MusingMuso
-
Posts
4,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MusingMuso
-
-
Dear MM,
Well, you will end up convincing me maybe I'd better use my time as a too early
pensioned sell-out-by-date guy writing this book about the history of the romantic organ -something too pedantic by far for a man alone save with say four reincarnations in order to have the time to get the thing plus or minus correct-.
To say the germans only influenced the US's choir organ is to see the whole stuff
as Lego bits.
The core of any romantic organ, be it british, polish, belgian, canadian,mexican,
or even -as far as something like that existed save imported from the Netherlands-
indonesian, is 1) The Abschwächungsprinzip (see link abobe) 2) The Grundtönigkeit.
The first may be summarized with "terraced dynamics", that is, the disposition of the stops between claviers by their strength:
Manual Eins FFF
Manual Zwei F
Manual Drei MF
Manual Vier P
Manual Fünf pp (Fernwerk)
(For the king size thing of course! far more common was F-MF-P)
The second was a quite lenghty process that began in Italy during the Renaissance
period, and may have influenced the ancient english organ -What? England at the forefront? Our little poor island (etc, etc, etc)?- with the duplication of the 8' Principal, which lend rapidly, probably incidentally trough tuning problems, to the "Voce Umana", the first undulating stop.
This, togheter with the singing quality of the italian Principal, arrived in southern Germany, where it was aimed to add these qualities to the existing german foundation tone.
And so we had four flue 8' on a clavier already in the 18th century.
The "Grundtönigkeit" principle emerged from the necessity to have all these stops working togheter, not only as a pack of disparate bits.
It was found a kind of chorus could be made if all stops had a different harmonic developpment:
-Stopped pipes: Bourdon
-Diapason tone
-Gamba tone
-Flute tone
This association you will find in all romantic organs worldwide... save in England (again?) where this role was held by multiple Diapasons of differing scales
(I, II, II....Plus this lovely Dulciana).
-What is "Orchestral?" From an historic point of view, the southern german organ
already was one. It was not a Skinner, no doubt, but it was aimed to be a vocal
instrument and an imitative one too.
-To try to distinguish "German and French" would lead to erring because 1)- There
were many exchanges between the two (I mean not only amunitions!) 2)- What
is a french romantic organ? Cavaillé-Coll's was a synthesis of spanish, german
and classic french one, while Merklin was a Walcker pupil who happened to write
stop-lists in french.... So what?
-I believe you impone on Hill a large dosis of understatment; this builder could
actually have been at the very forefront, a leading force in the arising of the
romantic organ.
-Maybe I must see here the reasons the english cathedral organ to be better
appreciated and praised....Outside UK. It is of course excellent in a vast Repertoire,
from Mendelssohn and S-S Wesley up to Howells, many french music included.
-Ditto Green. Would only one of these "music boxes" land in Belgium, it would be
Denkmal at once. Repertoire or no Repertoire (always this old neo-baroque
idea that forbiddes all save neo-baroque, academic designs), mind you, to find again such voicing techniques and aims, you have to wait up until the late-romantic german organ with his own music-box -The Fernwerk-
The romantic organ isn't the Tuba alone; it's also: Aeoline, Dolce, Dulciana...
Enough for today!
====================
I wouldn't discourage anyone from writing a book Pierre....all strength to you.
It's fun finding the exceptions to the general trend, and in quoting "four flue registers" as an essential component of the romantic Great organ, then of course, you will find exactly this at St.Bavo, with 2X8ft Principals (always heard together) plus a Gamba and a flute. Not only that, the duplicate 8ft Principal idea is found on one other manual also. Also, at Haarlem, you can mix and match most registers quite freely.
Haarlem may be a baroque organ in concept, but in practice, it certainly points the way forward to the romantic period, and can produce the most ravishing romantic sounds.
The William Hill thing is quite interesting, but he never left the UK and knew nothing about what was going on elsewhere except perhaps, by what others told him. Certainly, the organist of Doncaster Parish Church at the time when Hill was extending the organ to "German" compass, spent much time abroad and knew many important instruments there.
I always get the impression that William Hill was a humble Lincolnshire-born man who listened to others and tried faithfully to provide what they wanted, using his tremendous natural organ-building abilities and craftsmanship.
I worry a little about the idea that Pierre seems to link South German organs with English, and especially American, orchestral organs of a much later period. Colour, homogeneity and tonal variety are one thing, but when individual registers
become more important as solo voices than as part of an organ-chorus, and simply cannot blend, such organs had left serious organ-building far behind.
MM
-
The first genuine romantic organ was built at the Paulskirche, Frankfurt,
in 1829, by Walcker.
