Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Henry Willis

Members
  • Posts

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Henry Willis

  1. Henry 2 didn't die until 1927. Henry 3 'informed' people over many years that the design of Liverpool was entirely his (Ridley did similarly), but it is quite clear in the records that it wasn't: The original specifications were drawn up by Henry 2 but were subsequently only varied and otherwise changed by others, including HW3 and Ridley. Henry 2 was a very fragile character and there were fairly long periods when he was unable to run quite as much of the firm as he should have been running and HW3 gradually, but inexorably, took on more responsibility. By the time that the Cathedral organ was going in, he was certainly more-or-less running the job, but Henry 2 was still on the scene. There is a particularly amusing letter in the file where HW3 has written to Ridley telling him that, even though his father had insisted on all of the wind being raised by feeders, he (Henry 3) had been totally convinced of the superiority of the new-fangled 'Rotary' blowing equipment and that his father was basically old-fashioned and out of touch. Henry 2 has scrawled right across the copy in the file, in thick black ink ...... "Quack Quack Quack" ! DW
  2. No apologies necessary Ian - I was a bit surprised too! I wonder if these things did ever materialize or if they were removed from the spec. prior to installation? Also possible that they were removed in the work which was carried out at the time of the rewiring of the organ and the new console, as you say, in 1940? Any takers for the research? DW
  3. A bit before my time! It would actually be fascinating to have sufficient time to get out the early files and to see what Henry 2 was thinking of at the time - what the influences were etc.. Also, interesting to find out at what stage it was altered. I'll see what I can do. If any member of the list in this part of the world (Richard Astridge?) would like to come and do a little research, that would be fine by me!
  4. It certainly IS correct: I have the original 1922 contract before me and they are all there! David Wyld
  5. Just as you said - something resembling a full Swell! This is also a very similar idea to that of the "Grand Chorus" at Liverpool of course. DW
  6. "Mindestens wir können sicher sein, daß niedrigere geworfene Veränderungen vulgär und unsachgemäß sind" is the nearest that I can get - doesn't really go, in German does it? David Wyld.
  7. Yes, we do still do them. We also restore the HW3-type 'Torpedo' toggle actions often described as being "irreparable": we still have new components for them, in stock. The new P&S magnetic top-resistance is very good. As a matter of slight scientific interest, what is the life expectancy of a permanent magnet of limited size, kept permanently within the flux field of an opposing magnet of identical size? DW
  8. But we DO know - we have the correspondence and HW3's personal files. G.D. Harrison and HW3 were great friends - they regularly went on drinking 'binges', disappearing for at least a couple of days and then reappearing with their wing collars missing, shirt tails out and mud on their faces (etc.!). There was no question that HW3 relied quite heavily on Harrison but it was he who suggested to GDH that he should go and 'help' Skinner. At some point in the proceedings GDH and Dora divorced and then HW3 married her! There was then the later debacle of the matter of HW3's will, in which he left everything to Dora (this is a long story and there was a reason for it, but it can't be gone into here). It seems that HW3 was somewhat taken aback when GDH announced that he was staying in the U.S. and it can only be guessed at as to what was said about this, but I was told a long time ago that the 'transmission' of GDH to the USA "improved the overall intelligence level of both countries"! As for T C Lewis, I really do think that the Schulze influence was enormous; not only to him, but to many other organ-builders of the era, such as Forster & Andrews and Charles Brindley. And Conacher: but I was also informed that this obviously German influence was because they all periodically had German Staff working for them, not necessarily a 'Schultze' influence. DW
  9. I have really struggled to make ANY sense of this toing-and-froing as to an opinion of what is supposed to be 'good' style, concept etc.. First: Ulster Hall???????????????? This is a God-awful organ in an extremely ugly room. Second: when did "....the perfect blend between GOOD English trumpets and the German-style quint chorus" become anything to write home about? Third: any attempt to reconcile the ultimate and penultimate paragraphs of the quotation above defy cogent thought. Fourth - and nothing to do with THIS thread, but lifted from another, comes the following: Quote: A "core business" is that which has worked in the past, and into which all businesses regress when things go wrong. The related terms are "rationalisation", "cost cutting", "asset stripping", "sell offs" and "cherry picking”. In other words, getting the most amount of money for the least amount of effort and the least amount of change. The entrepreneurs of this world are those who identify new markets, new methods and new technology, and "Napster" was an object lesson in how to go about it, even if it was illegal. For those who do now know, "Napster" was a programme which enabled tracks to be "ripped" from a data source for free, and exchanged between individuals across the internet. end of Quote. What have I missed here?: are you saying that the tit-headed "entrepreneurs" who are doing something which you openly admit is almost certainly illegal, are preferable to a refined old publishing house trying to keep its head above water while trying to maintain what few standards are still possible when philistinism and rank opportunism hide behind the veil of 'technology' ? There is a terrific amount of pseudo-intelectual clap-trap being propogated here of late and this is really quite some of the worst. I merely ask what purpose this constant ripping out of throats really serves - other than the obvious answer, of course. And there m'Lord, I rest. David Wyld Managing Director of a dated concept.
