David Coram

I'll not get started on the former - save to say how odd it seems to reference (with tongue in cheek, as you did) a disagreement/misunderstanding from a previous thread, which I still believe you have not understood correctly, but choose here to completely redefine the subject. A balance between departments is of course almost always POSSIBLE - that's not in dispute, and never has been. If you have learned of permanently coupled Swell to Pedal instruments, please could you share some of your knowledge.

How wonderful to hear of a balance between Swell and Great. And no difference between the two? Not even 5%? And both Swell and Great have 842 principals and equal Mixtures? How excellent and pleasing. Oh, now I find it on NPOR I notice they are slightly different - the Swell chorus (as in, chorus) is two stops smaller (three if you include the later Twelfth). On a less tiresome note, for once, I'm genuinely interested to hear of examples with a permanently coupled Swell-Pedal. I've never encountered this.

I always do this dry, with a variety of soft paintbrushes and feathers and a compressed air line. If you really want, take 'em out and gently hose them. Stand the bottoms on wood, keep them as upright as possible, and you MUST support them part-way up - don't be tempted to lean a top edge against brickwork, for instance. Whatever you do, don't do anything too manual as they'll mis-shape terribly easily once they've been in your hand even for a few seconds. You can shine them up if you like but they'll oxidise again soon enough, so bearing in mind the risk of damage I wouldn't bother

And the original question - Come on, pay attention back there!

What more could I ask for!

Innate - the Swell probably will be louder with all the reeds drawn. My remarks were aimed only at flue choruses. Peace and love HP

Oh, MM - you get so tangled up. I think you possibly misread my first post and are now determined to make me concede a point which doesn't exist. Organ details do not irritate me. This is probably irritating everyone else though, and others seem to understand what my original point was. For Schulze being irrelevant - I didn't say he was. He is however largely irrelevant to a discussion about what defines a British style of organ building because he was not an British organ builder. He may have influenced others, but so have Schnitger and Cavialle-Coll, and we're not talking about them either. You list some Swell stoplists. These are as nothing unless compared with the Great. I did this through the NPOR and discovered that in both cases, indeed, the Great chorus (as Vox says, vertical from 16-Mixtures) is bigger, as I have been suggesting; both Greats start with a metal 16 and the Swells with a wooden one. Both Greats have more than one Open Diapason. Both Greats have more mutations, and the function of some of those mutations is different. Yes, pressures may be higher to overcome enclosure - my own Harrison has a Swell Open with leathered lips on 9" wind - but it's still quieter than the Great. This whole topic began with a broad question about what, broadly speaking, characteristics could be said to be quintessentially English - broadly speaking. I responded that, amongst other things, a typical Swell chorus is typically slightly smaller than a typical Great chorus, in part due to its enclosure. Typically, that is true of the majority of instruments, as you will discover if you make it a point of pride to always draw the largest 842 on the Swell and the largest 842 on the Great and attempt to play a trio sonata. That's a characteristic of interrelation between divisions which you'd be unlikely to find on an organ from elsewhere. You've done nothing except misunderstand basic points and then furnish me with examples which I believe prove my original supposition right. It's sad that you and I are just destined to clash. I don't have the particular personality traits to just sit back and ignore when I believe someone is challenging me incorrectly, on even the most trivial of things. I'm sorry that a very interesting and provoking subject has once again been hi-jacked by my failings in this regard and I hope order can be restored by my, yet again, beating the retreat.

MM, I don't see anything in the Bicknell passage which in any way contradicts anything I've been trying to get at. "Nearly as important as the Great - a second Great in a box." Precisely what I've been driving at by remarks about a slightly quieter and less complete chorus than the Great. I presume that you're just enjoying pressing buttons and getting me irritated. Whatever makes you happy!

Again, we're not interested in Swells all over the world, or Schulze at Armley, or any of that; my original assertion was that the relationship between Swell and Great has remained broadly the same, which is to say that the Swell is generally quieter and has a less well developed chorus, but may have more reeds. If you pop out in the morning and attend the nearest ten English-built organs to where you are, and 8 of them do not fit with this broad assertion, I'll eat my hat. The more vital defining point is that a French organ or German organ will not routinely show the same relationship. Or, again, if you encountered an 1880 Hill with a 20 stop Great, a 15 stop Choir and a 2 stop Swell, you would think it a bit odd, but several million Frenchmen wouldn't bat an eyelid. On edit - 'carefully supressed upperwork' has nothing to do with the English organs I know best. I suppose this to be more of a recent product of equal temperament.

