Nick Bennett

The profit aspect is neither here nor there. Whatever sort of organisation you are running, you cannot be expected to tolerate behaviour that damages it. I have been involved in the management of a heritage railway for many years. It does not attempt to make a profit and most of its staff are unpaid volunteers. Yet I can recall an incident in which an injudicious remark made on camera in a "fly on the wall" TV programme resulted in a volunteer being expelled.

In business, slagging off your employer in public is usually considered to be gross misconduct, and anybody doing so would normally be subject to summary dismissal. There have been a number of such cases in the news recently. Anyway, how would you feel about your vicar making critical and offensive comments about you on his blog?

People have been debating whether the acoustic lets them get away with murder for decades. I can't remember which record it was, but one of the reviewers made a comment about it to the effect that it was mediocre singing made good by the King's acoustic. It turned out that LP hadn't been recorded in King's, but down the road at Trinity.

I only have one Ledger recording on the instrument. It was made whilst I was living in Cambridge and going to all the Saturday evening recitals and the odd midweek evensong. I can only say there must have been some very imaginative microphone placement for that LP, because on it the organ sounds nothing like it ever did in the chapel. In particular, the Great mixture sounds much more glittery. I remember playing it (the LP, not the organ) to a friend of mine, without telling him which organ it was; he was incredulous when I told him it was King's. So I wouldn't rely on those recordings to inform you what the instrument actually sounded like in the building. Hands off the H&H Trombas! They aren't my favourite sound in the world, either, but they are an integral part of the instrument.

If you were playing Priere du Christ from L'Ascension at Messiaen's recommended speed, you ought to have time for a phrase on each quaver, and quite a long conversation whilst holding down the long notes at the end of each phrase. Philip Tordoff is able to talk whilst playing. I've even heard him talk about one piece whilst playing another. When teaching, he asks you quesions whilst you are playing, and expects you to answer. It's like when the dentist asks you what you do for a living whilst stuffing amalgam into a back tooth. At first I could barely manage a nod or shake of the head, but now I can manage short phrases, provided I carefully pick a suitable spot in the music to make my utterance. I am sure somebody was telling me about Francis Jackson conducting a conversation with him whilst giving a recital at which my informant was his page turner. Me. At least in those pieces I know well.

In another thread, Barry Williams mentioned that he can't talk and play at the same time. Can you? Do you know people who can hold a conversation whilst playing? Are any well-known organists noted for being chatterers or for being mute?

Yes, you are right, 3 manuals. Only 32 speaking stops though, and no 16' reeds. It has a lovely warm, firm sound. I think you are right about it being more or less original Binns. I am not sure what the NPOR means by saying both "restored to Binns style" and "no tonal changes" in respect of the restoration by Harrison's in 2002.

When I read this topic, I began to imagine that it might somehow become possible to restore organs accurately to long lost specifications. For instance, Worcester to its Hope Jones incarnation (complete with mechanism, of course ) or Winchester back to 994 A.D. It would be fantastic to hear a Snetzler as built, but Halifax has lost its acoustic since you know who had the walls scraped in 1868, so it would be a waste of time there. Maybe Beverley Minster or St Margaret's, King's Lynn? To my ears, after hearing the Snetzler at Hillington, I find the Beverley Minster organ does have a distinct Snetzler sound. Dominic was being rather scathing about King's College, Cambridge. What would you put that back to? I assume Arthur Harrison 1933 wouldn't satisfy Dominic. So, shall we have the Hill of 1859 or the Lancelot Pease of 1661? Either would be very interesting, in its own way.

I know only the Cambridge organs reasonably well, so forgive me for not mentioning Oxford instruments. It's not so much naked prejudice as the fact that I haven't visited Oxford much since living there 25 years ago, whereas I get back to Cambridge several times a year. Yes, King's is a romantic slush bucket - and very wonderful it is, too. It is certainly my favourite Cambridge organ. It seems to be quite impossible to get one's hands on it though: Ann Page has tried several times to get permission for participants in her summer school to play it, but without success. I am green with envy that Philip Tordoff gave some recitals on it when he was organ scholar at Downing. After King's I would rate the Metzler at Trinity College very highly. Quite a different style of instrument, of course. But why shouldn't one like more than one type of organ? To be honest, it suites my style of playing better than King's would. Thirdly St Catherine's College (mostly Johnson of Cambridge, last work by Flentrop). This is a more general purpose instrument than King's or Trinity, and (I found) really good for Marchand, Dandrieu et al. Fourthly, the recently restored Binns in Queens' College is rather fine. Not that big - and only two manuals - but everything blends wonderfully. Another fine Cambridge instrument, but not in a college, is the Abbott and Smith (restored by Nicholson) in Our Lady and the English Martyrs. Its original specification was designed by C.V. Stanford. Nicholson's have restored it to this spec, with a Tuba added. At the console, it is very loud indeed; the first time I played it I almost jumped off the stool when I put the first chord down. On the floor of the church it sounds big but not excessively loud. Moving on to instruments I am not so keen on - somebody mentioned Girton. I have to admit that when I heard this instrument it wasn't at its best because it needed tuning. On paper, this ought to be an instrument I would like, but I thought it was all top and bottom (mostly top, to be honest). And spreading so few stops across four manuals seems ... odd.

