MusingMuso

=========================== I want that talking organ in "Beauty and the beast" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLBhMJpNtZY...feature=related MM

I don't know if anyone has seen the original film "El Cid," but towards the end, the soundtrack blasts out with a full organ sound, which as a boy, completely stunned me. I suppose good quality sound reproduction was not that common then, and the cinema had a very powerful, full range audio system, which certainly moved air. It was far, far better than the wedding scene in "The Sound of Music." MM

=================================== What an amazing organ, which must sound so much better live! This is the sort of sound I have travelled extensively to hear abroad, and to say that I am impressed would be a big understatement. MM

============================== To wit to 2. It reminds me of the old catholic priest, who in summing up the talk given by the Sisters of Mercy, said, "We're going to have a second collection this morning, and every penny we collect will go towards the 3rd world war." He actually meant that the money would be divided between War on want and the Sisters of mercy, working in the 3rd world. MM

====================================== Alive but fragile would be the best description for both gentelmen, I think. Lovell is a remarkable man, and his work on radar during WWIII was critical to the war effort. There is even the suggestion, (which he refuses to talk about), that he was on a Russian assasination hit-list at some point; so sensitive was some of his work. Of course, the huge radio-telescope at Joderell Bank, Cheshire, is his most spectacular and visible achievement, dating from the time he worked at Manchester University. I am inclined to think that the principles of interferometry derive from the heterodyne effect of organ celestes and the helmholz theory, but if nothing else, Sir Bernard belongs to that remarkable lineage of organists and organ-builders who have invented and designed some very clever kit over the years. As for Frank Jackson, I think it is absolutely disgusting that he's never been knighted, when loudmouthed, rapidly fading businessmen appearing on reality TV, are knighted without a second thought. If one were to take an overview of the entire musical establishment in the UK, who is better qualified or more deserving? OMC at our second most important church for, was it, 50 years or so? THE greatest British organist of his generation bar none, who has composed much fine music in a number of genres; including royal occasions. A worthy diplomat abroad, a scholar, a gentleman and, above all, an inspiration; he is the very eiptomy of what a Knight of the realm should be. MM

=========================== I would have loved this organist. I recall a hell-fire Methodist preacher, who had been controversially booked to preach a sermon at an Anglican Church where I was organist. He went on and on and on; the spiritual temperature rising, (I am told) to a white-heat frenzy, but long before it did, I slipped off the organ and went to the pub, after creeping out through the vestry door. Now I'm not a drinker, and I'm not very fond of beer by and large, but a pint of Taylor's best bitter is agreeable in moderation. So I ordered a pint of best, gulped it down, and made my way back into church, where the said preacher was still going strong; sweating profusely and with tears running down his face. If the truth be known, the only reason I went to the pub, was so that I could thank him afterwards and breath all over him in the process. (I even doused my clothes with a few splashes of clean beer, just in case he had a poor sense of smell). The look of recoil on his face was memorable. MM

