Alsa

The Guillou version of Liszt's BACH is a brilliant transcription of Liszt's own piano version/arrangement of the (original?) organ work. It is idiomatically pianistic - large chunks of it were re-written by Liszt and contain more arpeggiated figurework, for example. There was a wonderful recording by Alfred Brendel of this on vinyl, but I'm not sure if it's available on CD. It is well worth listening to. So Guillou's "improvement" of the original is in fact largely Liszt's own work!

Excellent - Good for you! So I just wonder why you need to make so much fuss about FRCOs, honorary or not, seeing that they mean nothing to you.

I agree with you on this - I find his improvisations more inspiring than perhaps those of his disciples. It's a pity that some think that this is the only way to improvise and do a very cheap imitation of PC. However, I find his improvisatory skills when playing other people's music rather less satisfying.

I detect sort of sour grapes issues here! Beecham - always one with a quick and clever remark - few show any real depth - all covering an insecure person, on the run from his debtors... You missed the point - it's not peer approval that many taking an RCO exam seek, it's ambition to do better and improve ones lot. I for one find it very helpful to have the sort of skills that doing an RCO diploma or 2 made me develop. Without these exams I just wouldn't have got round to it. Those who don't get round to taking the diploma perhaps don't need this carrot or indeed the leg up that an FRCO might give to get onto a shortlist.

for once, I couldn't agree more

And Hon FRCOs are also held by Andrew Lumsden Barry Rose Ian Tracey Olivier Latry Marie Claire Alain amongst others RCO exams ... it's a dead easy concept to grasp: ARCO is an exam - a hurdle - a qualification - for any organist, and FRCO is one for those who aspire to be professional musicians, or aspire to be of the standard of professional musicians, presumably so that one has a level of qualification which makes it easier to get a good job, be it in a church or and educational establishment or to gain private pupils. That's why people take the exams. Why else would they take them? Some in the list of Hon FRCOS didn't take the exam - didn't get round to it or didn't see the point - possibly some regret in some way not doing it, left it too late, became too distinguished to take the exam without a potential loss of face, but surely its good to have these people "on the inside pissing out" - after all some of them became President and gave their time freely to the college ... ... or are distinguished organists from overseas ... good to have them on the college books. What other way could British organists 'honour' these fantastic musicians? Some tried but didn't manage it, however they more than later proved their worth so the college 'honoured' them with a diploma (always a reverse honour - i.e. they honour the College by accepting it) ... and Heath - well, he was Prime Minister so there was kudos for the college there - they would have been foolish not to acknowledge him. But none of these diminish the efforts of those who took the exam and passed. Like any exam in the world, in the end it doesn't prove anything other than a level of perceived competency on the day of the things you were asked to do, but at least it does show you have some capability and potential. So what is the point of all this listing?

Can't wait!

Cochereau ... organ lovers' Marmite.

Two things - 1) the wind pressures were raised by Willis and restored by H&H and 2) the compensator amplifiers were removed - they are easily taken off and as they don't affect the physical integrity of the body of the pipe or its mouth, the original speech was restored once the pipes recieved their original wind pressure. In as much as any restoration can be proven to be a return to the original sound, this is one of the simplest of procedures and the effect is immediate. And you seem to forget that they had the twin of this organ available in the factory for cross reference of voicing style. As for lack of clarity - if you read the post I quote in my reply you will see the subject is restoration, and that I am answering that by referring to a restoration reversing the procedures that Willis had done on this organ. Anyway, who gives a ****?

Favourite organ - I assume of English type - not really, though I would always feel more attracted to a Thomas Hill kind of organ (say of the 1880s) than most others. You see, I like the organ at Chester with all modern the additions. It is elegant, musical, balanced, colourful, versatile and exciting. And most of all it plays music really well. Is that a bad thing? If we are talking favourite organs in the whole world - has to be St Bavo Haarlem.

