Brian Childs
-
Posts
462 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Brian Childs
-
-
With so many replies, I'll refrain from addressing any particular one or we could be here all year.
Firstly, the "contrapuntal nature of the instrument" is as valid a statement for a good romantic organ as it is for a baroque instrument. Many romantic composers wrote fine fugues.....Guilmant, Liszt, Reger, Elgar, Dupre, Walton and all the rest. So counterpoint never went out of fashion, and the very best romantic organs were still quite capable of delivering a fair degree of the contrapuntal clarity required, and orchestras always could.
The suggestion that the Elgar Sonata could not be performed convincingly at Bridgewater Hall is very true. However, permit me to make what may sound like an outrageous statement.
'The Elgar Sonata could be played on the organ of the Bavokerk, Haarlem, albeit with a few compromises.'
On that particular instrument I've heard Bridge, Stamford and S S Wesley for example, but never Parry, Bairstow or Howells, whilst it is a perfect vehicle for the music of Reger despite paper evidence to the contrary.
I don't think I need to hesitate on our organ-building host's discussion board, when I state that Marcussen are one of the most respected organ-builders in the world, with quite a pedigree.
So why should an essentially baroque organ work for romantic repertoire, yet a modern concert-hall organ built by a builder who created one of the finest sounds in the world, be seen to fall short of complete satisfaction?
Let's blame someone! Is it the consultant, the organ-builder or the voicer(s)?
It's surely got to be one of them?
WRONG!!
The problem starts right at the beginning, when much of the instrument was but a pile of wood in the builder's yard, and the plans for the hall were on the drawing-board of the architect.
A modern concert-hall is a designer concept from the start....actually quite an unnatural one. The modern materials used have very different acoustic properties to anything used before about 1950. As time has gone on, newer materials have come onto the market, with special fire-retardent properties, special acoustic absorbency characteristics, special thermal properties, special load-bearing properties....and so on. Long gone are the days of wood, glass and stone, in spite of appearances and acres of veneer.
I spent quite some time investigating the acoustic-engineering of modern concert-halls, which almost universally, are geared towards a combination of spoken clarity and musical "bloom." The two are almost incompatible in large buildings, as a large, resonant cathedral demonstrates conclusively. To achieve the all-purpose concert hall, it is ncessary to direct and focus sound in particular ways, and to use acoustically absorbent and non-absorbent materials in combination.
By and large, these designs are adequate, but only once in a while is something like the Symphony Hall, Birmingham achieved. Nevertheless, even the Birmingham hall has to rely on "resonance chambers" distributed around the walls of the building.
It is a feature of many modern materials, that they reflect high frequencies successfully and often do not kill low frequencies, but they often kill mid-frequencies in a way that is completely alien to "natural" materials.
So the Bridgewater Hall instrument, whilst sounding magnificent close-up, actually starts to sound distant and lacking in body only a few metres away.
However, there IS a type of organ designed for this type of acoustic, and which sounds exactly right. It's called a Wurlitzer Theatre Organ!!
Hey ho! Back to the Diaphones!
Discuss!
MM
PS: Will this thread never end....can we make a thousand posts?
I like the above explanation for the apparent failure of the Bridgewater Hall Organ to be entirely satisfying as it has the advantage of freeing almost everyone from blame EXCEPT the individual who decided to bring together a square peg and a round hole, without ensuring that one or the other could change its configuration so as to fit with the other!
It is somewhat jaw dropping to find MM apparently advocating the merits of a Wurlitzer when he has gone on record with his dislike of the "pervading English Organ style" and (by implication) his preference for a more contrapuntal style of instrument. However, Emerson said that a "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and MM never actually expressly stated he liked wurlitzers, only that they were the only type of organ capable of performing to advantage in such an environment. Also, whilst your average 10-15 rank Wurlitzer is even less able to perform contrapuntal music than a bog standard early 20th century English organ, some of the bigger American installations like Organ Stop Pizza and San Filippo seem to me to do it as least as well, with the added advantage that they can also do The Dam Buster's march or In a Clock Store or the Policeman's Holiday infinitely better.
Since today is the day for outrageous suggestions, here is one even more far fetched. Remove the Marcussen to Sheffield Cathedral, thus solving their need for a new instrument, and replace it with the Christie from the Odeon, Marble Arch (which is still languishing in store somewhere). Being a Christie there should be family compatibility with HNB pipework from the same era of which there must be some knocking around somewhere from redundant churches which could be used to augment the specification. Now that would be thinking outside the box!
Brian Childs
-
The Elgar Sonata could be played on the organ of the Bavokerk, Haarlem, albeit with a few compromises.'
(Quote)
....As well as Bach at Armley.
Do we need St-Bavo everywhere?
(That was indeed on the way up to not so many time ago).
==================
Bavo is a unique combination of organ, building and the history of its' metamorphosis.
I can't think of any other organ in the world which comes close to it tonally, but St.Moritz, Olomouc, CZ has many of the same qualities.
Bach at Armley.....yes I've done that in recital....very LOUD.
MM
I can see how you might record the Elgar at St Bavo but could you do it live in recital ? Would n't the army of registrants get in one another's way ? But if anyone is game to record the CD I promise to buy a copy >
Brian Childs
-
Is Bridgewater really such a brilliant contrapuntal organ? I have never heard it, but from what I know of its builders' other recent work, this would surprize me.
Since I have never managed to hear it live I do not know either which is why I used "ideal as it may be" rather than "ideal as it is" to leave some room for doubt. Since my earliest Bach LPs were of Anton Heiler playing a Marcussen, which sounded fine to me, and since everyone whom I know to have expressed an opinion on the matter seems to agree that the thing is significantly underpowered, I am afraid I rather assumed it must be good for contrapuntal music . If it should prove not to be, then exactly what is it good at ? It would seem an awful lot of money to spend to get a lemon.
Brian Childs
-
I
"No longer does ze self-respecting German composer use ze pen and paper and ze fork-in-tune. Instead he uses ze mazematical slippy-rule etc."
My objection to the pervading English organ style, is that it completely re-invents the organ by turning its' back on the essentially contrapuntal nature of the instrument.
