Nick Bennett

Well, yes. Which is why I was surprised to find Ad Nos, L'Ascension and La Nativite on the list. These are works that are now considered to be beyond the Radio 3 audience :angry:

It's not as simple as it could be! You have to guess which composers might be represented and type in their names, then it brings up a list of pieces.

I've just received the following from Peter Chatfield, General Secretary of the IAO: Now's your chance to show to the media that the organ really matters! Why not get your friends to vote too. There's plenty of organ music on the list at http://www.classicfmhalloffame.co.uk/#votingForm and what better way to get ourselves and the organ heard. But, be quick! Voting closes at 23:59 on Sunday 31st January. He's right, there is quite a lot of organ music on there, though some surprising omissions (Liszt's "Ad Nos" is there, but not the BACH for instance). I'm not sure what the criteria are for inclusion: pieces that have been played on CFM this year perhaps?

Thanks for letting us know about that. My order has already gone in - been looking for this particular set of pieces for some time!

I'm afraid I am having difficulty understanding what this thread is about. Could somebody please explain in layman's terms?

Whilst demonstrating the small organs at the St Albans festival a few years back, Peter Hurford suggested that a tremulant to the whole organ was very effective in "floating" the sound in a totally dead acoustic, and much cheaper than a rank of pipes.

Do contact the BBC to let them know there is an audience for organ music out here. If you feel compelled to complain about the particular program, please preface your remarks with a general one about wanting to hear more organ music on R3, otherwise they will take your comments as a vote against the organ! You may also wish to add your comments to this quite busy thread on this subject on the BBC message boards. It's amazing how many of the regular denizens there are coming out as organists.

Wicked - but hilarious! Brendel is quoted as saying he is responsible to the composer and to the piece, whereas it seems to me that organists (uniquely?) often see their responsibility as being towards the instrument.

Actually, there's an argument that there is no difference at all. Stopping a pedal squeak in a piano is easier than eliminating the clatter of Barker lever machines, but both are possible. The question is not so much how easy it is to eradicate the noise but, rather, whether such noise is part of the sound the instrument builder was aiming for, or merely an instrumental artefact. Or, to put it another way, did the instrument maker deliberately set out to produce that noise? Now, I don't for a moment believe ACC thought, "What I envisage for the sound of this instrument is a lot of clattering and thudding. I wonder how I can make such a sound? I know, Barker Lever machines!" Surely it is far more likely his thought processes went along the lines of, "B*gg*r me, this instrument is going to be impossible to play without some sort of mechanical assistance. What could I use? Hmm ... there's the Barker Level, but it makes a hell of a noise. What else is there? .... Ho, hum, it'll have to be the Barker Lever then, and we'll have to hope that the infernal row it makes doesn't detract too much from the music. Perhaps I can place it where it won't be too audible." Isn't this where the "ordinary listener" differs from the organophile, in much the same way that the ordinary commuter differs from the Railway Enthusiast? The enthusiast sits rigid with ecstasy in his dimly-lit compartment as it fills with sulphurous fumes whilst passing through a tunnel* whereas the commuter would be appalled at the prospect. We may love the clatter of the Barker lever machines and the thud of the piston mechanism - but we are Enthusiasts, and we can't expect everybody to share our eccentricities. According to his write-up on the R3 web site Graeme Kaye knows his onions (shallots?) when it comes to the organ. * I know about these things - trust me.

A 10 year warranty is all well and good, but what happens thereafter? Digital technology moves on very quickly. Will parts be available at any price? Or will you be faced with having to buy a new instrument (or a substantial part thereof) once one component fails? Dewsbury Minster were quoted (IIRC) £18,000 to get their digital organ working again a few years ago. I don't think it was a particularly ancient machine either. The prospect of having to spend that sort of money every decade made them reconsider whether a pipe organ might not be the cheaper option in the long run. On investigation they found there was a suitable instrument going begging in a nearby church, and it was going to cost in the region of £30,000 to install it. It didn't seem to take very long from mooting the idea to work actually starting, from which one might gather that raising the funds was not all that difficult (maybe those involved will say otherwise!). Perhaps it's easier to raise £30k to install a pipe organ than to raise £18k to repair a digital one - especially if the latter appeal is going to recur at intervals of 10-15 years.

Harrison's produced some similar instruments around the same time. One near here goes: Great 8' Open Diapason 8' Dulciana 4' Harmonic Flute Swell 8' Lieblich Gedackt 8' Salicional (TC) 4' Gemshorn 8' Gamba Oboe (a reedy gamba) Pedal 16' Bourdon These days we expect a considerable amount of brightness out of organs (perhaps influenced by hearing recordings of historic European organs, as innate mentions) whereas 100 years ago it was gravitas that counted. Another consideration is that we have become accustomed to music being played more loudly. It seems to be generally accepted that the evolution of orchestral instruments in the 20th century was driven largely by the need to make more noise. Instruments like this just aren't loud enough for modern ears. In terms of musical taste, if what you want is sentimental slush of the type being churned out by the yard at the time, these instruments are fine. At the side of the instrument I mentioned above is a cardboard box filled with a splendidly cobwebbed and mildewed collection of Edwardian slush. Whether it is representative of the repertoire organists of the early 20th century played on that organ is debatable- perhaps it is, or perhaps it is the dregs of somebody's collection.