A Fr Willis Mixture/Sequialtera (17 19 22) and a Harrison Harmonics are very different in tone and pitch. The Harmonics usually doesn't break until c4 (treble c) whereas Willis usually breaks at c3 - and the voicing and scaling is totally different. You have a very odd idea about organs - you seem to impose one idea upon another without much basis in fact. How can a single Tierce rank sound like a 3rank Dulciana Mixture? And WHICH Dulciana Mixture? (Harrison? Hill? Norman and Beard? ...). I get the impression you hold theoretical notions that are an amalgam of lots of bits and pieces of different organs which tend to suit your fancy, one of which is the Dulciana (there are so many different types of Dulciana) including a Dulciana chorus. Please tell me of one you know well and tell me what repertoire it is for.

I'm interested in whether you have ever heard one of these soft cornet/mixture stops? The only ones I have heard I can now no longer remember because they seemed to be so innocuous as to be of no use at all. For example, there's a Dulciana Mixture on the Great (!) of a 3 manual Norman and Beard organ near me, but to be honest it is so soft its barely any use at all. I genuinely cannot imagine what it's for! The Swell Mixture and the Great 2' add the brightness to this organ. I'm not being difficult for the sake of it, I just fid all this bewildering. Those hybrid flutey Willis III mutation things don't sound like these Dulciana or Echo Mixture stops at all, so I can't see how a nasard and tierce on the solo of this organ makes up a Dulciana Cornet. They are two quite different things. Sorry.

Well - what else could he say? Pity about the extra quaver in every bar? Sounds rather like Messiaen's endorsements of countless performers interpretations of his music. It almost seems more exclusive not to have his endorsement.

Whether an English builder builds it or not it I agree that it looks more like Klais at Bath Abbey. What on earth is the point in building another hybrid organ? You've a got a Harmonics on the Great but not all the other stops that go with that - Geigens galore for a start! And you need the Geigens because they build up the stringier side of a Harrison Great chorus, along with strong 4' and 2' ranks and which lead to the Harmonics, all trying to counteract the effect of an enormous Open Diapason and the Trombas. Not a clue ...

I think you are wrong in what you say about English organs and their Nas/zards and Tierces, unless you are thinking of those very strange narrow scaled flute ones introduced in the 1930s, which seem to serve no musical purpose. Are they in the majority in Britain? I would put money on most mutation stops having been inserted in the 60s 70s and 80s, often on new 'Positive' divisions and more likely to be wide scaled, low mouthed, low wind pressure, unnicked ones - I can think of loads of examples of these in many English cathedrals. Yes, I can see all that you are saying about mutations of the solo organ - at least they would stand a chance of being with bigger flutes and so sound a bit more like they have a purpose. But this sort of mish mash is exactly what is perceived to be wrong with our cathedral organs as they have been altered in recent years. I'm not very keen on resurrecting the traditional English Cathedral organ, whatever that might be, but if you are going to do it then you should get it right, not suddenly muck about with Nasards and Tierces on the Solo, presumably just in case you suddenly want to play some Vierne or perhaps something a bit earlier. It's certainly not much use for Elgar, Whitlock, Howells, etc. So build your Traditional English Cathedral organ - choose a style and possibly a builder and then do it, but acknowledge that it should be warts and all, just as you would with a Cavaille-Coll copy or even one of those Drake/Goetze and Gwynne early English organs. But this organ just looks crass.

We seem to be talking at crossed purposes I was referring to the RESTORATION of the organ by H&H back to the Lewis original, both voicing and specification (e.g. mutations on the choir were removed and the original sonorities, albeit with pipes from another redundant organ of the same period by Lewis). It has been returned back to its former sound - I was responding to one contributor's query of how successful that was. N.B H&H also restored the very similar intact, and with unaltered pipework, Lewis organ in St Paul's Cathedral Melbourne at the same time so they had a good bench-mark.

If they really MUST build an English Cathedral organ, couldn't they get the nomenclature right (pedal stops at 8' and 4') and what are all those neo-baroque mutations doing on the Solo Organ? It just looks like another 1950s mess up of an older organ (think the old HNB at St John's Cambridge) How ridiculous! Mad, mad, mad...

I think that this is an appalling thought. His 'version', especially of the rhythm, of Dupre's Passion Symphony is bad enough, but Reubke with those chamades - it would be almost as great a travesty as the Brahm's G minor Prelude and Fugue, played a la Francaise by Philippe Lefebvre, at the re-opening recital! Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiideous.