Hi MM
But surely the guy who first had the idea of dividing up the blockwerk into individual ranks likewise "completely reinvented the organ" as known before his bright idea. Are n't all musical instruments subject to this process in some degree ? In my house I have a Piano , rather different to the clavichord Bach probably had in his. And how far do modern woodwind resemble the racketts, shawms and crumhorns which preceded them ? Now I have quite liked these ever since I first encountered David Munrow a good few years ago, but I would not want to be without the modern Clarinet whether in the hands of Gervase de Peyer or Artie Shaw. Likewise I would not want to be deprived of the sounds of Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins or Lester Young , and I doubt Dizzy Gillespie could have played as he did on the style of trumpet current in Bach's day.
Fortunately, we are not forced to choose since we can have all these things. Likewise with the organ. I grant you that the early 20th century English Organ does not lend itself naturally to the performance of contrapuntal music, but there are plenty of more recent examples which do, not to mention all those on the continent of Europe. I do not think the current "pervading English organ style" seeks to produce instruments that replicate those of the first half of the last century, and has not done so since Downs and the RFH - indeed there were straws in the wind pre-war. It would be an unusual builder to day who given a completely green field site chose to build a replica of an Arthur Harrison organ. So if the problem does not lie in what is being newly built today, wherein does it lie ? In view of what you have said in other posts I do not believe you would seriously advocate scrapping St Mary Redcliffe or Hull City Hall in favour of another Bridgewater Hall type instrument, which ideal as it may be for contrapuntal music has some difficulty being convincing in the Elgar or Whitlock Sonatas to mention just two organ compositions I would personally rather not be without.
Regards,,
BAC
-
[Actually, in my own defence, I think I was referring to spiritual travel rather than actual travel, even though Bach went hiking around Northern Europe.
HI MM,
Sorry that the post to which the above is a response was done in a bit of a rush. I did realise that you meant both, but with the emphasis on the questing mind rather than the wandering body. However, I think (and ought to have stated) that a number of them did make a spiritual journey : given the experiences to which they were subjected it would be incredible if they had not. But spiritual journeys are no more guaranteed than physical journeys to always terminate in sunlit uplands. In other words, we have not only to account for the physically lost (like Butterworth) but the mentally lost (like Ivor Gurney). For at least some of the Howells generation, I would argue, the spiritual journey they went on was a destructive rather than a productive one like JSBs, and thus unlikely to lead to a productive outcome. And whilst the myth of a lost generation has now been largely exploded, there has to have been some factual basis to allow the myth to grow up in the first place. So we have a certain possibility, indeed a probability, that a significant (but unquantifiable) amount of British (and French and German) talent was cut down before it could fully blossom. Whilst this must have been true throughout history, I would doubt it can have been on such a scale before, or at least not since the Black Death in the 14th Century. I think this goes some of the way to explaining the contrast between the spiritual journey of JSB and the apparent lack of one by the Howells generation.
All the best,
Brian Childs
-
[
I can understand the views expressed above but they no more can be taken as authoritative than mine on symphonic Bruckner or the late John Thaw's on Gilbert & Sullivan!
Authoritative on what ? They are definitive as far as my opinion goes and presumably the same would hold true for MM. Speaking for myself I am not purporting to deny that Howells was a significant composer, nor that there are many who like his music (for all I know they may constitute 99.99% of all known music lovers) , and certainly not the right of others to hold a diametrically opposed opinion to my own. Perhaps "Anglican Muzak" sounded more pejorative than was intended, because I actually like his music in Church as an aid to creating an appropriate atmosphere . Not having the advantage of knowing what Innate's views are on Bruckner (one might deduce that he was less enthusiastic than conventional opinion would suggest he should be - in which case he and I agree on that) nor those of John Thaw, one cannot comment further at this stage.
Brian Childs
-
As for the "British romantic organ," my worry is not that it is under-valued, but that it is over-valued; especially when it concerns an area of extreme organ-building covering a period of a mere 40 years (1900-1940 or so). It's interesting that the glaring parochialism of this period co-incides with "fortress Britain," and with the best will in the world, that era is now dead and buried, in spite of renderings of "Land of Hope and Glory" at the Proms by those who don't even know what Blake was writing about with "Jerusalem!Or possibly even know the words, but is it fair to elide the sentiment in the two songs?
If we are prepared to wallow in the sentiments of an age long dead, don't we deserve to perish with it?
THAT'S the thing about Bach.....he mentally (and physically) travelled outside his parish boundary, whereas Herbert Howells and his generation did not.
MM
[
I do not think the last sentence is quite right. Howell's generation (b 1892) did travel quite a lot,even if he did not . The places they went include Picardy and Champagne in Northern France, Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. The problem may be that a significant number of them did not return ! And those who did come back were not unchanged by the experiences of their travels!
But I do find myself somewhat in sympathy with MM's views on Howell's the composer. As Anglican Muzak it is fine, but I have never been able to grasp the point of,eg, Paean and it does nothing for me when heard in recitals. I had always assumed that this was a failure on my part which I should keep quiet about . However, as at least one other person suffers from the same condition perhaps we should form a support group in case there are others out there similarly ashamed of owning up .
Brian Childs
-
An interesting point, but this is the same Proms Administrator who commissioned and put Birtwhistle's "Panic" in the Last Night a few years back much to the consternation of about 99.5% of the viewing public....
[
]
But surely once bitten etc, which would be a good reason for not being quite so adventurous again! I found the "living composer" piece this time rather intriguing though that may have been heavily influenced by the visual , rather than the purely musical content. And it was quite short. Now had the piece gone on for the length of Beethoven's Ninth or even the "Wedge" I might have felt differently !
Brian Childs
-
.
Unless, that is, you have organists, such as Baker and Hosking, who use their ears and spend a great deal of time on registration.
Alan
London
One would like to think that use of ears and the expenditure of time on devising appropriate registration schemes to render effectively the music on the instrument being played were the rule, and not the exception. Whilst the time available to visiting recitalists for familiarisation with the peculiarities ofa particular instrument is obviously limited, the incumbent cannot avail of this excuse. One would have thought, for example, that everyone devising a scheme of piston settings for repeated use would at least take the precaution of hearing what the settings sounded like in the building before locking them into the system, if only to spare themselves embarassment. Are there really many examples of persons in charge of important instruments in famous buildings who consider that they have so many more urgent matters on which to spend their time that they can find none for this activity ?