The things you identify have some part, obviously. However, manufacture and grade of pipe metal is but the tiniest detail; so, so much is done by the voicer - it's not about getting a pipe on speech and sticking it in the organ. An artistic voicer can get huuuuuuge variety out of a pipe such as you probably wouldn't believe. Their craft is one which, in my view, not enough people take seriously; it is they, not the pipe maker or anyone else, who have control over every sound the organ makes from the start of the note to the end to the duration to the way it blends to the way it interacts with other stops to the way it responds to flexibility in the wind supply. Pretty much all you have left after that is the action.

St Luke's Battersea is where Vasari Singers do most of their rehearsing. It's got a nice 3m Lewis, recently restored by Harrisons, with good colours and a nice solo reed. Gentle acoustic and friendly church.

Why do you assume I am seeking a balance between Great and Swell? My whole point is that there ISN'T, and is no attempt to. That very point seems to me an English characteristic. How nice to have Cynic back.

Just on that note, go to Thann - Michael Gailliard has (with some nudging from Bernard Aubertin) constructed a mechanical piston system which runs on compressed air and is instantly settable at the console with a memory button - something to do with little metal pegs running down chutes and into holes. Very clever and very noisy.

No, I meant that - for example - an English Swell Open Diapason has never been intended to equal the Great one, the chorus of the Swell is usually slightly more modestly proportioned (a Gt of 884432 might have a Sw of 884), and somewhere between 60-80% of the Great's power. This is broadly true of the first Swell organs (e.g. Clerkenwell), throughout the Victorian time, into the Downes era and out the other side. It is only broadly true, and only to the extent that it is a recognisable English feature just as the peculiarities of French and German organs are identifiable to themselves, however they may differ one to the next.

This appears (from reading) to be fairly commonplace on the continent. I recently played a small organ by Merklin which immediately went into my top 5. Its spec was as follows: GO Bourdon 16 (+Ped), Montre 8, Bourdon 8, Flute harmonique 8, Salicional 8, Voix celeste 8, Flute 4, Fourniture III, Basson et hautbois 8, Trompette 8 Recit Bourdon 8 (GO), Flute harmonique 8 (GO), Salicional 8 (GO), Voix celeste 8 (GO), Flute 4 (GO), Quinte 3, Doublette 2, Basson et hautbois 8 (GO) Ped Bourdon 16 (GO), Violoncello 8 (GO) No manual coupling necessary, all under expression. This struck me as an excellent way of achieving so many objectives - small balancing trio registrations, accompanimental colour and beautiful solo voices in spades, seamless and appropriate crescendos (by which I mean that you can change manuals gradually, rather than all parts at once) without any need for pistons or ventils, two balancing choruses with contrasting top-ends, exceedingly compact footprint, and (in this particular instance) one of the most beautifully regulated tracker actions I have encountered. It was last rebuilt in 1982, and (save for one note overblowing when played on both keyboards) there were no evident mechanical problems. The tuning book suggested there had been none to speak of - we were only on about page 4 or 5 of a small notebook since its restoration nearly 30 years ago. I've seen this done a little in the UK, such as this Drake organ, but there the shared stops are on an 'either or' basis and cannot be used in two places at once, thereby invalidating one of the strongest benefits. So - why not??

OK - 1) It has to be properly engineered, both to work well and to last. This suggests tracker action and mechanical stop action, but not as an absolute. Essentially, if you couldn't achieve something with tracker action, why are you doing it? (I am thinking of things like bits of extended pedal upperwork lying around all over the place.) 2) One characteristic which has been fairly consistent from 1815ish to now is the English releationship between Swell and Great, which is as unique as, say, French classical GO and Recit. 3) The voicing of the organ should be absolutely critical to the identity of the firm's work, and the voicer should preferably be the same person who has conceived, designed and scaled the instrument in their heads and knows what will work. I would by instinct reject any proposal by a firm where voicing appears to be a relatively inconsequential thing delegated to a fairly uninvolved member of staff, with no particularly evident interest by the proprietor or directors - and, rarely, where pipes are ordered from a supply house 'voiced'. It usually shows. (I don't care in the least who actually makes the pipes, though, as some readers may recall!) In an early post MSW mentioned four recent organs which he/she considers a success. Interestingly, two on that list were ones I judged to be spectacularly badly suited to their buildings (though not as spectacular as some not mentioned), both suffering from quite poor tonal finishing (I quite honestly couldn't bear to be in the room when the Swell reeds of one of them were played), and one also significantly less well engineered than I would have expected (I haven't seen inside the other). All that proves is just how subjective these things are.