  10. I'm sorry MM, we really are not talking in the same language if that is REALLY what you think. But, as with Audsley, you are entitled to an opinion. I'm biased of course. As for what Lewis achieved - and here I'm talking about the instruments rather than his appalling lack of business acumen - he was equally as opinioned as those whom we castigate today for their being in the same state, but he had some exceptionally rich friends who helped to gain him some very good contracts. The instruments are very fine but no better than the best of others, including my predecessor-three-times-removed. There is much hype about the Schultze influence which was actually hero worship, if you like, and whether this 'influence' actually made his organs any better than they would have been without it is debatable. What it comes down to, and perhaps it's time this were admitted for the sake of calling a truce and getting this thread back onto its proper sujet, is that we all have different tastes and to call someone else's tastes some of the things quoted in this thread today is really rather disingenuous. DW
  11. I can't see how the describing of EXACTLY what Father Willis did in most of his Diapason choruses and Mixtures can be said to be rambling. There were few, if any, 'straight line' choruses or Mixtures in English/British (-style) organs of the period in which he was writing. It has always been standard practise here at HW&S to make the 4ft Principal 2 notes smaller than the 8ft and the 2ft 2 notes smaller again. There are occasions when this is modified slightly, mainly by HW2 and now by us. The only problem with this approach is that the harmonic development of the 4ft and the 2ft do need to be fully exploited in order to 'blend'. Our treatment of Mixtures also involves making the Quints subservient to Unisons, Tierces subservient to Quints and dropping out the higher ranks (anything above a 22nd) at the top end of the compass (unless it's a 24.26.29 second/third mixture in the larger specs - these break every octave by a full octave) and I don't see anything wrong with that: Mixtures which retain the much higher ranks at the top end of the compass are usually hideous, too small and grossly-overblown in order to get anything resembling a note out of them! I think that both Pierre and David Elliot have hit it on the head : Audsley was writing at a time when little else (if anything at all) written about the organ since the time of Dom Bedos, was made publicly available (with the exception of Hopkins and Rimbault which is useful as a social comment but of little practical value otherwise) and therefore I suspect that he was trying to get it all said in one go, as it were. I appreciate MM's view that some of this might be interpreted as 'rambling' but it doesn't make it any less accurate or valid, even only as his own opinion on the matter. That some of us may now disagree, to whatever extent, with him is not a reason for his views to be discounted. I've re-read some of the first volume again and it really is more-or-less stuff which he's determined either by personal observation of actual organs or by obviously talking to some respected (by him) Organ Builders and it might be an unfortunate problem of OURS, living in this age, which sees the style as being at once pompous, opinionated, assured etc.. Aside from that, I can see little with which it is actually possible to disagree except on a purely personal level. I would prefer to read 'The Art of Organbuilding' to 'Baroque tricks' any day, both in terms of style, opinion AND content! DW
  12. I had a look earlier this morning: he seems mainly to quote examples from organs by all manner of builders viz. Harris, Byfield, Snetzler, Cavaille-Coll and several American firms (understandably I suppose) and really just gives a fairly brief opinion on the nature of the sound of each - nothing too controversial there? He's very much in favour of old Dutch ideals I think. On a slightly different tack: no matter how ill-informed, meddling or rambling others might think him to be, I remember an occasion some years ago of my visiting a reasonably well-known and moderately regarded organbuilder's 'shop'(no names, no pack drill) to see three of the staff pawing a copy of the facsimile edition of GAA's 'The Art of Organbuilding' turned open at the pages which deal with the method of re-leathering a bellows. So apparently not at all useless to some! DW
  13. Audsley was far from being either rambling or a fool. As Architects, the Audsley bothers did spectacular work in multiple genres, now accepted as being of the finest order. Regarding organs and organbuilding, it's unusual for an architect to have any interest in the organ at all, but in Audsley's case the interest extended to finding out about the most intricate working details. Having read very large parts of both his major tomes I must say that they are incredibly accurate as to details of working and construction, as far as they go. If we are then to talk about his opinions, then this subjective area can give a false impression surely: if one wishes to meet or hear "rambling fool(s) by way of comparison" one doesn't need to look far, especially these days. If we are comparing the opinions of Hopkins, Rimbault, Bonavia Hunt, Dixon, Clutton etc., and Audsley, Then the rambling bit is more easily discernible in the others, not Audsley. You already know my opinion of Downes! As far as I'm aware (but I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong!), George Ashdown Audsley was not responsible for the ruination or destruction of any instruments - would that the same might be said of the others listed above. David Wyld
  14. We only use (eg) CCCC; DDD; EE-type notation with regard to pipes themselves (denotes octave of speech). If we are talking about the notes on the keys, then "Bottom C et al; Middle C et al; Treble c et el; Top c...; High c. Of late, talking to clients in various parts, most seem to like/understand the use of C1; C13 etc. David Wyld.