William Hill commenced to build romantic organs in Britain about the same time, I do not know under which influences.
..........The first romantic organ in the US. was the Walcker in the Boston Music-Hall
which was widely influential............
So it's a belgian historian that tells you: the romantic organ is a german
invention. An invention that was adopted outside Germany by the english
first.
The English did contribute from the start, in that Vogler introduced the Swellbox
in Germany from England.
The work of William Hill deserves a thorough examination, but I'd add Samuel Green as well...........
======================
I had overlooked the influence of the Methuen organ in the US, but as Pierre will know, it only existed for twenty years before falling silent; eventually being resurrected of course. Certainly, this instrument possibly served as a model for many later US instruments, with their use of a German style Choir/Positive organ.
However, the orchestral organ soon totally eclipsed this style, and in time, the work of Estey and Hope-Jones took classical organ design well away from the German origins.
All this apart, I have had this conversation elsewhere at some length, and it seems to me that both French and German romantic instruments serve quite different musical purposes. It is reasonably obvious that the French style is all about colour, dynamic, expressiveness and impressionism, whilst the German romantic instrument, as a concept, relies on homogeneity and the vast tonal pallet which can be exploited to the full by the rollschweller pedal. The two styles of instrument are really like cheese and chalk.
Is there really anything to be learned from either style of instrument; impressive though they may be?
It's one thing to want to re-create historic Le Mans races by using an old Bentley or Mercedes, but the fact is, if you just want win a race, a powerful modern saloon car would beat them hands down.
I am regularly thrilled when I hear Reger performed on the Bavo organ, and equally thrilled when I hear French music (especially) performed on the organ of Blackburn Cathedral. By the same token, both German and French romantic music always sound splendid when performed on the Willis organ of St.George's Hall, Liverpool.
As for William Hill, he was guided by others, but never really strayed away from what he had picked up on the way. The so-called "German" period is about as German as Indonesia is, and the stop-lists do not reflect the reality.
Samuel Greene has nothing to teach anyone. Muffled, gentle, indistinct, lacking build-up and chorus-work; they would probably make better musical-boxes than fully grown-up classical organs, but they doubtless have their place in history.
MM
-
That is indeed a good question, MM, but it would
need a book to answer it properly.
A romantic organ may be "summarized" as so (just as a way to tell):
-It's based on the Abschwächungsprinzip: see the 14 pages here:
http://forum.aceboard.net/18898-3199-15070...ng-ennuyeux.htm
-It's voiced with an ascendency of strenght towards the treble;
(to a degree varying with the stop's families)
-The attacks are round, mellow, without "chiff";
etc etc.
===========================
Organ historians love to create links and time-lines, whereas great organ-builders create musical instruments.
I suspect that once one leaves the mainland of Europe, the links start to collapse like a pack of cards. The perceived wisdom seems to be Germany, then France, with Hill and Willis annoyingly getting a look in as the 20th century approached.
I could argue, and indeed WOULD argue that St.Bavo, Haarlem, was the first big, romantic organ....quite unlike any other before it, and quite different to almost anything which followed later. Of course, no-one was writing music for the organ very much after 1750, but I feel sure that the metrical psalm accompaniments sounded splendid.
It's actually quite interesting to be reminded of the fact, that in the UK, after an brief flirtation with German romanticism, the style was dismissed by other builders such as Willis but continued to be revered by Lewis, until Willis gobbled up the company and closed it. Cavaille-Coll organs were not terribly respected in the UK, though a few found homes in the UK; the reeds being considered coarse. Anneessens organs were derided by many eminent organists in the UK, and apart from a handful of Schulze/Walcker instruments, the German experiment was soon considered "old hat."
The biggest influence on America was UK organ-building, which later flowed back in the late romantic era as Skinner demonstrated new sounds and ways of doing things. Even American money propped up certain UK organ-builders. Wasn't Compton funded from America?
The simple fact is, nationalism, empire and insularity, as well as the Anglo-American "special relationship," more or less formed the brick-wall which dismissed continental organ-building as inferior, and even the American Classic, with its' Germanic influences, probably owed as much to T C Lewis as anyone else.
When all is said and done, MOST romantic organs are to be found in America and the UK. It's therefore a pity that they didn't inspire heavyweight organ-composers such as the organs of Cavaille-Coll and Walcker did.
Still, we shouldn't get depressed. After all, Vierne played on a Father Willis sounds a lot better than Howells played on a Cavaille-Coll!
MM
-
"Like I said, "as classical as you like, but with Wurlitzer in mind."