Brian Childs
-
Since my TV is not linked to my Hi Fi I had to make do with listening through standard TV speakers but I was struck by the fact that the organ made its presence felt in the Elgar and Parry in a way that I never recollect it doing before.
I would expect John Williams to give a memorable account of whatever he chose to play but I would have thought the Rodrigo was a sensible choice for a "last night" concert to be viewed by many who would not regard themselves as really interested in "serious" music. The more so if one is at all interested in persuading them that it might be worthwhile to investigate further. People learning to read do not begin with Dickens and Tolstoy, but have to work up to that level. Surely the equivalent process in music involves starting off with the instantly accessible, memorable, and possibly even recognisable ? And something relatively unfamiliar, and not infrequently challenging, is always included. However, the effect of,for example, replacing Elgar and Parry with Webern and Stockhausen would not be to secure greater familiarity with the works of those composers but merely the removal of the TV slot.
Brian Childs
-
]
I'm not sure that there's any fundamental difference between playing Elgar on the Rieger at Christ Church and playing Bach or Rutter on a typical Edwardian 2manual parish church organ. As a player you must use your imagination; the audience will be using their's. All the conservatives that railed against adding mixtures to "Romantic" organs in the 1970's were right to the extent that the organ as it stood had its own integrity. The Rieger too has its own integrity which shines through so long as it is being played without apology.
[]
I would agree with the general thrust of this observation though I cannot vouch for the last sentence, never having heard the Christchurch organ live. But there is a real "fitness for purpose" issue to be considered. Any organ ought to be appropriate for the principal task it is required to undertake, and ought to be skewed towards suitability for that function. Anything else it can do is a bonus. An ecclesiastical instrument has to be suitable for liturgical use : a town hall organ has to be capable of entertaining ; an instrument in an educational institution has to be suitable for the purposes of education. Unfortunately, "Jack of all trades, master of none" tends to be as true in the case of the organ as elsewhere, but the very expense of the pipe organ means that except for the richest of American Universities (which can afford to populate their campuses with exact replicas of a particular historical style) almost every organ is going to have to be something of a compromise. However, there are some issues on which compromise is either undesirable or not possible. It is these issues that seem to provoke the greatest degree of dissension and recrimination so it would seem a good idea to try to reduce the size of this category as much as possible. Unfortunately, knowing the goal does not necessarily mean one knows how to get there !
-
So the NPOR have moved their website to http://npor.emma.cam.ac.uk/. What do you think? Good or bad?
Personally, the new NPOR is summarised for me as being describable with one word. That word starts with a C and ends in RAP.
Dave
How many letters in this word ? If there were 8 then it could be claptrap.
BAC
-
Klais put a stop on the pedal division at Bath Abbey known as a "Fart."
This seems very unlikely as it is unusual to employ words of Anglo-Saxon origin as a name for any organ stop : we tend to borrow from the French, Germans or Dutch or use words based on Greek or Roman roots, even if the result is cod Greek or Latin. It would therefore seem likely that we have here a mistranscription of "quart" caused by the peculiar antique script used to engrave the stop knob. Anyone who truly wished to produce a stop imitative of the sound mentioned would more aptly term it Vox Flatulatum
-
One can successfully do Dyson in D at Lichfield, Liverpool or Kings, as indeed most cathedrals. Worcester is of course a typical "English" sound, whereas Gloucester clearly is not. Blackburn likewise is not a English sound. The tone of Diapasons has basically changed little from the 18th century onwards. Notwithstansding bigger scales, and a more demanding repertoire requiring bigger stop lists, the Diapason remains at the core of England. Few organs dispense with them, and do so at their peril. So, what is English, what is not?
==================
In other words, we are turning "English Cathedral Music" into a theme park and a tourist attraction.
Who says that Blackburn isn't an English sound?
The Great chorus is very English in character, whilst the reeds are generally quite splashy, but certainly not flat-out mad Frenchman in style. The Positiv is basically German in style, but blends as well as asserts itself.
If it isn't English, what is it? Let's do a questionnaire!
The tone of Diapasons has changed radically from the 18th century, but they are now probably being made nearer to what they were then, rather than what they became after 1890 or so.....that is a GOOD THING.
Nothing is English at all which hasn't been done before by others; save for fat Trombas, ghastly pedal Ophicleides and braying party-horns.
MM
As far as I am aware the term "braying party horns" has largely been used on this site recently with reference to the Liverpool Trompette Militaire and like stops. But surely the pipes for the Willis prototype in St Paul's were made by Moller and imported from the USA so perhaps we should give the credit for them to our American cousins ? Which particular builder's ophicleides have aroused your displeasure ? I have experienced a number of stops that went under that name and they sounded far from identical !
-
I did not know about Cheltenham. Dover has a four decker HNB, in the town hall. Kidderminster is, I think, Hill. The Germani /Franck etc recording at Selby was reissued on CD by EMI. I think they might have deleted it in their wisdom.
Hi Richard,
The one I was referring to was an LP CSD 3674 recorded by the Culverhouse/ Eltham team, issued in 1970. It says Fernando Germani plays at the Colston Hall on the front of the sleeve and pictures him sitting at the console :it gives the Colston Hall Organ specification on the back, in the manner of the Great Cathedral Organ Series LP sleeves. The music comprises Reger BACH (op 46) and Pastorale (op 59/2) coupled with Franck Grande Piece Symphonique. I do not know whether Germani ever recorded that at Selby. I thought it was the 3 Chorales and Piece Heroique. But I do not have those performances in my collection.
Best wishes,
Brian Childs
-
It really is so barren down here in the South. One struggles to think of even a single decent instrument, except perhaps:-
Truro, Bath Abbey, Bristol Cathedral, St. Mary Redcliffe, Salisbury, Hereford, Kingston, RFH, Albert Hall, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral, St. Paul's, Tewkesbury, Chichester, Wincester, Rochester, Oxford (Queens College, New College, Magdalen, Christchurch)..........
Wot, nuffing in' Cambridge ? And before World War 2.5 breaks out would someone care to stipulate where the equivalent of the Mason-Dixon Line dividing North and South lies ? As someone Essex born and bred Manchester seemed indubitably part of the grim North, but my sister-in-law is from Stornoway and for her it is far to the South virtually next door to London ! That raises another issue - what is the country we are talking about. Some English people occasionally use England as if it were a synonym for Great Britain or even the United Kingdom. Having thoughtlessly done it myself in my more callow youth I can testify to the extent to which this habit gets right up the nose of any Jock, Taffy or Paddy who is present !
