David Coram

We can't afford it!!! And, with the exception of St Albans, none of their recent voicing work which I have seen has impressed me, either in terms of timbre or evenness (and even St Albans isn't perfect where evenness is concerned). There's no point in pretending it's a Harrison organ any longer; it's had Rushworth, HN&B, Keith Scudamore and Lance Foy at it since then. I don't think Harrison's would be interested in turning up to do a mixture - they'd want to do the whole job or nothing (or at least I hope they would).

This is rather interesting because I am researching re-instating the Harmonics at St Peter's Bournemouth. It was ousted by Rushworth and Dreaper in 1976 in favour of a quint mixture of astoundingly poor quality - it's made from old Dulciana pipes chopped down, and still marked Dulciana. The composition has been altered several times since in attempts to make it more satisfactory. It seems to do nothing that the Swell's enormous 5-ranker doesn't already do perfectly well. Mark Venning wrote of it - "In 1914 the Great Harmonics had the classic composition: C 17. 19. 21. 22 / treble f# 5. 8. 10. 15. The scaling of these ranks was artfully contrived." Quite what he means by that I don't know, but I plan to find out!

My heart sank when I saw the words 'Percy Daniel and Co', and sank even further when I saw 'J.Coulson' (he of Steiglitz/Sherborne fame), and completely packed up altogether when I saw 'R.Winn' (of whose workmanship, even though I understand he is lately no longer with us, not a single kind word can legitimately be said - at least with Daniels you can praise their solid carpentry). I can imagine every bit of it in vivid detail. Whether it goes on a new west gallery or not, a reduction back to 1879 proportions would certainly get my vote, probably with a conscious return to G&D stop names of the era (Grand Bombarde and all that sort of thing). Me being me, I'd make one or two concessions such as retaining an 8' Flute on the pedal, and a Swell Celeste, possibly on double draw with the Gamba (either that or just detune the Ch Dulciana to be coupled through).

To do with the Mander nave organ? I have seen a crane winching crates of papers etc up and down before, I suppose they might store the nave console out of the way. Isn't the whole thing on train tracks?

Anne Page is in Cambridge! Hiss! What about Clive Driskill-Smith. He's stayed in Christchurch a few times with a noted owner of a harmonium so probably knows his way around one pretty well. There's John Brennan or Julian Littlewood or Mark Purcell. They're the only ones on the OXRECS list I know well enough to recommend.

The group I took on certainly wasn't 'built up' as the press release says. It only had one member.

What an exciting and forward-looking adventure. I am surprised to see St Peter's Bournemouth referred to in this way.

Is this not it? Several contributors here also write for Organists' Review, Choir and Organ, the Organ Club Journal, BIOS Reporter, IBO Journal. Let's do it here and now.

Morning I'm not sure I understand what part of my post you are referring to. It seems eminently sensible to, for instance, get fully to grips with ciphers, noisy, heavy and uneven actions, irregular couplers, dirt in pipework, poor positioning and leaky reservoirs before deciding that a horizontal trumpet is just what the job needs.

Yes yes yes yes yes. I'm not sure where I stand on historicity at all costs. I think that, this week, it's something like this - how dare any one of us attempt to modify, add to or discard anything to, of or from an existing organ without having taken every possible care to understand, restore and respect the original aspects of the work first, however flawed first opinion might suggest it is. The trouble is, the number of builders who appear capable of doing so is far smaller than it ought to be. The number of builders prepared to do so to the necessary fullest extent is even smaller still.