  15. This was in it's former home - you need to look at the current entry: http://npor.emma.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch...ec_index=R00899 which I think is a little more to your taste! DW
  16. I should first put to rest any notion at all that there is a 'present' firm - the Company is the same Company, merely with no members of the Willis family as Directors or Shareholders and still the same registration number (70718) from 1901. We have no former employees af any other (British) Company, especially NOT R&D. Our Works Director, Frederick Preston, has been with the firm since 1966, three more of our men have been with us since 1961, 1971 & 1972, respectively. All of the later staff joined us as apprentices or as skilled men from other firms: i.e we have a Pole, formerly with Zych and a Swiss, formerly with St. Martin. We have 15 staff at present with others due towards the end of this year. When we sold the Petersfield factory we moved into a 10,000 sq. ft. 'unit' as a temporary measure, in Liverpool - the intention being to find a plot of land and to build a new factory. However, in the meantime, Rushworths went belly-up and I/we bought their building (including all of the contents) and we operate in approximately 17,500 sq. ft. As Tony Newnham said, it was unfortunate that Rushworth destroyed ALL of the paper records of both his own firm and of those 'absorbed' over many years. As far as I'm concerned, a criminal act - especially as it all belonged to me anyway! This was really the fault of the Liquidator, from whom we were purchasing the stuff: we did warn him that there was an industrial shedding van outside the premises for a full week and he relied on the information that Rushworth had given him - that he was simply shredding a small amount of 'sensitive wages material etc., the Data-protection Act being used as an excuse. We have been here for almost 4 years now and have transformed the building by doing the maintenance which was so badly neglected over almost thirty years. Coincidentally, it is 10 years to day since I took over as Managing Director - some pundits at the time gave us 6 months but I think that that was just a little unkind! All of us in this trade come in for 'stick' from one quarter or another, usually for quite the wrong reasons and usually dished out by those who really can't do anything else particularly successfully. But we carry on. Regards, DW
  17. Absolutely right! Usually based on 'cornflake packet' language which leaves many poeple cold! DW
  18. I realise that you can't actually hear the 'tune' in he pedals, so it sounds a little strange at times! David Wyld
  19. Presumably the church will have had insurances? If this is the case, then why would they not have another ppe organ - albeit, probably, smaller. David Wyld
  20. Perhaps not unsurprisingly I've been watching, listening (for months) and filtering the usual 'smoke screen' which always gets sent up the moment anything happens in that place or around the usual suspects. But to deal with the earlier items first: Barry is approximately right: the Lady Chapel organ was built under the direction of Henry 2 - it is (or rather was) HIS specification and overall design. HW3 always tried to inform others that the Lady Chapel was his - and he certainly oversaw the job at the Liverpool end - but there is no doubt whatever that the details of construction are all HW2. The organ now bears little or no resemblance to the original: the HNB alterations were, at best, vandalism and the subsequent alterations/additions have done little to improve the matter - including a fractional-legth 32ft reed, on a two-manual job (?). Now to the 'Nave Organ'. We have the drawings (which were exhibited in the cathedral last October when the Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts Club was involved in the Anniversary Recital proceedings) and scaling information for those parts of the organ which were, originally, to have been positioned roughly where this 'new' stuff is to go: I say 'New' as we understand that all of the pipework is second-hand. To wit I'm fascinated to know from where ANYTHING of the scales required for stuff suitable to placed in such a position in 3.5 million cu. ft of space, could possibly have come without anyone else having heard of it? Which of course begs the question "IS it suitable". A further question (which someone else also asked): "Why bother?". We're only 750 yds down the road and will keep a keen eye on it all. I've no doubt I'll be incredibly impressed. Sour Grapes - oh, no, no, no!!! We've got far better things to do lately: even though we're apparently not Liverpool's 'Leading' organ builders, according to advertising material. DW
  21. St. Peter's, Walworth- by any chance?
×
×
  • Create New...