All that said, it does seem to me that if one simply considers organs located in liturgical buildings it is difficult to argue for any conclusion other than that there are significant organs to be found the length and breadth of the country, with rather more to be found in the greater centres of population. It is hardly to be wondered at that there are rather more of them in South East England than the Western Highlands of Scotland. On the other hand if one is considering significant Town Hall Organs then it is difficult to deny that the majority of them are situated in the Midlands and the North, the former great centres of industrial power and entrepreneurial wealth. Outside of London where in the South are the instruments to compare with the civic organs of Liverpool, Leeds, Huddersfield, Hull, Newcastle (when playable)Sheffield ? Reading, yes: Oxford, but it hardly equates in size ? I know of no equivalent in Suffolk, Essex or Kent, Herts, Bedfordshire or Bucks. There is, of course, the Dome organ in Brighton which happily bucks the trend but it does have an awful lot of percussion stops and effects, and some may try to disqualify it . Apart from it, Bournemouth Pavilion and Southampton Guildhall - also cross-over organs bridging the divide between a conventional pipe organ and the mighty wurlitzer, what else is there south of the Bristol to the Wash line ? This is a genuine and not a rhetorical question.
Best wishes,
Brian Childs
Oops, forgot about the Colston Hall in Bristol. Anyone else remember the Preston performance of the Elgar Sonata recorded there , and what was I think Germani's last recording for EMI with Franck and Reger ?
-
I was fortunate enough to learn to play the organ on a 1911 4-manual Harrison where the Swell octave coupler was frequently used for full swell. I had thought this was just a one off, and so was suprised to read that there was the need for it at the Abbey. Maybe there are other Harrison organs out there where it is necessary/desirable to use the Swell octave coupler?
Jeremy Jones
London
I suppose whether or not it is necessary ultimately depends on what effect one is aiming to produce. My understanding has always been (though why I should think this I do not know - I certainly have not been fortunate enough to hear that many examples "in the flesh") that in a classic Arthur Harrison Organ not only do the Great and Swell contrast on what might be called a thick/thin basis, particularly with regard to the chorus reeds, but also that the Swell does not match the Great in power on a stop for stop basis. If this is so, then presumably anyone wanting to produce a more equitable balance of power would need to resort to the SO coupler as a fairly routine procedure if the obvious alternative (reducing the power of the Great) was for some reason deemed either impracticable or undesirable.But surely someone out there must know the answer ?
Brian Childs
-
Just a personal request please, but some correspondents are falling into the habit of replying IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Can I point out that such replies are extremely hard on the eye and I would suggest are therefore bad mannered.
We may not all agree, but I for one would appreciate it if the use of all upper-case text could be discontinued. I rarely read such replies as its too much like hard work!
As a major culprit I apologise for the bad manners.The problem is the need to distinguish annotations from the text being replied to. I have now discovered how to use colour and /or italics to do this. Any preferences ?
BAC
-
Hi Richard,
I agree with much of what you say but is n't it the case that one person's reality is that the glass is half full in which they rejoice while another's is that the glass is half empty which causes them to be depressed. In both cases the physical quantity of liquid present is the same !
But organists will sometimes only want a tracker, and will go into a cathedral and rip an organ apart to have one. Others hate trackers. So it constantly is a matter of taste. It would easier if organists could see themselves as custodians, but often they act like little Hilters.
Of course fashion is an important influence, it may even have the pre-eminent position which you accord it, but I think we need to keep a sense of proportion. If we look at the matter of our clothes as an example our personal taste is obviously a crucial influence in what we choose to buy, but few of us are in the position of being able to throw out our entire wardrobe and start again with a complete new one.[if anybody reading this is that wealthy please contact me by e-mail. I have a truly heart rending letter to send you which will move you to tears before you rush for your cheque book] But we buy new clothes with far greater frequency than a major church or concert hall gets a new organ. If I had just been appointed to somewhere like Hereford where the organ has just been through a major programme of work I would not fancy my chances of prevailing upon the Dean and Chapter to decide to throw out the instrument and install a new one in accordance with my personal taste. I would expect to be told that the state and design of this organ were a matter of public knowledge and if were so unhappy about working with it, why had I bothered to apply for the job in the first place, and did I not consider I might be happier working elsewhere ? Obviously where an organ is vulnerable to fashion is when major work becomes essential, either because of some incident like damage from a leaking roof, or because routine care and maintenance have been insufficiently attended to.While there can be no guarantee against the former for any instrument, the latter OUGHT not to be a problem with a major instrument, such as a cathedral organ. However the diversion of funds to more pressing purposes, or those fashionable with the authorities in the Cathedral, will sometimes mean that what ought to be the case is not in fact so.
Far easier to find a position that you are happy with as far as the organ is concerned. You doubtless get my point. it was only a few years ago that Kings was criticised, too cramped and so on. Too English. Not ideal for students use. It just goes on.
Of course Richard but Kings is still there as I write this. People will always moan. We British are famously preoccupied with the weather which we have no chance of influencing as individuals ( I am not going in to climate change here !) Likewise people will moan about the organs in their charge but it does not necessarily mean that we should assume they intend to actually do anything ![COLOR=orange]
. It all comes down to whim, and is not regulated. At parish level it is less of a problem because of shortage of funds.
This is true of tinkering but paradoxically it may leave parish organs more exposed to the dictates of fashion when the ravages of time can finally be ignored no longer. It's a bit like putting off going to the dentist: when you eventually do go because it has now started actually to hurt more drastic intervention may be required
Often one can find unaltered gems and really enjoy them, and even my "own" organ has its faults, but I respect it, and realise it represents a style, and that new organs are not always better, just different. Oxford was a most terrifying example of the damage that can be done, people forget things, like Wells which was also altered. Durham was altered by Harrisons and so was the RAH, now the RAH is considered an oddity, a sound, a very loud sound.
Surely the RAH can also be a very SOFT sound, barely audible , if you draw stops individually rather than in handfuls ! I have not heard it live since it was rebuilt but I would be astounded if careful selection of registers from the fairly large palette available did not permit some level of dynamics in between barely audible movement of air and being blown out of the building. Surely some of the responsibility for the loud sound might reside with the driver rather than the car !