==================================== I just know, that as I write this, I will be guilty of any number of sweeping statements.....but here goes. Although we have touched on this and that origin of Victorian church music, and its considerable outside the cathedrals and colleges (etc.) we have not really addressed the political aspect of it, except in vague reference to working-class roots. Let's go back a bit, to perhaps 1880 or so, because in the process of investigating the life and work of John Compton, I came across a remarkable comment, made by a very old lady being interviewed about her memories of village life. I'll have to paraphrase what she said, but apparently, if people of a certain standing were walking down the street, they would not speak to lowly people who worked the land on the farms, because they employed people. Master and servant; God and his dominions, King & Country; Patronage....everything was top-down and strictly hierarchical. In fact, when I was quite young, (say in 1965), I knew old people who had been born in that era, and they would talk of ordinary people doffing their caps as mill-owners passed in horse-drawn carriages; from whom they would receive no acknowledgement. Even the local vicar was often someone to be feared rather than loved, but of course, there were remarkable exceptions. A sweeping statement/question perhaps, but did the C-of-E care about anyone at that time? I suspect that they were more concerned about law and order, the hierarchy and the fabric of society, which they tried to maintain almost in spite of a vastly changing landscape. You've only got to look at the paintings of Hogarth to immediately appreciate the squalor, social deprivation and danger of gin alleys, child exploitation, prostitution (including well organised child-prostitution), smuggling, pick-pockets.....the list goes on and on.....a world accurately captured in the literary writings of Charles Dickens. Add to this horrendous child neglect, poverty, overcrowding, infant mortality, a lack of health care, poor sewerage, disease, pestilence, low life-expectancy, the work-house system and the various poor laws.........the whole country was a revolutionary powder-keg waiting to explode. Something had to be done in a hurry, and the French revolution was still in the minds of those with the most to lose. (Should that read Tolouse?) As early as 1954, Dr Spurgeon was preaching his great sermons, which caused great missionary zeal. The following is a fascinating, full-length drama documentary about him:- http://www.spurgeon.org/aboutsp.htm If I were to try summing-up everything that Spurgeon stood for in two words, I would be very brave, yet "self improvement" must be close to the core; the idea that personal faith and witness could become a power for change and social progress. But even before Spurgeon, Wesley and his followers had put into practice the foundations of social-justice; a far cry from the indifference of the laregly Anglican establishment of the day, which sought to blame people for being poor or destitute. It was John Wesley who reversed all that, with his statement:- "Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can." This was the protestant work-ethic with a heart, but more importantly, it was the foundation-stone of modern-society, which brought education, welfare, social justice and human rights to the fore. So powerful was the non-conformist charge, nothing could stand in its way, and rather than oppose it, some of the great philanthropists and liberal reformers joined the cause. After 1850 to 60, there emerged not only a social movement, but with it, social mobility; the latter an absolute essential in an increasingly technological age. Thus was born a powerful new middle-class, as well as the civilising thrust of middle-class music. I don't expect that Wesley or Spurgeon could have anticipated how church music took flight, but when it did, it took off in a massive way, to become the number one pastime of people great and small. If there is a lesson for us to-day, it is the fact that art, music, social progress, faith, hope and charity; all interlink at certain times....Luther, the Reformation and Bach being perhaps the most spectacular example. I tend to think that it is a mistake to assume the TV, pop music and increasing secularisation are the cause of the downfall in choral music as a pastime and as an expression of worship. In fact, I would suggest that the secular society is the lasting triumph of popular religion, for it demonstrates the coinfidence of ordinary people in shaping their own destinies and following the path of indivuality. Perhaps we should bear in mind that the church had rivals a century ago....music hall, theatre, fetes, galas, popular music, dance bands, brass bands and even pop-songs of a kind. Indeed, the biggest pre-war activity was cinema-going, when droves of people would queue in a snake around the larger cinemas of a Saturday evening. Now that the western world in in crisis once again, perhaps some great new movement will emerge, and when it does, music will probably be a part of it, as people place their trust and faith in whatever that movement attemnpts to achieve. Our hope must be that the Devil doesn't play the best tunes. MM

================== John Dykes-Bower Thomas Armstrong Edward Heath (not for being an organist, I suspect) Wasn't Stanford a Kinght of the Realm? Malcolm Sargent (pretty good conductor, and a good organist apparently) Sir Bernard Lovell (Not for being an organist) MM

======================================= You did the right thing! However, we shouldn't be too hard on churches, because they are by no means unique. Amusingly, a certain well known supermarket made a complete mess of the wording on a contract of employment, and when I read it through and explained it to the employee concerned, it started a sequence of events which, if it had come to the wider knowledge of the supermarket's employees, would have resulted in a loss of perhaps £10,000,000 to the supermarket. They thought I was a solicitor because I acted as the employee representative, and I didn't bother to put them out of their misery. In the end, there was a memorable meeting in the living room of my apartment in London, when a couple of directors and three senior managers of the supermarket finally buckled under pressure, and from some slush-fund or other, they managed to pay off the employee handsomely, to my delight. It was all very positive really. The employee got £10,000 after a bit of hard negiotiating, bribery and threats of national action, I got £1,000 and the supermarket saved £10,000,000.....everyone was happy. That's what I call good economics! I don't know what happened to the legal team responsible for drawing up the contracts in the first instance. MM

==================================== A contract is a contract, and only applies to whatever is contained in it. It doesn't differ much from other forms of contract, but of course, there is appropriate legislation covering employment, and the employer/employee relationship. I would therefore think that the answer is no, because a contract must say what it means, either by reference to a qualifying attachment, or by specific details contained in the Principal Statement. That would seem to make sense to me, but as I said previously, my area of expertise has far more to do with normal trade/financial contract rather than employment contract. Others may know better than I, and I may have overlooked something obvious or contradictory. What I do know, is that even quite small errors or sins of omission can have far reaching consequences when it comes to prosecuting or enforcing terms, and this is why the legal profession exists to oversee the wording of contracts. MM

================================= No! The contract as exhanged and signed is the key factor, and only a fool would sign such a contract if it referred to things beyond their abilities or knowledge. I suspect that the "expectation" that a pianist would learn the organ to everyone's satisfaction, would be an act of folly at least, and possibly a fraudulent contract. My, my.....we're moving closer to my territory by the minute. MM