I think that, in technical terms, Willis raised the wind pressure and then used 'compensator amplifiers' on the top of the pipes to restore the speech and stop the pipes from overblowing. I don't think that the mouths were altered so that restoration was a relatively straightforward operation of reversing the procedure. There was a similar thing with the reeds, but I'm not quite so sure what that involved. The wonderful thing is that the organ didn't sounded quieter after the restoration, just nicer and more relaxed. there's no reason to believe that the final result was wide of the mark in terms of restoration.

One man's meat,eh? Good to know the reactionary wing of the organ world is alive and kicking.

His list of organs in Liverpool doesn't exactly present anything that is a bit more cutting edge than the 1930's, which would be a tad restrictive for the activities of the more ambitious musician.

Same for Simon Johnson at St Albans. He produced a Cd recording of a meditation service/recital he did at St Albans a couple of years ago interspersed with readings - fabulous!

Rubbish! They don't do it for three reasons: 1) they've rarely heard of anyone from here - they are better with German organists, but amongst many reasons it's because reciprocal recitals are easy to arrange and direct travel is easy. On the whole French players aren't that interested in playing in England because their repertoire and our organs (in our relatively small churches cathedrals and their acoustics) just don't match well. And when they do come they clearly don't understand how the organs here work so they play on the full organ all the time - and that's before we get into pedalboards and stop control issues 2) cost - travel plus accomodation plus a fee all adds up - very few places in Europe pay a large fee ... more than €500 and you're doing very well and there's the audience risk factor, and which works the same way here. Whether in France, Germany or England when you put on an unknown player the number attending drops, and so does your income (and possibly then your sponsorship). The French also like minimal organisation - it's going to be hassle for them, but hey, Germans are easy to deal with and usually speak French fluently 3) they are interested in Germans playing German music and so on. But understandably the English only ever want to play French music in France. Why would the French want to hear that - again! There are no more French players playing here than vice versa. And as for improvisation, I think that we are starting to beat the French at their own game. Listen to our best players in improvisation. There are many more than just Briggs and Baker ... Allcoat, and the assistant organists at Westminster Chichester and St Albans Cathedrals are fabulously inventive and very versatile. And what's more they ALL can improvise in more styles than the sub-Cochereau French stuff which passes for good improvisation over there. I've heard them do everything from early French and north European baroque through Germanic Romantic and English, and more modern neo-classical and later styles with real use of counterpoint. But of course if you just want a quick fix and bit of crashing around ... Do you attend St Albans or Haarlem competitons, where I've heard some of the French competitors play and they're often amongst the worst, making the most horrible, ear splitting, self indulgent, joyless and frenetic noise that is just 'modern' and violent in its effect with no apparent relationship to given themes? And when asked to do something with a bit of technical and stylistic discipline it's a disaster area. Sweeping generalisation I know - but then I'm replying to one! As for your last point, well John Scott Whiteley gave at least one excellent recital last year in SE England that I know of. Does Phillip Moore play recitals seriously any more? He's not 'Organist' of York Minster (that's JSW!)

Yes, sjf is a cathedral organist and a very good one too! Isn't the FRCO designed to be "the gold standard" for those who aim to be at the top of the profession - not just those who are very able, but nevertheless amateur. I went to an ARCO training session once where the examiner had each of us in turn either play a piece or do a test and we all gave a mark for it. His marking was at odds with all of us because he gave lower marks. One of us said that he was marking harshly and that everyone had played to an alright standard (no-one had had a fail mark), but the examiner stuck to his guns and I remember him saying something along the lines of - yes the playing is alright but what about these points which were not as good as they could be, or missed altogether. And what do we do for marks if we give 27 28 or 29/30 for this satisfactory but not totally accurate and stunning performance, and then the next candidate to come into the room is the John Scott of the next generation? That's the trouble - we all know what we like and what we'd prefer to do, but professionals have different requirements. Just imagine what would happen if they ran the Royal College of Surgeons on these lines!

Exactly sjf. I think we have to remember that ARCO is the standard proficiency test and FRCO demonstrates proficiency to the highest professional standard, which includes being fluent in score reading. Whether you think it applies to you or not, it does apply to a lot of people at the top of the trade and that's what FRCO was set up for. I like the suggestions in the second part of Paul's email though too. Definitely worthy of serious consideration! They might have been written with his tongue in his cheek, but ...