It's too far altered for anyone to have known where to start in terms of restoring it People in high places have a lot of sway, and it has been proved that the man on the street has no voice. Unless you play the organ regularly at Upminster you have no voice, no opinion. It matters not that you highly regard an organ if the organist hates it. It is going!
I am sure this is not always the case. People in high places clearly do have a lot of sway but we are not yet, I hope, in Blair's Thousand Year Reich. Sometimes they have to listen, and sometimes they do change course as a result of listening.
Next year the organist might move to Lowminster leaving behind HIS organ for us all to savour!! So not a pessimist, but a realist. Time does change everything, and sadly the things that remain to us unchanged, are human and include ego, greed, selfishness and lack of concern for others opinions. These qualities will always be around us, and those qualities are the ones that cause damage.
Of course we all fall short of the glory of God: of course these qualities abound even in places where they should not, eg in people following a religious vocation: but surely all that means is that we have to try harder whilst being prepared for the fact that our efforts may not result in success? When I was in primary school one of the little stories we used to get told was of a man walking along a beach on which are stranded millions of starfish, picking them up and throwing them back into the sea. An observer approaches him and asks why he bothers: he has no chance of making any difference. His reply, as he picks up another to return to the sea, is "It makes a difference to this one"!
All the best, and look after that Hill
Brian Childs
-
[Hereford, Lincoln, Canterbury, Salisbury and St. Mary, Redcliffe have all been altered to varying degrees. Whilst in some cases, these alterations were easily-reversible trifling affairs, others were rather more comprehensive. Even St. Mary, Redcliffe has had the GO and Swell Organ mixture compositions altered twice (I think) in the last twenty or so years. Then, of course, there was the replacement of most of the Swell Organ, necessitated by a fire in or around the 1940s.
I strongly suspect that there are further un-documented alterations which have been made to these (and other) instruments. It is only comparatively recently that we in this country have developed an obsession with recording and stringently assessing any proposed work on our church organs. Quite often, even in cathedral records, small alterations are inadequately or incorrectly recorded; trherefore it is possible that we may have a slightly-distorted sound 'picture' of our cathedral organs.
It is only with a small number of instruments - for example, Reading Town Hall, Oxford Town Hall and possibly Blenheim Palace that we may have a more accurate record of that which 'Father' Willis intended. Even then - are we certain that no organ builder ever altered the voicing, or the scaling - or even substituted a rank of pipes?
I accept all of this but I would be astounded if it were otherwise. Few of us when /if we reach the age of these instruments will be in the same condition we left the womb or even that we were in when we started our first job ! False teeth, spectacles, hair pieces for those particularly worried by hair loss, and for some artificial limbs, pace-makers or titanium plates in the skull. Despite all this intervention or supplementation we consider ourselves to be the same person as we always have been. I think the organs mentioned are regarded as essentially the same and recognisable as the same person despite changes wrought by time and changes of fashion (eg as regards hair length for those still fortunate enough to possess it). Reading, Oxford and Blenheim would seem to have lasted better than some others or perhaps adopted a different approach to fashion, but have still not escaped completely the ravages of time and the consequent work to fix them.
Brian Childs
-
Well so much having already been dstroyed, it is the fashion aspect that will dicate the survival of organs. Fashion will change, and Blackburn is very much a one off unique sound. That will be its weakness. Someone will hate it. It will get its critics. Bear im mind it had a Cavaille Coll....gone, and I bet you it could have been restored! I am just being realistic, not cynical. I have heard practically all I cite being said in the past, and been constantly shocked!! These days?, well!............
Well perhaps not cynical but certainly very pessimistic. Obviously nothing lasts forever and in a few billion years the Sun will die and Earth will be incinerated, if an asteroid has not got us first or we have not done for ourselves with global warming or a nuclear holocaust between some of the new nuclear states. In the meantime we might have mastered space travel like they do it in Startrek and decamped elsewhere. I offer the following observations and reasons for cautious optimism.
(1) Butchery or, if you like, the conviction that their way was the right way was the spirit of the Victorian and Edwardian age. It resulted in Titanic self confidence that all progress was beneficial and to be embraced. They applied this approach across the board and many churches received a far from sympathetic Victorian makeover. It does not seem to me to be the spirit of our age. There is much more emphasis on conservation and heritage, as evidenced by the widespread support for environmental pressure groups, and the growing political significance of "green" issues. (That is not "green" in the Ulster sense I hasten to add.)
(2) I do not doubt that everything that Richard has mentioned has been said at some time, but how much of it has been done (Talk is famously cheap) and how much of that has been done recently ? There will always be exceptions or counter examples to any generalisation but my impression is that there is rather less unsympathetic restoration being done now than say 30 years ago. Hereford, Malvern, the RAH, all the subject of recent work, did not as far as I am aware emerge from the experience in a form unrecognisable to those that previously knew them. In so far as there have been changes, like fixing the wind supply at the RAH, these have attracted overwhelming approval. Conservation cannot mean changing nothing ! Parts wear out, leather perishes, the electronic mechanisms of a past age may be irreparable (the parts being unavailable) or vastly more expensive to repair than to replace with the modern equivalent. Restoration of an organ which has to be used and has to work cannot be approached in exactly the same way as the restoration of some Roman or Greek artifact which will be displayed in a hermetically sealed controlled environment and only touched by the gloved hands of experts.
(3) Money is no longer as available as it once was. Many churches benefitted from the munificence of wealthy members of the congegation both whilst alive and posthumously. I would be astounded if this source produced the same income ,adjusted for inflation over the years, as it once did. Likewise many civic organs were donated as an expression of civic pride. The Mulholland organ in the Ulster Hall in Belfast is one such. In so far as there are still captains of industry who actually own, as distinct from administer for a (very handsome)salary the assets of the nation's economy very few would be likely to put as their top priority funding a new civic organ. And why should they when so many existing ones have been so criminally allowed to run to rack and ruin.