Re King's. I am not suggesting that it's undervoiced, but neither is it one of those organs that make you gasp at its sheer volume, as happens with (say) St. Eustache, Haileybury College or the Stahlhuth organ at Maria Laach, to name but a few. If you wanted your hearing damaged in Cambridge, the place to go was not King's but John's, where you sat opposite the instrument and hoped the chamades were going to get some use. Even if they didn't, it was pretty loud, and a far brighter sound with much more impact than the gentler, smoother sound down the road. Don't misunderstand me though, I think King's is a wonderful instrument. In fact, over the years it has gone up and up in my estimation. Sitting in the choir stalls from 5.30 until 7.15 on a Saturday evening in Full Term is my idea of heaven! I notice from the college web site that the queue for the Service of Nine Lessons and Carols will be admitted to the college grounds at 0500! You gotta be keen ... or a member of the College.

The organ at King's isn't that loud by today's standards, and it certainly isn't incisive. I expect it has some difficulty keeping a big congregation in the ante-chapel together, and that it needs to be played at full bore for the Nine Lessons and Carols. Although I've never been at the back of King's College Chapel when it was full, I have been at the back of the nave at York Minster for a packed midnight mass, and it was chaotic. The organ scholar was accompanying the service, and he decided to play all the hymns presto. The front half of the congregation couldn't keep up with the organ. But at the back of the nave we couldn't hear the organ at all over the singing, so our tempo became detached from both the organ and those at the front of the nave. Thus there were three separate tempi going on simultaneously. During the last line of each verse we became aware that the front of the congregation had paused for breath between verses, and that the organ was already ploughing into the first line of the next verse, so we abandoned the last line of each verse in an attempt to catch up - though by the time we had taken a breath we were already late coming in! I don't go to football matches either, but I imagine the crowd just knows what speed things are sung at, and that the congregation in the Minster does too, and the organ simply isn't powerful enough to gee them up to any great extent - Tuba Mirabilis or no Tuba Mirabilis.

Interesting post. My reply is from the point of view of the congregation, because I don't play for services. I agree about tempo. Fast tempos ruin the music, and in your third paragraph you have put your finger on why this is so. Another consideration is that not everyone in the congregation (as opposed to the choir) is vocally agile enough to keep up - and those of us who aren't well provided for in the wind department can't get enough air into the lungs to last the next line if the tempo is too fast. The same applies to psalms. To some extent, it's the fault of the hymnbooks, which have switched from minims to crochets, which just encourages people to play faster. Messiaen had Le banquet Celeste reprinted in minims because he was appalled at how fast people were taking it, according to Jennifer Bate. My own preference is for the organ to be played pretty loud for hymns so that the congregation sings up. It's one thing not to drown the singing, but the congregation do need to hear the organ to stay in time and in tune. It's a very dreary experience to have to sing at a mere murmur so that you can still hear the organ. I'd even go so far as to say that, in most churches, if the organist can hear the congregation, he isn't playing loudly enough

Interesting question! Let's see ... not in any particular order Bairstow's Sonata played by Francis Jackson at York Minster (David Wylde's recording). Messiaen "L'Ascension" played by Jennifer Bate at Beauvais. Clavierubung III played by Peter Hurford. Especially the 5-part Kyrie Gott Heliger Geist. Marchand, Premier Livre d'Orgue played by Arthur Wills at Ely Cathedral. Tournemire "Victimae Paschali" played by Jane Parker-Smith at Blackburn Cathedral. Hmmm .. must get the turntable repaired so I can listen to the LP's again.

Very little music for the organ was written with generals in mind, and even less with sequencers in mind. Thus you ought to be able to play almost all of the repertoire without the aid of either - in fact, if you are to play with any degree of authenticity you really have to. Halifax (IVP(51)) manages to sustain a recital series without the aid of generals or a sequencer, and with only 5 departmental pistons to Great and the same number to Swell. Everybody seems to manage perfectly well. Furthermore, most recitalists can change their own stops in mid-piece, and only require the page-turner to do so on very rare occasions when hands and feet are both fully occupied.

The Germans do seem to hold Reger in very high esteem, so that would be a good choice. What about some Byrd, Gibbons, Bull or Tomkins? They were very influential in their day. Have you considered anything by Kenneth Leighton? It's good stuff and I suspect isn't much played outside the UK. With a German audience I don't think you need worry about frightening the horses. Unlike British audiences, Germans have a concentration span considerably greater than that of a goldfish. Whatever you do, only play pieces you are completely confident of and can perform well.

Yes, stick with it, and don't let Philip talk you out of it. The best recitals are the ones that don't follow the pattern. Three or four years ago the then organ scholar from Leeds Parish Church gave a recital that was mainly Buxtehude but with a couple of Bach works thrown in (on the 1929 Harrison and Harrison!). It was quite superb, and it put Bach into such a different light to hear him as the most modern composer in the programme. Alistair, if you do come, the organ will be available for you to play after the recital, provided there isn't a wedding following hard on its heels, although the present vicar tries to avoid that secnario. Or you could just come to the pub. Right, now I'd better start planning a programme for my recital at Halifax in September, because I will need ten months to practice it!