A friend of mine many years ago drafted plans for a station called 'Radio Polyphony' which might be able to succeed in the DAB era, apart from work on olfactory transmitters for the domestic reception of incense having stalled in its early stages. Essentially, the news was to be intoned to Anglican chant; the weather in Latin; and a hymn from Mission Praise and a reading from the Good News Bible every morning at 3.15am as a quality control measure.

It won't be your last post - just like the last one wasn't mine, and nor will this! Musical kicks... Religion has always, in my caveman view, been the opium of the people. Drums and guitarry things influence the heart rate and a thousand people singing Graham Kendrick can create something which passes for euphoria in some people's minds. Plainsong creates its own atmosphere. It's all about 'musical kicks', if that's what is meant by the creation in human minds of a particular atmospheric or spiritual sensation - let's not be precious about dressing it up. No amount of nay-saying or doom 'n' gloom can, for me, remove the fundamental points that i) this stuff has a place in this time ii) it brings benefits which deserve to be publicly assessed and discussed, rather than merely applying the label 'traditional' and spluttering indignantly, as if those are enough of a reason in itself to do it iii) its proponents support flexibility, integration with Common Worship (which, frankly, works perfectly well) and the enhancement of worship iv) this all creates a positive, unique and inspirational liturgical and musical experience for participants and witnesses which can and should form part of a balanced diet. That's what I think we need to do; this is where we need refinement and agreement; "it'll never work" doesn't need to go on the end of a sentence - especially not one beginning "yes, but". Not yet, anyway!

Exactly, and it's very sad to see! Just to rewind, are we agreed - 1) There is, and should continue to be, a place for traditional Anglican music within a wide spectrum of other 'diets' 2) The contemporary experience of some members of this board, myself included, is that children are especially good at rising to the challenge 3) The contemporary experience of some members of this board, myself included, is that families DO get involved in what is going on and take pride in their offspring's endeavours; it's taken me 2 years of choir holidays to get all the parents exposed to what we do, and why, and lo and behold I looked down at Evensong two weeks ago to see a little huddle of parents I'd never seen in the congro before. They were there again this Sunday just gone. 4) The immediate and critical situation is not, as I see it, where a 15 year old goes for organ lessons; it's whether there will be any organists' positions worth having in 20 years time, or will everyone be using Kevin Mayhew karaoke hymn CDs and worship bands. IF it is possible to demonstrate to clergy and congregations, using recent examples, that it IS possible to have quality traditional music AND growth at the same time, even as a small part of a worship 'diet', then you will find people of quality once again becoming available for positions. They are out there. Then, it becomes an entirely straightforward and everyday occurrence that young people have access to a quality introduction to the organ.

Ah! That's the point. It isn't. People just haven't realised it yet. Go and find me the parish priest who would not let me do Darke in A and Sumsion in F at their Sunday eucharist if it put 15 families in the pews week after week.

Wasn't going to wade back out to sea again, but can't resist this. Boys only, yes. Girls only, yes. Mixed - absolutely not. The two don't go together - from about year 3 up, the majority of the boys won't stay and it'll be a real struggle to get new ones. The girls then get fed up with the behaviour of the one or two remaining boys, who struggle valiantly to represent their gender, and they go too. This in my view is the single aspect of the RSCM's work which needs unpicking. Seperate the sexes and alternate their duty and you get - 1) two clubs which kids want to join, with gender-specific identities and learning methods 2) twice as much repertoire for the back row 3) twice as much rehearsal time with each group (per service) 3) each family gets every other week off, making it more appealing to more people in the first place ... and if you want to do the whole thing on about 25 minutes' rehearsal a week each, start a children's choir for years 1-3 and teach 'em how to stand up and face the right way there!