It's a very vague term that means different things to different people. The OED defines a carol as (inter alia) a song, especially one of a joyous character. It defines a song as "that which is sung". On that basis, the only parts one might have a problem with are the prayers (which are neither lessons nor carols) and the voluntaries (ditto). One might feel the Sandstrom piece (which I felt was the highlight of the service) doesn't satisfy this definition if one were unable to conceive of joy being expressed in a contemplative way. Alternatively, as understood by Joe Public, a carol is any sung piece of music with a Christmas theme, especially but not exclusively one with a religious context (hence such secular pieces as "Rudlolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer", "White Christmas" and "The Twelve Days of Christmas" pass as a carols for many people). Again, everything except the prayers and voluntaries satisfy this definition. On the other hand, Grove says that a carol is a musical form with a refrain (known as a "burden") that is sung before the first verse, between verses and after the last verse, and the season it quite irrelevant. By that definition, not one in ten of us knows any carols at all, although I certainly heard several wonderful examples from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries at the York Christmas Early Music Festival earlier in the month - largely in Latin and Middle English. The other problem with the title of the service is that it seems to imply there will be nine carols. The nit-picker might prefer the service to be entitled "A Festival of Nine Lessons, Six Congregational Hymns (some with descants) interspersed with Sundry Prayers, Collects and Ditties and Preceeded and Followed by a Selection of Pieces for Organ Solo" so as not to mislead anyone.

Did you see the article on the BBC News web site about people who queue outside King's College from the early morning of the day before the service? Year after year, apparently.

Do members of the public get to sit to the east of the screen, or is that privilege reserved for members of the college?

Better get there early! The college web site says those in the queue by 9 am will probably get in but it can't be guaranteed. More ominously, it mentions that the main gate will be opened at 7.30 am to admit the queue that will by then have formed in Kings Parade

Yet another job going to a foreign builder. Absolutely disgusting! Seriously, this will be well worth a trip once the Willis organ is installed - not only to the two organs at the Hooglandse Kerk (I have eulogized the de Swart/van Hagerbeer instrument previously on this board) but there is also the Pieterskerk with another van Hagerbeer instrument and a Thomas Hill of 1883 (IIIP 31) in essentially original condition.

Can't argue with that! And all done by not allowing any Howells to be played: fancy that!!

Indeed. It's a good plan - provided it works. If your colleague is getting the "huge audiences" that David refers to, good luck to him! Having endured the occasional ill-planned recital, I can see the value of vetting the programme - though I am not sure that having a "blacklist" of pieces and composers is the best way to achieve variety! Depending on who was doing the vetting, the process might result in programmes lacking challenge, being a bit "samey" or merely reflecting the (possibly rather narrow!) tastes of the organiser. Would you, for instance, want the vetting to be in the hands of the contributor to the August Organists' Review who suggested that recitals should consist entirely of "pieces with tunes" and that there should be no fugues? Or perhaps pcnd's colleague is that man, and he gets 500+ at his recitals every week and offers his recitalists a £1,000 fee!!

And he can still get people to give recitals for him?

At A = 435 of course.

The Bishop duly re-dedicated the church as The Minster Church of St John the Baptist, Halifax, at yesterday morning's service in the presence of a full church. Musical accompaniment was provided by the parish choir, Halifax Choral Society, Minster Brass and the mighty Harrison, played by Mr P C Tordoff presiding. An appeal has been launched to raise £1,000,000 for various works including a full overhaul of the organ. Interesting how a full congregation absorbs the sound. The tuba, which is overpowering in an empty church, is merely loud when there is a full house. Mind you, the representatives of Other Churches and Faiths who were seated immediately in front of it, will have had the full benefit of it and the other high-pressure reeds.

A former teacher of mine used to say he played quite a bit faster than he liked to hear pieces played. Is a difference between "playing speed" and "listening speed" common? - especially this way round!

A few years ago I turned for Philip Tordoff when he gave a recital on the Doncaster Schulze. On our arrival, an eager young man offered to show Philip how to use the console gadgetry, only to be brushed aside like a man who had offered the use of a supercomputer to calculate the change from a fiver when buying a bus ticket. The recital was given using the departmental pistons and lots of hand registration - and no more than 20 minutes' familiarisation with the instrument. The art of registering a large instrument without gadgets is becoming lost. A recent young recitalist at Halifax was heard to gulp and say "I've never played an instrument as big as this without generals". Perhaps our Dutch friends would feel more at home on such an instrument than some of our own organists do!

Or to quote Mr Snetzler: "Te devil! Te devil! He run over te keys like von cat. He vill not give my fifes room for to shpeak". Performers trying to play faster than the organ can speak evidently isn't a new phenomenon. Nor presumably is the difference of opinion on how fast pieces ought to go.

Works that are out of print are particularly irritating - e.g. the de Klerk Tien Orgelwerken I appealed for recently. If the publisher will no longer supply copies of a work, it essentially becomes impossible to obtain a copy of it legally. I can appreciate that copyright exists so that publishers and composers can benefit from sales of their works. But in the case where they refuse to sell, how does copyright protect them in any way? Dog, meet manger.