(4) The culture of deference, still with us at the start of the 60's is now , dead and gone beyond rescussitation. This is not entirely a good thing but it does mean that the belief of a consultant that s/he is God is most unlikely to be shared by all around and that those who disagree with proposals will be far less reticent about voicing their objections than would once have been the case. This is aided by
(5) the modern phenomen of the net and the world wide web which makes sites like this possible. Today any one who learns of a proposal to replace the organ in Salisbury with a large synthesizer, two guitars and a drum kit can alert fellow organ enthusiasts all over the globe within a matter of hours. Those so alerted can make use of the same technology to voice their displeasure to the relevant authorities. Even 12 years ago this would simply not have been feasible. (I am aware you can spread news remarkably quickly by signal beacon but only news which the recipients have been warned in advance to expect, eg the Armada has been sighted off the South Coast).
Therefore, like MM, I am optimistic but that does not mean that vigilance is not required, nor does it mean that there will not continue to be instances of butchery. I am quite sure there will. However, for my money the more worrying threat to the organ (certainly in Church) stems from those clergy whose preferred form of worship involves "music" much more convincingly (and also far more cheaply) performed on some other instrumental combination, not merely as an adjunct to the more traditional forms, but as a complete replacement for them. Organs are expensive to buy, and cost money to maintain. Whereas if you get rid of the organ the space will make a nice store cupboard for the hoover, and the drum kit which is actually the property of Fred the drummer, who thus has to bear all the capital costs of acquisition and the running expenses such as insurance. The other advantage of a drum kit is that when you find the roof over it is leaking you can fairly quickly move it somewhere else out of harm's way. Only an electronic or a chamber organ share this advantage.
Brian Childs
-
Apologies first; I was confusing Gloucester with the "W" place we shouldn't mention. I'm not sure how Bengal fits into the equation, but each to his own.
I never go to the West Country I'm afraid.
BENGAL MAY BE THE SAUCE (SORRY SOURCE) OF SOME OF THE SPICES THAT GO INTO THAT HEADY BROWN LIQUID WHICH WHEN ADDED TO TOMATO JUICE AND A JUDICIOUS SERVING OF VODKA.....
I think Brian makes excellent observations, but what strikes me about the Victorians and Edwardians is the total lack of respect for the past. They came, they saw...they butchered.
I AGREE BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE WAY OF THE WORLD UP UNTIL ALMOST OUR OWN ERA WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, ACROSS ALMOST ALL SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. INDEED HAVING ANY KIND OF ACCURATE CONCEPT OF THE PAST IS A RELATIVELY RECENT ACHIEVEMENT. THINK OF ALL THOSE CELEBRATED WORKS OF RELIGIOUS ART WHERE THE PARTICIPANTS ARE ALL DRESSED AFTER THE FASHION OF THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE PAINTING WAS EXECUTED, RATHER THAN IN EVEN AN APPROXIMATION OF THE KIND OF CLOTHES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMON IN 1ST CENTURY PALESTINE . IN MUSIC, AUTHENTIC PERFORMANCE PRACTICE SEEMS TO ME A RELATIVELY RECENT PHENOMENON: I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD HAVE FIGURED LARGELY IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF SIR HENRY WOOD OR TOMMY BEACHEM, FOR EXAMPLE .
IF WE FOCUS ON OUR OWN NATION IT IS NONE TOO SURPRISING THAT THOSE LIVING AT A TIME WHEN WE WERE THE DOMINANT IMPERIAL POWER IN THE WORLD , WHEN TECHNOLOGICAL GROWTH WAS PROCEEDING EXPONENTIALLY, AND WHEN THE THRUST OF EDUCATION FOR BOYS WAS TO PRODUCE SELF-RELIANT GOOD CHAPS, SHOULD HAVE ASSUMED THAT ALL CHANGE IS GOOD. THERE ARE PLENTY AROUND TODAY WHO MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS. THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM, OR AT LEAST PART OF IT, IS FOR MY MONEY THE RECOGNITION THAT WHILST CHANGE IS INEVITABLE AND CONSTANT IT IS NOT ALWAYS DESIRABLE AND THE ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH THOSE CHANGES WHICH SHOULD BE EMBRACED FROM THOSE THAT SHOULD BE RESISTED EVEN UNTO DEATH.
Perhaps there is another perspective to all this. Great things only happen infrequently, but when they do, we should preserve them as best we may. The business of preservation is what happens when things have been so destroyed, that the few remaining examples of almost anything, become more significant than they were when first created.
Maybe what I am asking, is whether the preservation of 2nd or 3rd class instruments is sufficiently important to prevent the building of new 1st class instruments?
TO THAT QUESTION MY ANSWER WOULD BE NO, OF COURSE NOT. I THINK MANY ON THIS SITE WOULD ANSWER IN SIMILAR VEIN. HOWEVER WHEN WE COME TO TRANSLATE THE PHILOSOPHICAL ACCEPTANCE INTO ACTION IN THE REAL WORLD WE RUN UP AGAINST TWO HUGE PROBLEMS. (1) IS THERE ANY SUFFICIENT CONSENSUS ON THE DEFINITION OF WHAT 2ND AND 3RD CLASS
MEAN AND WHERE THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THEM AND FIRST CLASS LIES ? AS PIERRE HAS FREQUENTLY POINTED OUT (THOUGH NOT IN THESE TERMS) THIS BOUNDARY RESEMBLES NOTHING SO MUCH AS THE SHIFTING SANDS OFF OUR COASTS, EVER CHANGING AND REQUIRING THE SERVICES OF A SKILLED PILOT TO BE NAVIGATED SUCCESSFULLY.(2) EVEN IF WE CAN RESOLVE THAT, HOW ARE WE TO BE GUARANTEED THAT THE NEW INSTRUMENT WHEN COMPLETED WILL BE FIRST CLASS, GIVEN THAT FEW OF US CAN FORSEE THE FUTURE WITH ANY VERY GREAT ACCURACY. I CERTAINLY CANNOT. WERE I ABLE TO, I WOULD HAVE RETIRED YEARS AGO AND MADE A COMFORTABLE LIVING OF THE BACKS OF THE BOOKMAKERS . THERE IS NOT MUCH OF AN ARGUMENT FOR SADDLING ANY INSTITUTION, LET ALONE A CASH STRAPPED CHURCH,WITH THE NOT INCONSIDERABLE COSTS INVOLVED IN REPLACING AN EXISTING SECOND RATE INSTRUMENT WITH A NEW SECOND RATE INSTRUMENT, OR MUCH WORSE A NEW THIRD RATE INSTRUMENT!
