MusingMuso

=============== Oh Brian! You're a lawyer! The tac I would take is one of professional competence. It is surely the EXPECTATION that a professional publisher should take ALL REASONABLE CARE in presenting a printed document, and BY THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, they MUST be accurate and faithful to the original if they claim to be professionals. It's the same thing as car-repairs....if the car falls apart after a repair, it comes down to professional competence and the assumption that the punter is a lay-person without special knowledge. So on THAT basis, any deliberate or unintentional errors falling short of accuracy may well simply be deliberate or unintentional misrepresentation.......either incompetence or deceit, as the case may be. THIS could lead to action as "material unfit for the purpose" and therefore in contravention of the Sale of Goods Act. Hey! I should have been a lawyer! MM

==================== I would suggest that one has to be careful here, because even the slightest editing mark is covered by copyright....even if that is but a correction to the original composer's mistakes. Of course, it works both ways. I doubt that a certain publisher of the Bossi Scherzo would take legal action if you copied THEIR mistakes onto Sibelius!! MM

Hum! Why cite it then? "Support has crumbled..." would have been enough then... Best wishes, Pierre <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ================ OK...I'll re-phrase it. Bradford is a blighted area due to the collapse of the former textile and engineering industries. Many of the traditional British-born workers in those industries moved away, leaving behind a large second and third generation population derived from the immigrant workers who came from areas of the former British commonwealth; many of whom do not attend catholic mass on a Sunday. Bradford is now the heroin-trade capital of Northern England and is famous for the variety of fast-food emporia serving exotic cuisine. There you are! I didn't mention the "A" word once!! MM

Sheffield City Hall has recently undergone a £12.5 million refurbishment programme. None of the money has been spent on the organ. Much more is known about producing a pleasing acoustic. But it will be interesting to experience the effect this has had (if any) in eradicating the hitherto dry acoustic of the building. ================= Sheffield City Hall, I understand, comes close to the top of the league-table of awful buildings. The Bridgewater should have been a whole lot better, and probably is. Whilst not wishing to blame anyone for the relatively underwhelming sound of the Marcussen organ there, it would be nice to understand the design process from sod to sortie; not just that of the organ, but that of the hall also, which at least "appears" to have some element of acoustic design about it. I read an interesting paper on acoustics a couple of days ago, which suggests that acoustic-engineers are so familiar with recorded sound, that they have a distorted view of what constitutes a good acoustic. There may well be truth in that statement. Of course, knowing Manchester, it is quite likely that their idea of a "concert hall" is one suitable for a Robbie Williams or "Scissors Sisters" gig, and I can't imagine that they'd be wasting a lot of money on fancy wood panelling! Maybe the answer is much nearer to home, and perhaps Marcussen just don't have the expertise in concert-hall organ design. It may well be that the organ-consultant specified specific aspects of pipe-scaling and voicing. Maybe, as I have suggested, modern materials have produced a new type of acoustic, in which case, the architects and acoustic-engineers need to know that it doesn't work very well. One thing I do see, when I look at the absorption characteristics of many modern materials, is a horror-story. Some materials absorb only 10% of sounds below 500Hz, and much the same above 2 KHz, but between that, they can be gobbling up 50% of the sound energy! That's my concern, and it is what I hear in many concert halls to-day. MM

================ Don't forget the redundant Willis/Mander at Sheffield Cathedral! It could be scattered around the building like it is now. It's time to think BIG! Passau Cathedral here we come....nay....move over Atlantic City!! MM

My apologies for the spellin' mistakes in the last post, which was sent prematurely when I hit the send button in error. However, it's close enough, so I shall not bother to replace it with a corrected version. MM