A man after my own heart, methinks. I'll bet you prefer slower tempi too - am I right? In answer to John, yes, I agree that nothing but contemporary works for a whole season seems rather extreme. However, it has just struck me that when we talk about sugaring the pill, people won't all agree as to whether particular works are "sugar" or "pill". And this brings me round to what Goldsmith says. I know a lot of people who would class a complete Vierne symphony or (the horror!) the whole of the Reubke or "Ad Nos" as frightening the horses. In fact, a 45 minute recital with only three works on the programme is considered to be "rather King's College" (said with a curl of the lip) in some quarters! MusingMuso will be considered "brave" to offer a programme of works by Eastern Eurpoean composers nobody has heard of, followed by the Reubke. But I also know there will be some in the audience who think it is a teriffic programme - and one of them will just have finished sitting his GCSE's by 23rd June! So go for it!

The Reubke hasn't been played at a Halifax recital for a long time. And lunchtime recitals do tend to be far too bitty for my taste - 10 or 12 items is not unusual. The one given by Robert Sudall, which included the Durufle Suite Op. 5 was much more my cup of tea. I like what you are suggesting. Whether it will frighten the horses is another matter.

But John, the fact that you wouldn't want to sit through an hour and a half of Messiaen doesn't mean that nobody should be given the opportunity to do so if that's what they like, which is what Jeremy seems to be suggesting. Those people who would turn up for a recital at which (say) the Livre du Saint Sacrement was to be played in its entirety wouldn't thank you for "sugaring" it. That sugar would probably destroy the artistic integrity of the recital, too. By way of comparison, I know lots people who like music but who would consider five hours of Wagner in an evening to be purgatory. But you try getting a ticket for the Ring operas at Bayreuth - or indeed Covent Garden if you aren't quick off the mark when bookings open. Nor would anyone in their right mind suggest that Die Walkure would be improved by the addition of some sort of "sugar" - the last Act of Iolanthe, perhaps, to send everyone away with a spring in their step? You say Messiaen is tough listening but worth it. I agree. If you keep listening, though, it gets less and less tough and more and more worth while. That's one reason why it's worth persevering with La Nativite, so that people become familiar with it. Jeremy seems to be saying that if a work is tough listening, it isn't worth it, almost by definition. That's where I profoundly disagree with him. VH is right in saying it depends who your market is. My feeling is that the right performer in the right venue at the right time with the right publicity could perform the Livre du Saint Sacrement complete and make a profit on the venture, but putting it on at noon on a Saturday in Halifax without telling anybody in advance what's going to be played, and you deserve what you get (no audience).

Jeremy, are you saying that there is nowhere in this country where it is appropriate to play works that "frighten the horses"? I can see why you wouldn't play tough programmes in the average parish church, but surely a university has quite a different remit. Music that people consider difficult won't get any easier for them if they never hear it. There was a time when the Rite of Spring was considered very difficult to listen to as well as almost impossible to play. But these days it is virtually a pot-boiler. Likewise the Turangalila Symphony. Would this have happened if they had been dropped from the repertoire after a few performances? In any case, I am not at all sure your implicit judgement that nobody is going to go and listen to La Nativite is correct. I seem to remember St Paul's being about half full the other year for a performance of that work.

... or possibly Downing, or even Girton! I wouldn't have though it was your sort of instrument, Nigel. I'd forgotten the pedal reed on that recording - I haven't listened to it for decades. (Makes mental note to get turntable back into working order). As I remember, it's similar to the Ophicleide at Halifax - rather honky and obliterates anything less than full great coupled to full swell. What on earth would it have been like if they had installed the 32' Bombardon that was prepared for (presumably a downward extension of the 16' reed).

I heard it shortly before it was replaced. It was a very fine sound for the romantic repertoire, not particularly suitable for Bach and his predecessors, but it had become rather dilapidated and there was a lot of action and wind noise. My recollection is that is was very loud, and the Tuba was ear-splitting and not at all to my taste. It was certainly too big physically: it was virtually the full width of the building, and the 32' open woods stood against the north wall of the ante-chapel, disfiguring it somewhat. The final recording of it is "Organ Music from Cambridge No. 3" from Grosvenor Records, GRS 1007. It was recorded by Richard Marlow shortly before the organ was taken down. The Franck B minor chorale and Howells's D flat Rhapsody come off very well in this recording; the Bach "Jig" fugue is played very "fluty" and the music is accompanied by an awful lot of clattering from the pneumatic motors.

They actually specify a temperature below which it is legal to refuse to work, which is quite different from it being illegal to work.

Among other things, there is quite a bit of footage taken in the organ loft at St Sulpice (apparently during services!) with both Daniel Roth and Sophie-Veronique Chauchefer-Choplin, as well as video of a recording session with Vincent Dubois. What do you think of this stuff? Are you inspired to contribute more?

It could be worse - it could have been XTube rather than YouTube!