BAC
More importantly, is preservation governed by musical history or mere antiquity?
MM
-
DECEPTIVELY SIMPLE IS RIGHT. AS AN EXERCISE IN COAT TRAILING
THIS WILL TAKE SOME BEATING
I have often wondered why it is, that certain countries such as Holland, where not a great deal of organ-music has been written over the ages, should so consciously choose the path of restoration and historic preservation, whereas Germany, (for example) has just about eradicated the traces of its' own organ-history; save for the few masterpieces which have been restored.
AND THERE WAS I THINKING THAT THE RAF AND THE MIGHTY EIGHTH, NOT TO MENTION THE RED ARMY, HAD HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN GERMANY WHILST WE SURELY HAVE THE LUFTWAFFE TO THANK FOR THE NEED FOR A FEW NEW ORGANS IN ROTTERDAM. AND WHAT ABOUT THE PIPES MELTED DOWN TO PROVIDE MUNITIONS IN WORLD WAR 1 ? I DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO QUESTION THE BASIC PREMISE OF YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE DUTCH HAVE PRESERVED WHILST THE GERMANS HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED BUT I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS EXISTING (IF IT DOES) IS MORE COMPLEX THAN SIMPLY A DIFFERENCE OF APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENT. SOME MAY WELL HAVE CHOSEN MODERNISATION: OTHERS UNDOUBTEDLY HAD IT THRUST UPON THEM.
As Pierre Lauwers has pointed out, actually finding a genuine romantic period-instrument in Germany is actually quite difficult, and those which do exist, tend to be in other countries such as Latvia, Poland and, of course, here in the UK.
The organ world is full of restorers and organ-historians, but equally well endowed with those who are able to build whatever a customer requires; from a copy Cavaille-Coll from Holland to a replica Hill/Gauntlett from the UK.
It is natural that organ-builders should respect earlier instruments as works of art and fine pieces of cabinet-making, but at what point does antique restoration become anti-art?
THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.AS A WORKING BASIS FOR AN ANSWER PERHAPS WE COULD TRY SOMETHING LIKE : "WHEN SOMETHING IS PRESERVED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS OLD RATHER THAN BECAUSE IT IS GOOD". THERE ARE WONDERFUL OLD ORGANS BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF BAD OLD ORGANS: THERE ARE SOME FANTASTIC MODERN ORGANS BUT THERE ARE ALSO PLENTY THAT ARE LESS EXCITING AND SOME OUTRIGHT SHOCKERS (NO NAMES, NO PACK DRILL). PRESUMABLY THE PERSON WHO IS "PRO ART "WOULD WISH TO PRESERVE ALL THE GOOD OLD ORGANS AND REPLACE THE BAD OLD ORGANS WITH GOOD MODERN ONES. AND I WOULD HAPPILY SUPPORT THIS PROVIDEDTHERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF OPINION ON WHAT THE TERMS "GOOD" AND "BAD" MEANT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH A CONSENSUS EXISTS AT THE MOMENT AS WITNESS THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE FATE OF A CERTAIN INSTRUMENT FROM A COUNTY WHICH HAS LEANT ITS NAME TO A CELEBRATED SAUCE BY MESSRS LEA & PERRIN : I AM NOT A BETTING MAN BUT I WOULD PUT MONEY ON THERE NOT BEING SUCH A CONSENSUS IN OUR LIFE TIME !!!
Standing back a little from the arguments and counter-arguments, it seems to me, that when organ-consultants arrive with a ball-point pen mightier than any wrecking-ball, it is often a period in which musical creativity is at its strongest....the desire to move forward and leave the past behind.
THE TROUBLE IS THAT HISTORY IS FULL OF EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD AND LEAVE THE PAST BEHIND. SOME OF THEM - ONE MR A HITLER SPRINGS TO MIND - WERE NONE TOO RESPECTFUL OF THE OPINIONS OF THOSE WHO DISAGREED. MUSIC, THANKFULLY, IS UNLIKELY TO BE CAPABLE OF COMING CLOSE TO REPRODUCING HIS ACHIEVEMENTS. HOWEVER, ON ITS OWN MUCH SMALLER STAGE IT IS JUST AS CAPABLE OF BEING TAKEN OVER BY THOSE WHO WOULD THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER. IN MY LIFETIME THE DECLINE IN INTEREST IN CONTEMPORARY "SERIOUS" MUSIC IS AT LEAST PARTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ATTITUDE OF COMPOSERS WHO WERE SO ANXIOUS TO MOVE FORWARD THAT THEY LEFT NOT ONLY THE PAST BEHIND BUT THE PAYING AUDIENCES AS WELL. NOT TOO CLEVER, REALLY.
In the UK, we have seen the strength of feelings aroused by the destruction of the old organ at Worcester Cathedral, yet what replaces it is a rather fine instrument tonally.
DOES THIS MEAN IT EXISTS AND YOU HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD IT IN SITU OR IS THIS BY WAY OF BEING A PREDICTION, OR EXTRAPOLATION BASED ON OTHER WORK FROM THE SAME BUILDERS ?
The same was evident at Blackburn almost 40 years ago.
So my point of discussion is deceptively simple. Do we look backwards by placing barbed-wire around every old organ and setting up gun turrets, or do we allow organ-consultants and organ-builders the right to change things as they feel fit?