(Quote)
.....But never a genuine romantic organ.
======================
What, I wonder, is a genuine romantic organ?
Cavaille-Coll, Schulze, Walcker, Hill, Harrison & Harrison, Skinner, Lewis or maybe Hope-Jones?
All these builders built totally different instruments, but they're all romantic.
Surely, "romantic" and "neo-baroque" are merely labels which attempt to categorise a style and concept; not limit the period or the artistic means?
MM
-
The power of a romantic organ may be impressive, but we know
a Silbermann organ is actually louder than a Walcker (in decibel),
while the Isnard at St-Maximin du Var outpowers a Cavaillé-Coll
easily -in that case I agree the decibel measure would tell the
reverse, tough-.
The bass pipes in german romantic organs are actually quite shallow,
while it is true some Cavaillé-Coll's pipes could accomodate a man
(A perfect murder idea for a belgian author!), but the wind pressures are
always low for these pipes (as in english organs).
High pressures in theatre organs are not meant to accomodate acoustic
needs, nor do their pipes scales; it is a matter of style .
If you "push" a "classic" organ by this kind of means to this aim, you no
longer get a classic organ but something else.
So it may be that some kind of rooms may be better served with a Wurlitzer,
but then let us name them as such -there is nothing wrong with a theatre organ-.
==============
Well, I suppose I deserved this reply. I should have been more specific.
For a start, we have no point of reference for Pierre's statements concerning relative loudness, and that is critical. Simply waving a microphone at an organ is not a reliable guide to what is going on, for a variety of reasons, and in order to understand actual sound pressure levels, it would be necessary to remove pipes, place them in a controlled environment and then take measurements using identical measuring equipment under identical circumstances concerning humidity, wind-presures, microphone gain-levels and distance between sound-source and collection point.
Few, if any, on this board will have gone to that trouble.
Using a highly directional microphone placed close to windchests would be a more reliable, but still flawed guide to what is going on.
The problems start whan we look at microphones and sound measuring equipment.
Microphones are "coloured" and individual, and even matched pairs demonstrate slight differences. Sound measuring equipment usually has dBA filtering, designed to match the human response to human hearing at low to mid-frequencies, and even "flat" responses are therefore anything but flat.
On a practical level, any recording or sound test performed on an organ in a given room, is influenced by the acoustic and the relative distances involved between sound source and hearing/sampling point, which is why the whole business is totally un-scientific and why dBA levels can be meaningless as a measure of initial sound energy levels.
Concerning Wurlitzer organs, there are certain misconceptions being being trotted out here. The scaling is not that big, and I seem to recall the name of Topfer being associated with the progressions. The Tibia is certainly of big scale, which is the fundamental chorus sound of a theatre organ; all other things being subservient, save for the snappy big reeds and hugely powerful diaphonic basses, where they exist. The Diapasons are really quite normal, but of course have leathered lips, saw tooth nicking, closeed foot-holes and relatively high cut-ups. Under those circumstances, wind-pressure is much less important than might be assumed.
Many classical organs have bigger scales, and if we think of Father Willis diapasons (geigens?), the cut ups are relatively high and they are blown hard. In fact, an Arthur Harrison First Open Diapason, with leathered lips, is probably a LOT louder than a Wurlitzer one. Pierre should be aware, I think, that when John Compton built cinema organs, he was actually building church organs with additional Tibias, Tremulants and percussion stops. They can be made to sound EXACTLY like many of Compton's church extension instruments.
However, we are in real danger of missing the whole point, because there is another factor in all this.
Human hearing is at its' most critical within the frequencies of 1KHz and 4Khz; perhaps the frequncies most especially found in nature, where sounds within this range alert us to the dangers of predators. As I have stated previously, modern building materials can have the disturbing habit of killing frequncies in this range very quickly, and it can be quite an intimidating experience to walk into a building
using extensive amounts of mid-frequency absorbing material.
Organ builders have a long association with a very different type of acoustic, and centuries of pipe-scaling and voicing techniques have exploited these acoustics to the full. Even drier acoustics still retained a certain balance, for whilst it may have been necessary to thicken textures and provide weightier basses in dry rooms, the critical mid-frequencies emerged relatively un-scathed.
Let's put it another way, a good Compton organ in a dry acoustic has almost the same brilliance and weight of tone as that of a Schnitger in a great German hall-church; though other differences should be obvious enough.
Because not all modern concert-halls are built by great acoustic engineers, we see the problem emerging that even some of the most respected organ-builders in the world fall foul of them. I would also assert boldly, that when an acoustic is of the mid-frequency gobbling type, any attempt to install a consultant's dream of a new, gently blown "werkprinzip" style of instrument, is almost certainly doomed to failure from the off.