Rest assured that an Osmond or PD effort does not stand up to comparison with a Compton job - not by a long shot. Though Daniels in their earlier days did produce some good workmanlike stuff, and very clever (but expensive) innovations to the whiffle tree swell engine. And a lot of their cabinet work was absolutely first class. I've no malice, bitterness or hostility whatsoever to the electronic industry. Regardless, my belief is that certain sales techniques are disingenuous, and some pipe organ builders could do more in their work and attitude to secure their own futures and make their own craft a bit more quality-conscious. Often it is they who allow the persistence of problems which electronic salesmen prey upon. MM is quite right that my comparison doesn't stand up to the extremes of HGVs such as he illustrates. It might stand up better if you consider the context I meant. I have just returned from abroad where I spent five days each in a Nissan Versa, a Ford Taurus and a Cheverolet Malibu, and each had subtle differences in control location and behaviour. You just adapt. So it is with organs. Generally speaking, you approach an organ and the bottom note of the manuals will either be CC or (rarely) GG; the top will usually be G, A or C. The pedals will be of different construction but the low notes will be on the left, going up in chromatic order. The location of stops - left or right, top or bottom - and which swell pedal does what will vary enormously, as it varies between modern cathedral instruments. But the fact that at Winchester the Swell pedal is the left-most and at Salisbury it's the right doesn't make either inferior or obsolete, it's just something you adapt to, like where the windscreen wiper switch is. As for themythes' comments, fair enough - but, a rattly action and worn-out pedals are all things which can be fixed, in the case of the rattles probably very quickly (hours) and at very low cost. As for my "admonishing advice" coming from a position of not having to do it Sunday by Sunday, I am very happy to, and spend most of the working week doing just that. I take part in about 25-30 concerts a year on top of 4-5 services a week, frequently with no rehearsal, and having to do slightly ambitious things like playing a trio sonata on a 1 manual organ (note to self - check NPOR before sending in solos for programme) and keep choral accompaniments interesting for 70 minutes on a 6 stop 2 manual. So I know that perceived limitations can be overcome in order for music to be made, with neither blistering whizz-kid talent nor fistfuls of stops and buttonware at my disposal. "The sort of music I would like to play" and being "saddled" with an instrument "impossible to use for proper practice" are, in my view, putting the cart before the horse. Never mind what you want - what does the parish need, and what can it afford and sustain? What happens when you're not there any more, whether that's next year or in 40 years' time? (You'll go through at least 2 electronics in that time, if it's the latter.) Can you not find anywhere in a 10 mile radius which is suitable for "proper" practice, or build a cheap Hauptwerk setup for a couple of hundred quid for home practice? Or could you spend some time with different organ builders, exploring what can be done on a shoestring to make the organ you already have better by putting right long-established and possibly maintenance-induced faults? There are always (well, almost always) ways to improve without radical, expensive or irreversible change, or throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Is there consistency? No. And just as some of the more prolific consultants have, on occasion, been subject to unkind remarks about the passing of Deutschmarks in brown envelopes, so the same may well go on with electronics now. Allegedly a good organ near me has been 'sampled' by one of these companies, by the arrangement of the DOA who has access to it, and now appears electronically reproduced around the diocese with mixed effect (and, in one particular case, every one of the alternative temperaments mis-spelt). I don't know which two instruments are referred to at the start of the thread, but trigger swells and non-standard pedalboards should not be a hindrance to making music in a parish church any more than different control layouts in different makes of car are a hindrance to getting from A to B. Such limitations are only a perception, there to be overcome and worked with rather than against. If instead the hand is forced to fit the glove, standardisation becomes the norm, innovation and individuality are dead, the precedent is set and the electronics have won the argument. Dazzled with toys and cathedral sound-a-likes, no self-respecting village church will want to be without one, and doubtless will be utterly mystified that they are still, unaccountably, quite unable to attract Daniel Roth or Jeremy Filsell to play for them on a Sunday. Almost no instance, however apparently second-rate and hopeless, is actually as bad as it seems. I know that you have yourself (AJJ) seen what can be done with an apparently disastrous situation by the hand of a skilled and musical builder, and it can certainly be made to last longer than any electronic. (If not, go at once to Erlestoke - the biggest basket case I have ever seen, but now near perfect with no tonal changes.) This is not an argument we should be having any more. All that glisters is not gold, and that applies just as much to electronics as to adding unnecessary upperwork to organs never intended to have them. If the original conception really is so inappropriate for the building, why was it put there and paid for? If the organist really can't play four hymns on it, by what miracle will they be able to play four hymns on a 60-stop electronic? Otherwise, the answer is straightforward - employ someone with vision and musical/liturgical understanding who will get to grips with the fundamental problems of the job (buried position, a century of poor maintenance and 'safety first' action adjustments, the buildup of dirt and unwanted friction) and address them in a way which, in all probability, will also get to grips with the compromises that the original builder didn't want to make the first time round. In short, remove the factors which play into the hands of the electronic salesman. If you can do that without adding mixtures and solo reeds which didn't ought to be there, you will save a bucket of money now and in the years to come. Exactly what sort of "proper" organ music and choral anthems cannot be performed on the instrument as it is, and why? Caveat - unless, of course, you've got an Osmond/Daniels extension organ or similar, in which case you've already got the cheap imitation and may as well start again with one of the many excellent redundant organs around. I still have an utterly ravishing 1905 Walker 2m tracker, complete from strings to pepperpot Oboe, looking for a home...