In the Worcester Cathedral organ thread, I went off at something of a tangent concerning acoustics, and one discussion-board contributor suggested that we might open this as a new a separate subject; which I now do. To re-cap, mention was made of the Marcussen organ at Bridgewater Hall, and its' seemingly ineffective qualities at this particular location, which I suggested may be more to do with the design of the building tahn any particular fault on the part of the organ-builder. However, to get this discussion off on the right footing, perhaps it is necessary to start with a few basics. Where, I wonder, are the best acoustics to be found? We each have our favourite buildings, but I think that most people would generally agree that some of the very finest buildings in which organs are placed, are to be found in Holland. The churches may vary in size, and there will be obvious exceptions to the rule, but broadly speaking, smaller churches have a certain warmth and resonance thanks to extensive wooden interior furnishings and panelling material, and in the very large buildings, the general rule seems to be that of a single large room with either very shallow transpets, or none at all. It is clearly in such buildings that organ-tone is heard at its' best. Listen to an old baroque organ in such buildings, and there is not usually the slightest sense of shrillness or a lack of warmth, presence or fundamental. Like the carefully shaped body of a violin made by the master hand, the building becomes the great musical belly in which the music blossoms. Interestingly, when playing one of the best organs in Holland, there is a striking fact about the sound coming from the instrument, which seems to demonstrate a certain eveness in the relative volumes right across the audible spectrum, with no particulary audible "spikes" or attenuations. Things are less good in England; especially in the great cathedral churches, where deep transpets, changing roof lines and even stone screens break up the whole into a serious of "mini-acoustics" which often scatter the sound less than ideally. Nevertheless, a good organ will still sound like a good organ, even if it lacks the perfect definition of its' continetal counterparts in the Netherlands. Although the theory of acoustics is an enormous, complex and often subjective one, there can be little doubt but that modern buildings and building-materials often result in an acoustic which is often less than favourable to good, evenly spread organ-tone, and therefore presents special challenges to the art of the organ-builder and voicer. Having started the subject, I went back to my notes and some of the sources of information I had on disc. To cut a liong story short, the "absorption co-efficients" of modern building materials are radically different from more traditional materials such as stone, brick or glass. It isn't, it seems, simply a question of sound absorbency, but sound absorption within specific frequency bands. If we take stone as an example (much the same applies to brick and concrete), the absorption characteristics are not only very low; more importantly, they are very even across the audible spectrum. This means that even in traditional buildings with only the most modest acoustic, the rate of absorbency is uniform across the musical spectrum, by and large. Even carpets absorb energy across the spectrum evenly. Enter the world of the modern architect, who has to work around building regulations concerning firewalls, structural integrity, cost-saving building methods and structral integrity. Add to this the requirements of creature comforts such as soft-seat covers, carpets, lighting (requiring hidden ducting), heating and ventilation (again requiring hidden ducting) and decor, and what we have is an acoustic nightmare, which the acoustic engineers have to work around and modify, using computer models and scale-model acoustic test-beds. Enter the problem of modern materials, which may be fibrous board, fire-retardent laminates, plastics, foams, acoustic tiles, fibreglass etc etc. ALL these materials, almost without exception, have very specific characteristics, and taking a look at the absorbency co-efficients, what we find is an uneven absorbency across the audible spectrum. Some materials kill high-freqencies, whilst others kill the lower frequencies, but in the critical mid-frequencies, at which each of us is most sensitive, there can be enormous increases in energy absorbency, because these building materials were usually designed for offices and other industrial applications rather than for concert halls. For the moment, that is enough to consider, but if one thinks of the Royal Albert Hall, which has the worst natural acoustic in the world, it was the use of modern materials which came to its' rescue....so it isn't all bad news by any means, and the Arup Associates company who designed the Birmingham Symphony Hall, have shown just what can be achieved using modern materials and a classi concert-hall shape.. _

In offering my condolences to John Pike Mander on the death of his father Noel, I hope that he will know that many of us suffer a sense of loss at the passing of a great craftsman. His legacy is not only the many fine organs he created or re-created, but also the Mander company as it is to-day; of which he must surely have approved and from which he must have derived much personal satisfaction and a sense of fulfilment. May he rest in peace and may John and those who similarly mourn, find comfort. With heartfelt sympathy, Colin Mitchell

==================== Now Pierre, a Kinura with octave and sub-octave, has its' uses. It is just perfect for "Mosquito Parade." More seriously, the idea of a Samuel Green chorus at Bridgewater Hall would be much the same as a Dulciana chorus elsewhere.....completely ineffective if not quite inaudible. MM

===================== "Organists are like broken down cab-horses; always longing for another stop." - Canon Sydney Smith (St Paul's) "The house of God is not beautified by rows of zinc chimmney cans," - Canon Sydney Smith (St Paul's) =========== "Here lies a fine organist and musician" - "Good heavens! How did they get them in the save grave?" - Thos.Beecham ============== "I am reading your criticism whilst seated in the smallest room in the house, and I am happy to inform you that it will soon be behind me and forgotten" - Max Reger ================ "Oh bugger!" - Dr Francis Jackson (on leaving So-Gt drawn for the pp section of the Liszt BACH with the Tuba drawn) - Ripon Cathedral recital. ================ THESE PEOPLE DESERVED TO BE CENSORED!! mm

================= Let's see now.... Farts.....Undulating ranks....Unda Maris....under water.....Bath...GOT IT! "Vox Flatulatum Unter Maris" I'm sure it's an old tradition there, and might have contributed to the invention of the hydraulus in Rome. "Floten in the bathtub anyone?" Would that be a "Saunaflute" or are they restricted to calliopes? MM