtones of high pitched mixture ranks.
This is why, I suspect, such enormous mixtures (sometimes as many as 10 or 12 ranks) can sound entirely musical; given a half-decent acoustic. There is much the same thing to be found at Sydney TH, where the choruses really are very big indeed, with a wealth of upperwork.
As Pierre often points out, the use of almost pure lead for upperwork was very widespread across Europe in the baroque era, and the use of tin was usually restricted to a few reeds or case-pipes. Haarlem is a classic example, where the burnished tin pipes of the case (Cornish tin incidentally) suggest very rich pipe-metal, but a crawl inside the organ, reveals a lot of very dull grey or almost black pipes; largely made from lead. (I don't think that the Bavo organ has any wooden pipes, unless it was used for the quieter 16ft register on the pedal organ. I forget, to be honest).
Trust me, the pleno (with reeds) at Haarlem is a very rich, very smooth, yet brilliant sound; the reeds being astonishingly "English" in character. Whilst not the same as Sydney TH, there are striking tonal similarities.
MM
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
-
=======================
I think (hope) this is right, but checking through everything, I discovered an interesting fact about the chorus-work at both Sydney Town Hall and the Ulster Hall, Belfast.
According to one organ-expert, when Thomas Hill devised big choruses, such as that at Sydney, he stuck the scaling of 1:2 root plus a constant (whatever that means), with the result that the trebles are of huge scale. Hill didn't use Topfer scaling at all.
With such large-scale trebles, the voicing was very flutey, and of course, that possibly results in something quite similar to what is found in the best baroque organs, where the mixtures are never bright in tone, but add very specific brightness at very specific points in the harmonic spectrum. To this end, they used almost pure lead rather than metal rich in tin. Hill achieved perhaps much the same I suspect, by voicing big-scaled pipes on the flutey side, but I canot imagine that any Hill organ uses almost pure-lead pipes.
What fascinates me about Sydney TH from the recordings I have heard, is the extraordinary likeness of the chorus-sound to St.Bavo, Haarlem, and with quite similar reed-tone to complement it.
With the organ at Sydney, in spite of the fact that none of the Hill family ever went abroad to study old instruments, they somehow instinctively arrived firmly planted in the classical tradition, and those big choruses sound so refreshing, even to modern ears accustomed to organs built along neo-classical lines.
The suggestion is that Sydney falls into an Anglo-French tradition, but I'm not sure that I know enough to know why that may be.
Pierre could probably add to this usefully.
MM
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
-
=======================
I think (hope) this is right, but checking through everything, I discovered an interesting fact about the chorus-work at both Sydney Town Hall and the Ulster Hall, Belfast.
According to one organ-expert, when Thomas Hill devised big choruses, such as that at Sydney, he stuck the scaling of 1:2 root plus a constant (whatever that means), with the result that the trebles are of huge scale. Hill didn't use Topfer scaling at all.
With such large-scale trebles, the voicing was very flutey, and of course, that possibly results in something quite similar to what is found in the best baroque organs, where the mixtures are never bright in tone, but add very specific brightness at very specific points in the harmonic spectrum. To this end, they used almost pure lead rather than metal rich in tin. Hill achieved perhaps much the same I suspect, by voicing big-scaled pipes on the flutey side, but I canot imagine that any Hill organ uses almost pure-lead pipes.
What fascinates me about Sydney TH from the recordings I have heard, is the extraordinary likeness of the chorus-sound to St.Bavo, Haarlem, and with quite similar reed-tone to complement it.
With the organ at Sydney, in spite of the fact that none of the Hill family ever went abroad to study old instruments, they somehow instinctively arrived firmly planted in the classical tradition, and those big choruses sound so refreshing, even to modern ears accustomed to organs built along neo-classical lines.
The suggestion is that Sydney falls into an Anglo-French tradition, but I'm not sure that I know enough to know why that may be.
Pierre could probably add to this usefully.
MM
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
-
...
t's almost as if Widor was able to sell based on his reputation, not on the overall quality or suitableness of the works when taken as a collection.
...
- G
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
-
===========================
Nope! It's something to do with the scaling.
I'm tantalising myself as much as others here, but I WILL find it.....somewhere......in the bowels of my computer.
Bear with me while I rummage.
MM
You rummage, and I'll bear.
Rgds,
Cnut ... er, MJF
-
=========================
I'll get back to this when I've had a chance to check the facts, but actually, I think the approach at Sydney was quite different to that of William Hill.
I hope I don't need to catch a plane.
MM
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
-
===========================
...
I didn't say that "big and fluffy" was unmusical. The way a Hill chorus builds up is actually very exciting, but the individual notes of the 8ft are not entirely breathtaking. I suspect that Hill developed a style of chorus-building which was incredibly similar to what many of the baroque builders did. There's nothing terribly spectacular about a Schnitger 8ft Principal, but my God, start adding the upperwork, and there is just nothing to compare with the richness and resonance.