Perhaps it is no co-incidence that the Americans, with their heavily carpeted, luxury churches, acoustic tiling and heaven knows what else, are working with a familiar problem, and know how to get around it.
I would remind Pierre that the Disney Hall organ, in the words of one contributor, uses big-scales, high cut-ups and relatively heavy pipe pressures. The pipework of the Great organ is 5"wg.....about the same pressure as realistically hits the top lip of Wurlitzer diapasons!
Apparently, this organ sounds good in the hall, so maybe the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof.
Like I said, "as classical as you like, but with Wurlitzer in mind."
I STILL stand by it.
MM
-
I have the impression (this is something very general and not about this
very organ in particular) that today it is believed "romantic tone= loudness
and darkness"; for me nor the first nor the other are true.
The maximum output of a Walcker or Cavaillé-Coll organ does not exceed
a baroque organ's one, while the darker registration are always firm and
self-restrained, because of the harmonic developpment of the stops.
I may be erring towards the treshold of conservatism, but I do not believe big scales and high volumes are the answer to accomodate organ in modern, strangely designed concert-halls (or churches by the way).
===================
I'm sorry, but that is neither a scientific statement nor a musical one.
The bass output of both Walcker and Cavaille-Coll organs, with their large wood basses fed from copius supplies of wind, is vast as compared to a true baroque instrument. It's interesting to compare recording a baroque organ and a big romantic organ; the latter of which requires much reduced gain levels. Once we get to orchestral organs and cinema organs, the power output is enormous. Look at it the other way, and consider how many horsepower are being used to pump air into big romantic instruments, and assuming that it isn't all leaking away, the energy is going somewhere!
Unfortunately, the ears are not a good guide to what is atually going on, because the brain modifies what we hear a very great deal; like a whole studio full of tricks.
The trick of voicing a good organ is to adapt the sound to the room, and if that room is taking away mid-frequencies at an alarming rate, then a good organ-builder has to compensate. The best way of compensating is to increase the mid-frequencies, and that is perhaps best done with high cut-ups, bigger scaling and a healthy supply of wind; thus giving a voicer some control over the relative amplitude of pipes at different points in the audible spectrum.
In other words, it is what I said right at the beginning about many modern concert-halls........as baroque as you like, but with Wurlitzer firmly in mind!
I stand by what I said.
MM
-
At this point it might be interesting to have a little glance
to what Charles Anneessens did as a concert-Hall organ in 1888
(Bradford's year? Yes.)
This thing was built 1888 for the "Kursaal" Hall in Ostend, a mixture
of a casino and a Concert-Hall intended for the upper "leisure" class of the
time.
(Building and organ reduced in ashes during WW II)
Grand-orgue
Gros Diapason ouvert 16'
Bourdon 16'
Principal 8'
Flûte harmonique 8'
Violon 8'
Flûte octaviante 4'
Doublette 2'
Cornet progressif 2-3-4 ranks
Bombarde 16'
Trompette 8'
Clarinette 8' (free reeds)
==================
I can't recall who shot me out of the air when I suggested that the organ of St.Joseph's RC church, Bradford, by Anneessens might have had a free reed Clarinette, but here we see exactly that on an instrument of the same period by the same builder; also more or less contemporary with St.Mary's, Bradford where Jaques Lemmens gave the opening recital.
Anneessens got into hot-water in the UK, because the workmanship was not only lamentable, but he used an early, rather unreliable type of electric action (Mols patent?) and was not averse to having a common windchest for Great and Choir organs. Sometimes, a rank of pipes would be used twice as a duplex stop, but with a different name, and certain people thought this made him something of a con-man; such electric duplexing being a new idea more normally associated with the likes of Hope-Jones.
Across the mists of time, I recall some rather beautiful flutes, some nice sounding chorus reeds and a rather sombre pleno. The Bradford Clarinette really was quite a special sound, but overall, I don't think the Anneessens approach has anything much to teach us to-day, and certainly not in the dreadful quality of the workmanship.
It isn't much fun when reeds and flue basses buckle and collapse under their own weight, and much of the rest start to lean over like drunken soldiers because the metal is so soft.
MM
MM
-
I'm afraid it's much simpler than that: an orchestra can make enough sound to fill the hall (a performance of the Turangalila Stmphony by the BBC Philharmonic under Tortelier comes to mind as a particularly ear-splitting experience) whereas the organ simply doesn't make enough noise.
What that hall needs is a Binns instrument.
==========================
Why on earth should anyone want a Binns instrument?