================================ This is why there are specialist lawyers dealing with employment matters, but of course, cost is the deciding factor. I would personally have thought that anyone who reads a job description and accepts an appointment, would at least be under some sort of obligation to honour the terms, or at least have a shot at them. After all, reputations are probably more important than matters of law; the latter being a last rather than a first resort, I would have thought. On a broader point, I've always thought that priests and vicars have far too much power, and some exercise it badly or incompetently. Best wishes to anyone currently finding themselves in choppy waters. That's the reason I abandoned church music by and large, because it jusn't isn't worth the stress and trauma; especially with such poor remuneration and the need to earn a decent living elsewhere. MM

============================ I'm just amazed.........I never knew that Celestes could be this involved, and when I played around with them in America, I just enjoyed them. The nearest I ever came to this complexity was a lady in knew called Celeste, who being rather flat-chested, nevertheless had a very sharp wit. MM

================================ Having slept on David's excellent contribution, (I sleep very reluctantly, on the basis that I might miss something), I wonder if there may be another problem? However, I'm not sure that David's statement about a job description not being the basis of a contract of employment, is correct. (I'm not sure, because there may have been changes of which I am unaware). The reason I say this, is that other agreements and documents can be used as the basis for a contract of employment, so long as these are included in the wording of the contract. So you may have a clause such as ......"as described in the employee handbook" or "subject to and including the articles contained in the collective agreement dated....." I seem to recall one of my previous contracts of employment including the words, "....as described in the attached job description." In finance and bamking, as well as insurance, this sort of thing might be worded, "...as described in the attached schedule etc." However, there is something else which can happen, which makes the knowledge of the entire contractual spectrum important, and this concern both variance as well as 'custom & practice.' If someone comes along and says, "We were wondering if you might be willing to arrange the music for the music group?" It may not happen like this, but in essence, once this sort of variance is accepted willingly, the verbal exchange can alter the original contract and create considerable problems later. A lot of companies are very sloppy about this, but the cleverer ones re-negotiate or re-write the contract and get the employee to sign the revised version, as happened to me recently when it was necessary to change things in order to comply with European legislation. If things are kept up to date, there is greater clarity and a few less grey areas to argue about later. I recall the words of one of the barristers with whom I trained, who said something like, "Our job is to write what we mean, and mean what we write; in such a way that there can be no doubt as to intention." Like all simple statements, it sounds simple, but it ain't! MM PS: The subject of law always reminds me of that delightful, tongue-in-cheek, medieval skit....."As clerkes fynden written in their book."

=================================== Thank you David; nicely put. I would only add that employment law is an extension of contract law in the widest sense, and any element of dishonesty at the outset would be frowned upon. So in essence, it is usually the case that a job description would not vary very much from an actual 'Principal Statement' of terms. Contract is a bit of a minefield at the best of times, and although I have some experience of employment law by necessity rather than by choice, my particular areas of activity in finance and banking were more to do with financial law, fraud investigation and breach of contract. Happy days....I didn't make much of a dent on it, and the world is still full of con-men. MM

============================ My original reply came from the top of my head. Quite where your reply came from, I cannot imagine. MM

============================= Most of the above is absolutely correct actually. I've re-checked with .gov sources, and the following is taken from the section on employment law:- SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT Contract terms can come from a number of different sources; for example they could be: •verbally agreed •in a written contract, or similar document CHANGES TO CONTRACT Sometimes it's necessary to change the terms and conditions of an employment contract. Find out why your contract might be changed, what your rights are and how to avoid or resolve problems in making these changes. Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. If your employer wants to change your contract If your employer wants to make changes, they should •consult you or your representative (for example, a trade union official) •explain the reasons why •listen to alternative ideas TERMS IMPLIED BY CUSTOM AND PRACTICE These are specific to an employer or kind of work. They are arrangements that have never been clearly agreed but over time have become part of the contract. The only bit which is new to me, and probably reflects changes to legislation since I was involved with it all, is that relating to the required statutory "Principal Statement"....a term quite unfamiliar to me. PRINCIPAL STATEMENT Your employer must provide you with some of your employment details in one single document. This is known as the 'principal statement' and must include: •your name and your employer’s name •your job title or a brief job description •the date when your employment began •your pay rate and when you will be paid •your hours of work •your holiday entitlement •where you will be working (if you are based in more than one place it should say this along with your employer’s address) •sick pay arrangements •notice periods •information about disciplinary and grievance procedures •any collective agreements that affect your employment terms or conditions •pensions and pension schemes •if you are not a permanent employee how long your employment is expected to continue, or if you are a fixed term worker the date your employment will end. Nuff said! MM