It's just a different way of achieving an end result.
Listen closely to Sydney TH (I know it's Thomas Hill), and you will hear exactly what I mean. The sounds of those choruses really are at the top of the musical pile, and have few equals anywhere in the world, yet the individual registers are not terribly rivetting.
...
MM
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
-
I may stir up disagreement by saying so, but I'm not convinced that any of the Widor Symphonies are strong in every movement. Maybe that is the point - they are 'taste of the times' and not so much Symphonies at all, but suites of pieces in related keys from which any contemporary player might have been expected to draw one or two pleasant items to learn and perform. When publishing these, was Widor sometimes being practical (in a sales sense) rather than pursuing High Art for Art's sake? I wonder.
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
-
No gasps of horror here, my friend. I just hope that your rehabilitation goes smoothly.
With great sympathy, from someone who had his knee ligaments snapped by an errant female skier last February, and still not right!
Good luck!
Thanks - greatly appreciated. And returned - the road to fitness is indeed long and hard.
Rgds,
MJF
-
Here here regarding the other movements - I can't decide whether I like the first or the second more, but either I prefer to the Toccata. To my shame I haven't actually learnt the rest of the symphony, I did get a bit put off by the technical challenges in earlier movements. Of course, the final movement is hardly easy, but as every wedding organist has to have it in their repertoire, I couldn^t avoid it...
As for speed, I have a group of friends in a medical organisation who all at various points have asked me to play for their weddings, so I tend to see the same people at each wedding. Needless to say they have without exception asked for the Toccata, and the ongoing joke is that evefry time I play it it's faster than the previous wedding. There is a grain of truth in that, as the first wedding or two were in large reverberant churches and more recent weddings have been in drier acoustics which permit faster speeds
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
-
Caution: Off at a tangent!
I notice from the website we were sent to, a number of tracks were apparently recorded by Paulo Pauloni. I has previously assumed that this organist was a creation (in fiction) of the late Stephen Bicknell. Does PP really exist, shock horror? Does anyone know?
I had always assumed that Stephen himself did not play, but maybe these are recordings he made. If there exists a real PP, some of Stephen's writings are less funny and more worrying that previously understood! The Stephen Bicknell character of PP, I had assumed (I think I had even been told somewhere) is based on Carlo Curley but these performances cannot be his - he is credited with others correctly - including that rather strange Elgar we were invited to enjoy.
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
-
One could place a Tuba -vertically- downstairs the floor under a grid.
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
-
The orchestral tuba was, I believe invented in the 1830s, but how long did it take for it to become a familiar member of the orchestra? As for the organ stop, the encyclopedia implies that the stop is older than the name. I would assume that, as the tuba ousted the ophicleide from orchestras, so the name caught the imagination of organ builders. But of course I am only idly speculating.
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
-
As for the name "Tuba", was it not named after Wagner's use
of the orchestral instrument ?
Pierre
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
-
The subject of Tubas often comes up in this forum, but why do we call a Tuba stop a Tuba? At 8ft. the compass of the organ Tuba is quite different from its orchestral namesake. The Euphonium seems to be a closer relation to the organ Tuba, but I'm not aware of this name being used anywhere. Does anyone know the reason why the term Tuba was adopted?
JC
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
-
In which case, I suggest either the Finale (the fifth movement) from Widor's Sixième Symphonie or the Final (the fifth movement) from Vierne's Sixième Symphonie. Either are good pieces - particularly the second. For that matter, the Final (the sixth movement) from Vierne's Premièr Symphonie makes a good Sortie.
Or, if you want to stay with Dupré, you could play his Prélude et Fugue (in B major) Op.7 No. 1.
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
-
Is the unison of the Pedal always 16'? This has been argued both ways with some force. I would say the jury is still out.
Do you mean a Pedal mixture being described as, say, 5-8-10-12 instead of 12-15-17-19? I suppose if the lowest pitch is given in feet as well, eg 2 2/3', which is very common, that would avoid the confusion. Although unless an organ had more than one chorus pedal mixture I would assume it worked with the pedal principal chorus providing an independent pedal that balanced with that of the great whatever its composition.
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
-
Its relentless nature wears you down. I can imagine that Joe Public hearing it as a voluntary in a cathedral would find it particularly trying !
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
-
What I prefer to use myself is the following: C1, C13, C25 (middle C), C37, C49 and C61, since I believe that this is less confusing. Certainly, my organ builder has never complained.
With regard to the Pedal clavier, I would normally refer to 'bottom C', 'middle C' and 'top C' when teaching - 'CCC' usually elicits either "Excuse me?" or a blank, uncomprehending stare.
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
-
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
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
O Mensch, Bewein'
in The Organ
Posted
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