They were quite average but thoroughly capable instruments;definitely nothing special; built as they were to a predictable formula.
MM
-
11 speaking stops and I'd have suggested going along to hear St.Joseph's. RC, Keighley, West Yorks....Laycock & Bannister 1974.....but it's been disqualified. Pity....it's absolutely perfect, and it intrigued and delighted me for close on 30 years.
Ten ranks, and I could have thrown most of a Compton cathedral organ into the arena, but that's out too.
MM
-
"Perhaps the lesson is maybe being learned, that baroque organs sound wonderful in the right building, but seldom (if ever) in modern concert halls."
(Quote)
This may be a little overdone as a shortcut; the northern european baroque organ
may be in little, carved churches, while the spanish is in huge, stone churches.
Widely variable conditions also...
===================
It can't be overdone as a statement without re-writing the English language Pierre.
Anyway, I've played an awful lot of them in Holland, where I go most years, and I don't actually think I have ever played a bad baroque organ there. One had my teeth slightly on edge, but it was in a poor state and suffering tin-worm, but I've just marvelled at the sonic beauty of the Schnitgers, Muller, Hinsz, and other baroque instruments of the period, and even revelled in the later instruments of Batz, for example.
Even in small churches with a modest acoustic but a wooden interior, the effect of an old Hagabeer was wonderful, and the same can be said for many of the 1960's and 70's Flentrops. Even the street organs are gems.
The point I make is simply that of a "natural" acoustic with natural materials, as compared to modern materials and an "engineered" acoustic such as we hear in concert-halls to-day.
It's a relatively new problem, and if the organ at the Walt Disney Hall works well, and the indications are that it does, there are lessons to be learned from the Rosales/Glatter-Glotz approach to building a concert-hall organ in a new hall.
MM
-
It's interesting that recent discussion about concert-hall acoustics now find a relevant focal point with the new Rosales/Glatter-Glotz instrument at the Walt Disney concert hall, some miles away.
It's also been interesting to note from the specification that the wind-pressures vary from between 4" and 17", with the Great being on 5" pressure throughout.
Perhaps this means, that in combination with big scaling, the voicer had a certain control over the final outcome, and tonal balance could be achieved successfully right across the audible spectrum.
I think it was Nick Bennett who suggested that the Bridgewater was good for orchestral music. I wonder if this is simply a reflection on the skills of orchestral players, who can quite easily compensate for defective acoustics simply by listening to what bounces back. Once in place, an organ can't be instantly adjusted like a choir or an orchestra can be.
Perhaps the lesson is maybe being learned, that baroque organs sound wonderful in the right building, but seldom (if ever) in modern concert halls.
MM
-
I saw most of this organ in Caspar Glatter-Götz's shop. Those wooden front front pipes are so sensuous you want to stroke them.
The interior of the organ is however quite conventional. Manuel Rosales' scales are enormous, helping him, he thinks, produce massive tone even in acoustically unfavourable environments. He cuts his pipes up fairly high and gives them lots of wind at moderate pressures. His voicing style is, in his own words "assertive", you couldn't really call his organs soft, although his celestes are magical.
Well, well!
A man who thinks classical but keeps Wurlitzer in mind......finally!
It's the ONLY way of doing it right in a modern concert hall!
As for stroking wooden pipes Barry, I suppose it's the organist's equivalent to hugging trees. I personally adored those velvet-curtains around the organ consoles in old Methodist chapels.......they made wonderful cloth-mothers.
MM
-
As for the decision of the RCO to relocate to Birmingham, I am not surprised this come to nothing. The drive to relocate organisations like the RCO from London to the regions is based on idealism............
The fact is that outside London much of the UK is a cultural wasteland.
No, the people must come to the mountain, not the other way round. The RCO's place is in London, and anyone who thinks otherwise, should get real.
==================
I very much doubt that the move to re-locate the RCO was an act of "idealism," but I would be happy to be proven wrong. More likely, it was financial.
As for the UK being a cultural wasteland, I don't think Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester are, and if it's virtuoso brass band players you want to hear, it's possibly best not to venture too far south of Barnsley.
Why should anyone want to go along to the RCO unless taking an examination?
I'm not aware that they are at the heart of organ culture in London. They should have been the first to promote the organ on the internet by listing all the known recitals in the UK, but they left it to others. My guess is that the RCO will eventually collapse financially, because it has no outreach, no ready audience, no
events and a decreasing number of interested candidates coming from the grass roots.
That spells doom to any business, and the RCO is a business like any other.