Yes and yes. How about 'Musical settings of liturgy, poetry and sacred texts, intended to be performed by choir, with or without organ, in the course of the mainstream worship of the Church.'

I think this is missing the point. The RSCM caters for that. This isn't about organists, it's about traditional music; it's that which creates the job satisfaction which gets the competent singers and organists out of the woodwork. How many competent+ players here refuse to walk into another church, except in a dire emergency or for a very large cheque? Would a weekly choral eucharist change matters?

"Tradition is not a noun shaped once and for all in the past: it is a verb, active under God, now and for the sake of the future." David Jenkins - On Miracles --------------------------- Funnily enough, I recently spent half a day sat in a cold church surrounded by four other boys' choirs directors, and the president/chairman (whatever) of the Campaign for the Defence of the Traditional Choir, Mr Bernard Haunch. The objective of the meeting was to create exactly what you have described - or so I thought. Unfortunately, for me, the meeting went off down the usual unwanted tangents about the evils of equality and how appalling it is that "these women with awful warbly voices" (people like Hilary Hill and Jenevora Williams) are "meddling where they have no business" and "making singing into a science" (that is to say, understanding the process that makes something happen). The organisation decided to elect as its chairman a retired clergyman from Norfolk with no internet access, nor interest in getting any; the most likely name at the point I left was - wait for it - The Guild of Singing Boys. You can imagine the crest on the gold-buttoned blazers, can't you. So, I'm very interested indeed in where this goes, because I think (with exclusive reference to choirs including children) the following work particularly needs to be done - 1) Providing an umbrella organisation which will unify child protection policies across different diocese and provide a positive PR image. To me, it's an absolute must that chorister safety is on a par with music-making. Nothing - not even a revamped CRB system with cherries on top - can ensure children's safety as much as asking the right questions of candidates and organisations. Parents entrusting their child to a man (or woman) in a church have every right to be sceptical, and we have a duty to justified and confident about our positive and reassuring answers. 2) Providing a network through which "traditional" choirs (and, because of the existence and reputation of the CTCC, I think we ought to be careful about allowing that word to creep into the name) can meet, regionally and nationally, for events 3) Providing a forum for self-improvement - I feel particularly weak in areas of 'classroom management', for instance, and would welcome the chance to get some peer support on this, whether one-to-one or through a workshop. Others will have different skills they may feel need brushing up. Are those of us working with boys, for instance, managing voice change well and appropriately, or are we keeping them on the top line for as long as humanly possible and fulfilling all the stereotypes which - with some justification - have enabled organisations like the National Youth Choirs to have their USP and eat it. 4) Providing recent and positive examples of successful traditional choirs (agh, there's that word again) which give others encouragement. For instance, my St Peter's 'model' of boys choir (with male ATB), girls choir (with male TB and lady altos), and adult mixed choir could be more easily implemented in a rural setting, with one or two small primary schools, than it can in a town centre context (and a particularly challenging one at that). However, it was quite easily 'ironed out' from a prevailing situation of a mixture of ladies, mums and 1 boy. After a year, we had 16 boys, 12 girls and 100% retention; it was easier to start getting quality gents for the back row because there is such a varied repertoire (basically, three choirs' worth of music). Any clergyperson, especially in a rural area, asked "would you like another 28 families attending your church by this time next year?" is hardly going to say no, even if it means having to put up (sigh) with a sung Sanctus and Benedictus week after week (oh, the hardship). 5) Resources in general for recruitment, retention, sharing of publicity ideas, etc etc etc. There is an excellent network - www.boys-keep-singing.org - run by Martin Ashley, known to several members of this forum. It has outstanding video material and is worth registering with if you have anything to do with children singing, or even if you're considering it (the registration questions ask about classrooms etc - you don't have to be from a school to register). There will be different but equally effective models out there too. I do think it's vitally important to make some kind of differentiation from the 'typical' RSCM-affiliated "enthusiastic mixed choir, children welcome" - boys need a boys club, and that's a tradition also worth preserving by someone other than the sort of fanatics who do so at present.

None - but in your case, any sort of nod towards its G&D origins is going to pacify locally interested parties, if you get my drift.