I THINK WE REFUSE TO SEE THE ISSUE IN THESE TERMS, OR TO ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT THUS. IF YOUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS TO ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS OLD MUST BE GOOD AND WORTH PRESERVING, THEN I WOULD AGREE. I WOULD NOT WISH TO SACRIFICE PIPED WATER FLOWING FROM A TAP IN THE HOUSE FOR THE JOY OF BEING ABLE TO WALK TO THE PARISH PUMP : I HAVE NO DESIRE TO REPLACE MY INTERNAL BATHROOM WITH AN OUTHOUSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GARDEN; AND I HAVE NO INTENTION OF RIPPING THE CENTRAL HEATING RADIATOR OUT OF MY BEDROOM, RE-OPENING THE FIRE PLACE AND GETTING UP AT 5.00 EVERY MORNING TO LIGHT IT ! THEREFORE I HAVE NO INTENTION OF DYING IN A DITCH TO DEFEND SOME EXAMPLE OF THE WORK OF BOGBRUSH AND SCRAPER THAT IS TONALLY INADEQUATE, MECHANICALLY UNRELIABLE AND INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING ANY SORT OF PERFORMANCE OF ANY MUSIC EVER WRITTEN FOR THE ORGAN. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THIS THAT I HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO ADOPT THE POSITION WHEREBY I TAKE OUT MY WALLET, OFFER IT TO THE CONSULTANT/ BUILDER AND SAY , WITH THE BEATIFIC SMILE OF THE TRULY SIMPLE MINDED "PLEASE HELP YOURSELF." AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED ORGAN CONSULTANTS AND ORGAN BUILDERS WOULD ONLY ENJOY THE RIGHT TO "CHANGE THINGS AS THEY FEEL FIT" IF THEY WERE PICKING UP THE ENTIRE BILL THEMSELVE. I WAS BROUGHT UP TO BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD PAY FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURES :NOT CHARGE THEM TO OTHERS. IF, AS IS USUALLY THE CASE, OTHERS ARE PICKING UP THE TAB, THEN THE CONSULTANTS/ BUILDERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE SATISFIED WITH THE RATHER MORE MESSY AND LESS EASILY PREDICTABLE PROCESS OF TRYING TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO WANT, SUPPORT AND BE PREPARED TO PAY FOR THEIR VISION OF THE WAY FORWARD. PERHAPS THIS WILL RESULT IN A FEW MORE SHABBY COMPROMISES BUT IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO REACH THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU NEED TO STAND WHERE YOU CAN REACH IN BOTH DIRECTIONS RATHER THAN IN A SPOT FROM WHICH YOU CAN REACH IN ONLY ONE.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR WISHES I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THE W WORD ONCE !
BAC
PS: Could we avoid mentioning Worcester AGAIN? !!!!!!!
-
Let me clarify. I did not mean to suggest that the quality of Mander's workmanship in the 1960s was in anyway inferiror to what it is now. I am not qualified to make such a sweeping statement and I have no reason to suspect that it was the case. That is all the more reason why I am astounded that a Mander instrument of 1960s vintage should have deteriorated to a state that it is no longer useable.
All I meant to say is that the type of organs Mander built in the 1960s and 1970s bear little resemblance to the significant organs that have been built by the company in the last 10 to 15 years.
Thank you for clearing that up for me, although I did not think that you actually meant to make such a comment. Nevertheless, you have been inside the organ and I have not, so it is conceivable, although not likely, that you saw something which would have supported it.
Brian Childs
Worcester Cathedral's Organ
in The Organ
Posted
[==================
For the record
I absolutely adore theatre organs, to the point that I have 
actually played one in concert a few times and given talks about them.
I likewise like the Theatre Organ, though having 'fessed up about Howells, I feel less reluctance to admit that the Reg Dixon style is not my favourite approach to the instrument. In some quarters this seems to be a hanging offence but I doubt anyone is going to risk coming to NI to try to find where I live! Its a great pity that embryonic stereo, around before the war, was not developed until after Torch and MacLean had moved on to other things or other places
As for contrapuntal music, how about a Bach Trio Sonata, using Kinura 8ft and Flute 4ft for the left hand, Chrysoglot and Viole 8ft for the RH and Pedal Cello 8ft?
I think you have been exchanging notes with Carlo Curley. This seems awfully like the registration I have heard him use playing the first movement of No 6
on a Wurlitzer. PCND would clearly not approve!
Clear as .....would you believe...a bell?
For the record again, a Wurlitzer organ was just about the only thing on which it was possible to play baroque French music with a fair degree of success...all those derived mutations and splashy trumpets. Also, they have lots of higher-pitched derivations, unlike the H-J organs on which the concept was based.
Further for the record, the chances of resuing the remains of the Mable Arch Christie, are almost zilch. The thing was stored in a barn, and the owner has never allowed anyone to rescue it and restore it.
This is a great pity, and a wicked waste of a unique instrument. I fail to grasp the point of saving something from immediate destruction in order to allow it to rot away slowly.
Now to the serious point of what I was writing about.
Anyone who has heard or played (as I have) the Marcussen (Flentrop?) organ of "De Doelen" concert hall in Rotterdam, would know that it sounds very thin. It was installed not long after the RFH; the latter being a far better sounding instrument. (It's so long ago, I can't recall who made it!)
My only experience of this Flentrop organ is through the recording that Daniel Chorzempa made on it of the Ad Nos. To my ears it sounded superb. But , of course, the recording process along with the camera is a practised liar, and it must sound different to those actually in the room.
However, in many respects, the Colston Hall organ is actually a better success story than either of the above two examples, but why?
The simple fact is, with modern acoustic-engineering favouring speech, AND musical "bloom," it is the mid-frequencies which get gobbled up quickly, and because the auditoriums contain absorbent soft-furnishings, the interior surfaces tend to be reflective hard-wood panelled or reflective fibre. Thus, you end up with a type of resonance which really is unnatural, but which nevertheless is a good compromise.
The Wurlitzer organ, with its' enormous mid-range punch and restrained trebles, was actually designed for a similar type of acoustic.
The lesson probably is, that the MODERN concert hall requires a different approach to that of a modern church-organ; perhaps favouring proper English Diapason and reed-tone as at Colston Hall, but without the ponderous qualities of an Arthur Harrison instrument. In other words, as baroque as you like, but essentially English in character, with the sort of mid-range punch we once knew so well.
An interesting idea. I would love to know what our host on this site thinks of it, and what approach Mander's would take to constructing a major concert organ in a new venue
I hesitate to get into detail, not being an organ builder, but I wonder if a new type of mixed-scaling isn't appropriate, where the scale-progressions favour mid-frequencies, but tail off above and below more rapidly than they would with an instrument installed in a traditional church.
I suppose the question which we need to ask, is whether that is possible without recourse to heavy pressures and deep nicking. The Klais at Birmingham is better than most, and I suspect that the acoustic problem has been addressed. Whether that has been entirely successful remains subjective.
Of one thing I am sure....ALL organ-builders need to read about acoustic-engineering and the characteristics of modern building materials, which have a nunmber of very specific characteristics.
I am sure this is right, and I am sure most do, but clearly there is some empirical evidence to suggest that there are either some exceptions or that the lessons have not been properly understood
MM
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>