MM
-
By definition an elite is a minority or it would not be an elite. That is why University (= for an elite, as traditionally conceived) education for 50% of the population is so much nonsense , whereas further, additional , extended or even "higher" education are perfectly feasible for that or greater numbers. The great con is in using a name which implies access to an elite status when that is not what will be delivered.
In view of the tenor of other posts you have made it seems very unlikely to me that dumbing down so that "all shall have prizes" is what you mean. The rest of the post from which this is lifted seemed to be addressing the relevance orfitness for purpose of much of what was offered by the RCO as well as its mode of delivery of that which it does offer, which is implied to be rather out dated in approach.
I just wondered whether what you were driving at here is not so much that people are kept outas that they stay out voluntarilybecause they do not see what is inside as of interest or relevance to them or their concerns.
Meritocracy as usually understood would allow all to apply but select rigorously. Some sort of caste or class system restricts those qualified to apply in the first place. I assume you favour the first rather than the second approach ?
=======================
Brian raises interesting points, and I'm not sure I have black & white answers.
The logic of what Brian suggests is impeccable, but I know it to be flawed.
Rather than give answers, perhaps I can fly off at slight tangents.
My uncle, now long dead, was a superb singer. He was a bass soloist who did the rounds of the various "Messiah" performances in Yorkshire. He was lined up with singers such as Isobelle Bailey and Kathleen Ferrier. The BBC wanted him to sign up for them, but he declined. 98% of his time was taken up as a dairy farmer...he just liked singing a bit, but never had a lesson in his life. A tonic sol-fa man to the end!
In my own case, no-one EVER encouraged me to play the organ, so I taught myself. It was the school of hard-knocks, but I gained some degree of competence on the way; since which I have given recitals at some reasonably respected venues. It's a modest example of how enthusiasm can triumph over adversity, but I've never had the inclination to make music a career.
Someone mentioned driving tests. How annoying it must be, when someone like Michael Schumacher comes along and earns millions, and had even picked up a major championship at the age of 16, before he could legally drive on the roads!!
Academia must NEVER be remote, discouraging or inaccessible, because not EVERYONE fits into the neat academic sausage-machine.
It doesn't matter whether it's Sir Simon Rattle or Carlo Curley; communciation and enthusiasm are the key components in ensuring a healthy future for great music and the organ, and because the RCO is now isolated due to the downturn of interest in organ-music within sparsely attended churches, they need to get off their bums and DO something about it.
The resources are there, the organists are there and the music is there. The RCO COULD be a focus for both excellence and communication in equal measure, and if it reaches out, it would never be regarded as elitist.
MM
-
I'm far from sure what MM means by his post. On the one hand he says they are giving FRCO's to people who can't play very well (i.e. the standard is too low) but on the other hand he complains the standard is so high as to be elitist.
======================
Nick knows only too well that there are numerous FRCO holders who bore everyone to death with their performances, but the same performances would probably scrape through the FRCO exam. Equally, there are those who have few or even no qualifications, but who can lift the roof. People get there in different ways.
The paperwork is of a very high standard, but I did not link this to the elitist tag.
I actually said that "some" would class the RCO as elitist, and then went on to suggest that "elitism" is only elitist when it is inaccessible to the majority, and by that, I am not referring to the examinations, but more to the whole ethos of the organisation.
Sir Simon Rattle went out of his way to bring great music to the people, and didn't rely on people discovering it for themselves by accident. In other words, he communicated his knowledge, his passion and his very great personal charisma, just as Sir Malcolm Sargent did and Sir David Wilcocks has always done.
MM
-
Not so much a question of not playing very well - can play correctly, accurately, with suitable historic knowledge, but with the musical sensitivity and elegance of a panther tearing open a rabbit. In the same way, there are plenty of lousy, thoughtless and dangerous drivers on the roads who were able to tick the right number of boxes on test day.
=========================
He he! I like that, but then, I once walked a pet cheetah around a garden in the US. That was fun.
Perhaps I should explain a little. The FRCO exam is matched by other examinations from the technical performing point of view.....that is not the real hurdle for those who obviously have enough technique and ability to reach the technical standard. The real hurdle is the academic paperwork and the pass mark required; which sets the FRCO apart and makes it both feared and respected.
My point is simply that stupendous organ-playing does not rely upon holding an FRCO diploma, and indeed, many great performers do not have the qualification, or ended up being given one. I think Jane Parker-Smith falls into this latter category, unless I am misinformed.
Many people "rise to the challenge" of exams, but fall away afterwards. I can think of one cathedral organist from a previous generation, who was a superb choir-trainer, but could barely play Sweelinck's "Meine junges leben." He left all the organ-playing to the assistant.