================================== Employment contract law is quite involved, and essentially operates in three distinct ways: verbal, written and what could be described as "normal custom & practice" associated with a particular job. The written contract is by far the easiest to understand and act upon, but even then it can be varied or rescinded at any time, with adequate notice of intent, with which the opposite party may agree or disagree. So far as I know, that works both ways, but if the two sides cannot agree, then a contract can be terminated. It's all a bit shadowy, because I seem to recall that employment contract law springs out of the laws pertaining to "master & servant," which does tend to favour the master. Even where a written contract doesn't exist, a firm contract of sorts is in place, on the basis of verbal promises and also on the basis of what the worker (servant) normally does in the execution of his/her duties; the basis of "custom & practice." Where my knowledge fails, is how all this applies to part-time working, which I'm afraid is beyond my management experience; so perhaps someone else can answer this. So, what it all means, is that when a "servant" is "hired" to do a job, then at the outset, there will be discussion of what the job entails (a job description), and I would think that any court would recognise the validity of that as either a part of the contract or in the form of "reasonable" expectation. In other words, if you sign up to play the organ, and they hand you brush and shovel on your arrival, you have fair grounds for complaint or even constructive dismissal; the latter being based on the assumption that you are prevented from doing what you were hired to do. So yes, the job description qualifies the terms of the contract. However, at any time, one or other party may vary the contract with due consultation, and the usual thing is for the "master" (the employer) to point out the change to the contract, discuss the implications of the new terms, and then to get the "servant" (employee) to sign a revised contract. That way, no-one is in any doubt, and things remain legally (and morally) sweet. In effect, it comes down to the meanings of trust, promise and reasonableness, as would be understood by the "reasonable man" sitting on the top deck of the Clapham Omnibus. Of course, there's a lot of sharp practice which slips by without ever being challenged, but that's a another story. MM

I was listening to Radio 4 Sunday afternnon, (as you do), and I had to burst out laughing at one point, which described what happened on the streets of Liverpool during a Police strike in 1911. Apparently, the peasants took to the streets and smashed all the shop windows; helping themselves to the most expensive things they could find, such as suits, dresses and anything which could easily be removed. They even stripped the dummines of clothes and tried on the items in the window, in full view of everyone. However, it seems that one of the targets was the Rushworth & Dreaper shop, and somehow, they managed to manhandle grand-pianos into the street, and then sat there playing them. I suspect that they didn't make off with any organs or reed-organs, but from memory, I would suggest that they would have had them, because I recall the old shop and some of the expensive items in there, including a fine music collection. Indeed, I am extremely grateful that a long out of print Giga by Enrico Bossi, just happened to be among the retail organ-music, and it caught my fancy. It's still one of my favourite little "jolly" pieces, but tricky to play. MM

============================== The bit I love is in the first clip, where DR grabs the music-desk and waves it about; pointing out something to another chap who is presumably out of camera shot on the opposite side. Registrands are supposed to be inconspicuous, but for me, they're the stars of the show in these clips....absolutely wonderful!! MM

============================= I don't like the "Ad nos" too much, but this is as good as it gets, and yes, from a m.u.s.i.c.i.a.n. rather than technician. However, my favourite YouTube video has to be the one linked below, because I simply cannot think of anything more amusing. Imagine you're playing a difficult work, on a very large strange organ in Paris, and you have Daniel Roth operating the ventils and turning the pages.......it is your worst nightmare! I love Daniel Roth's schoolboy enthusiasm for all things organ and Cavaille-Coll in particular, and as a character study, this clip is priceless. My hat off to the young organist who soldiered on regardless with what sounds, in spite of the recording quality, like a superb performance of the Dupre B Major. The next one just the same, but this time there are two of them to distract the organist! MM

============================== Fortunately, I'd worked it out by the second line, and placed the cruise-missiles back in the garage. As for the other CC, I'm always intrigued by people who are skinny and interesting; like they worry all the time. It's the same with people like me who smile most of the time. If you have any sense or a cynical disposition, you're inclined to wonder what they've been up to. MM

========================== No, I think if I had to live with this, I'd probably hang myself from a bell rope. MM

============================ There was a time when he could play five-manuals at once: one of them inadvertently. This reminds me of the lady organist in America, who often played "tone-clusters" on the Swell organ, while playing normally on the Solo manual. She wasn't drunk, but let's just say that she had a bit of a constant hangover. MM

======================== I almost blew a fuse when I read this, because I know Carlo Curley quite well.......then I realised my mistake! "He to whom you refer" is, without doubt, quite disturbing at so many levels, and whether there is real madness or not, (something for which I have a great deal of empathy), there is absolutely no doubt that the text-book has been re-written in terms of technique. I'm quite confident that similar labels were attached to Franz Liszt, and he too must have been extremely disturbing to even very gifted performers. Being a "man of the world" so-to-speak, I think I am aware of certain things, and yes, I detect a certain manic drive and perhaps a certain detached intensity, but if art is the nearest thing to life, then the music perhaps proves this. There is no doubt in my mind that even at the purely technical level, there are things of which we need to take note, because the boundaries have been stretched for all time, simply because someone has shown that it is possible. The improvisations I find fascinating and disturbing in equal measure, and the old saying that genius is next to madness, springs readily to mind. MM