Dr Francis Jackson summed it up wonderfully, when he spoke about the RCO appeal many moons ago. He said, "Gaining a Fellowship means that an organist is....or rather was....at some point....on the right lines."
MM
-
Would anyone like to have a board social event, perhaps taking in a few instruments and some beer? Or is it a damn silly idea?
=========================
I think it's a damn silly idea!
Count me in....
MM
-
I have absolutely no axe to grind concerning the RCO or the RSCM, as I am not involved with either organisation and almost certainly never will be; being an ex-church organist who has turned his back on contemporary developments.
Let's be quite clear about something. Both the RCO and the RSCM had a real role to play in the days when church-organists (and above) were the mainstay of local music. With the drift towards the lowering of musical standards in churches, a cyncial attempt to hijack pop-culture and the sort of theology which was once challenged by O-level students, the churches to-day have no need for the RSCM by and large. The support base has therefore vanished, and with it, a substantial amount of regular income. When faced with that, no organisation can continue with the expenses and fixed costs of a once large institution such as the RSCM was, and "downsizing" is the only possible option. I can fully understand the problems the RSCM has had to face, and I can also understand the need to reduce costs and shed assets.
The RCO presents a different type of problem; possibly due to a failure to adapt to modern education and educational assessment. I think it would be fair to say that the RCO has NEVER really been concerned with the best in organ-playing, but has certainly been involved in setting a gigantic academic hurdle for candidates wishing to qualify for Associate and Fellowship status; largely as a consequence of the high pass mark. This possibly explains why a few FRCO holders have been fairly atrocious organists, but academically very able. Most have been very competent organists and able academics. A very small proportion have been brilliant in both fields, but not BECAUSE of the RCO.
With the decline in church musical standards, the natural recruiting base has been diminished considerably, so that the RCO faces similar problems to that suffered by the RSCM ie: dwindling support at the grass roots level.
Academically, the RCO is very much out on a limb, and perhaps now only serves the function of endorsing those parts which other qualifications fail to address in full. I think it would also be fair to state that the RCO hurdles are very much geared towards the Oxbridge model, which in this day and age, renders it automatically elitist in the eyes of many.
It's interesting that the RCO has taken financial advice, and now finds that their planned move and the expenses involved, might threaten the future of the college. I would suggest that even setting up a tent on a brown-field site, with a second-hand digital organ as its' sole resource, would only be putting off the inevitable unless the organisation changes tac.
In this day and age of rapid communications, the RCO could actually be a roving body without a fixed base; using established educational resources to fulfil its' mission on earth and presenting regional organ-days and events, as a type of outreach to the wider musical community. In this way, it would be a true college in the spirit of the age; enriching the appreciation for the instrument rather than expecting people to beat a path to the college doors as they once did.
Long gone are the days of polished brass and the smell of bee's wax at Keinsington Gore, and merely finding cheaper property is not, in my honest opinion, addressing the fundamental changes and patterns of learning which now threaten organisations like the RCO.
Eltism is only elitism when it has become inaccessible to the majority.
Sir Simon Rattle pointed the way forward during his days at Birmingham, and they don't come much "elite" than he!!
MM
-
I think it's dandergous to bring up the subject of the RSCM and their move(s). You have opened a can of worms here, Robert F!
A now familiar story: the membership (of the RSCM) rallied round and paid whatever they were asked not very long ago, so that Cleveland Lodge might be made the perfect permanent home when the lease for Addington Palace came to an end. Rather like Kensington Gore's lease coming to an end and the move to share St.Andrew's Holborn, maybe? Now another shift is about to take place, into a home that ifs far from permanent.
The RSCM has been solidly laying off staff (and selling library stock) and the service which it offers does not (in my humble opinion) bear comparison with what used to be on offer. Odf course, no reduction has been made in fees charged to churches and to those who attend events. So many courses (and even Festival Services) seem to plug compositions by members of staff. If it were not for the RSCM areas looking after their own people and local volunteers working valiantly to ensure that things continue 'decently and in order'. the organisation would be in an utterly parlous state with many asking why they still subscribe.
I have always respected and appreciated The RCO, and shudder to think that in any way its services and/or facilities might go through the trauma that the RSCM is being subjected to. Salisbury may be lovely, and it's now thick with the 'great and the good' but I don't think it could be called centralHor easy to access. I note that Professor John Harper (the self-procvlaimed Director General, with a full-time job up in Bangor, North Wales) will have a shorter journey to put in when he feels like actually going to the RSCM headquarters.
A kind offer of hospitality, Robert F., but please don't let us have all our church music eggs in one basket!
Do correct me if I'm dreaming: was there originally a music department at Sarum College which got closed down?
-
-
I know, London is just such a terrible place.
We've got the Proms, the RAH organ, the London Symphony Orchestra, Philharmonia Orchestra, London Philharmonic Orchestra, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Royal Opera and Royal Ballet, ENO, Sadlers Wells, Westminster Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, Southwark Cathedral (and their superb choirs and organs), the National Theatre, Old Vic, huge variety of musicals and plays, Wigmore Hall, South Bank Centre, Barbican Centre.... and of course Mander Organs.
=========================
And just who pays for all this?
So far as I can discern, only Mander Organs are self-sufficient, whilst the rest survive on public funding, historic endowments, lottery funds and money from the majority of licence fee payers who live outside London.
Versailles was the jewel in the crown.....remember what happened there!
In any event, Elgar came from Worcester, Holst from Cheltenham, Vaughan Williams from Gloucestershire and William Walton from Oldham. Of the top composers, only Henry Purcell came from London.
Some countries such as the Czech Republic, with less people than London, knock musical spots off England. Self-satisfaction is a luxury we can ill-afford.
MM
-
Damn those lawyers!
Can we ask for our money back then?
MM
-
On 17th September I went to hear the first concert with the new V/88 Rieger in Shanghai. I've never been a fan of modern concert hall organs, but this didn't sound too interesting or characterful for its size.......
================
Mmmmm!
An example of ANOTHER respected builder falling foul of modern acoustic design perhaps?
It really is profoundly worrying.
MM
-
Now ...........what separes Belgium and UK
isn't a channel, but one galaxy or two.
=================
Would that be Galaxy chocolate bars Pierre?
MM
A Fine Organ Sounding Good In A Concert Hall
in The Organ
Posted
(Quote MM)
"I always get the impression that William Hill was a humble Lincolnshire-born man who listened to others and tried faithfully to provide what they wanted, using his tremendous natural organ-building abilities and craftsmanship."
(Quote - Pierre Lauwers)
I would be willing to accept that idea, but where did these "better knowing"
gentlemen find their inspiration? At this time -1820-1830- could they
have understood what the works of a Gabler or Holzhay would mean shortly
afterwards?
I suggest the question might deserve a bit more investigation.
==========================
I don't think I properly know the answer Pierre, but if we move on to the building of the first great Schulze organ at Doncaster, it is abundantly obvious that there was, by then, an awareness of things.
Working back from that point, we might usefully recall that Mendelssohn, as a very young man and organ virtuoso, was obliged to cancel recitals due to the fact that the organs were unsuitable.
Mendelssohn had such a tremendous impact in the UK, and because he enjoyed a close friendship with the German Prince Albert, he would automatically be part of the "inner sanctum" of musical life. I wish that all the links fell into place concerning Dr Gauntlett, Mendelssohn, Prince Albert and the rest, but I have yet to come across anything definitive.
More importantly, it is known that the organist of Doncaster Parish Church was especially well-versed in "the best organs in Europe" and was known to have travelled extensively. Furthermore, the Bavo organ was well-known in the UK, and Charles Burney certainly knew the instrument; the fame of which spread around Europe almost from the moment it was finished.
I wouldn't dare speculate without firm evidence, but I have a hunch that the Bavo organ, being quite near, had an affect on those in the UK who went ot hear it, as it still does to this day.
Almost certainly, organists were THE establishment figures in musical academia, and it follows naturally, that the walls of august institutions would resound to passionate arguments about the merits or otherwise of the "German" style of organ-building.
Equally, there was an "old-guard" who defended the pedal-less, F-compass instruments, and one of the most celebrated examples of this concerns the organ of Lichfield Cathedral, when Holdich supplied a very comprehensive "German" style pedal organ.
I think the reply the organist gave was, "....he (Holdich) may put them (the pedals) in, but I will never use them."
Knowing what the hierarchy was like, and knowing how the educated musical-elite operated, I have serious doubts that they would take the slightest notice of anything that William Hill might have suggested. He would have been, I'm afraid, regarded as just a workman and servant, just as Schnitger and da Vinci were long before him.
This was long before the idea that an organ-builder may have
a) brains
c) musical ability
d) superior knowledge
Of course, Schulze, Cavaille-Coll and Father Willis proved that Hazlitt was right when he wrote about "The ignorance of the learned."
MM
PS: The great Victorian passion was continental travel Pierre; especially by rail. Quite a lot of people had connections with Germany as railway-engineer, and which town was the great railway engineering one, which supplied rolling stock? Doncaster, of course!