I am unable to listen to the broadcast from my current location, but could it be the setting from Howard Goodall's Eternal Light? That ought to be Youtubeable and eliminated as a contender. Why anyone would want to use anything other than Alberta is completely beyond me.

Somewhere I have a Peterborough Cathedral recording with dear old Jim Griffett doing the tenor part and (I think) Michael George on the bass. I am aware that Benjamin Luxon does a good baritone part.

I do a performance every year, on Good Friday, with the same choir. The venue changes around rural churches in the diocese who are usually very glad to have a high quality musical devotion come to them on Good Friday afternoon. We use top-quality soloists. Afterwards a few of us adjourn for a fish supper. I realise I am in a minority here, but I find the Stainer extremely well written, apart from the odd moment. It tells the story without leaving too much out, and does so in under an hour with some sublimely beautiful musical moments and (I think) a very moving ending. I'd far rather hear it done superbly than an indifferent performance of St Matthew or St John passion, and I don't suppose I'm in a minority with that one.

Is there a difference between mixing one, two, three or four elements, or 're-interpreting the fruit of several traditions in order to get something new from them' (without which there would be no traditions at all), and consciously trying to encompass all of it and create something which claims to do everything? Perhaps the eclectic label (as an implied pejorative) applies only to the latter. The former is inevitable. Any attempt to create an organ in a bubble, exhibiting nothing at all from other builders, other ages and other styles, is doomed to failure. Even detailed reconstruction of a Smith or England will contain ideas those builders learned from other styles. Like raising a child with no negative personality traits whatsoever, it is simply not possible to do.

This is an interesting question. There are of course many thousands of small, possibly relatively undistinguished instruments. I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of them were 'cared for' far too frequently using methods which reflect the unwillingness of PCCs to get to grips with fundamental problems. An example is a fine little G&D near me which is running so badly that it is tuned through six or seven times a year for special services. After 5 years of this sort of treatment, it would of course have been cheaper to restore the instrument properly and take away the problem, making it entirely possible that this small 5-stop organ with no reeds wouldn't need to see a tuner for a further five years. We Socialists are all about regulation, and some may think that a bad thing, but I cannot think of another way to earn the trust of PCCs and win the battle over what equals good long-term value - except by the implementation of a body which will randomly inspect all workmanship. The IBO's 'tell us which jobs to inspect' approach is a start, but doesn't address the possibilty that a builder will quite happily employ dental floss, elastic bands, drawing pins, masking tape, condoms (yes - repairing pneumatic puff motors) and even good old fashioned gravity (a 42 note pedal rank with the rackboard totally unsecured, pipes leaning back against the wall) in the rest of their work (all items I have removed from organs in the last three years).

Yes, but... it is still undoubtedly true that a great many actions are much heavier than they need to be (and much more uneven) because of poor adjustment of springs, touch depth, and the presence of unwanted friction. In the 'typical parish organ' scenario, that is several hundred times more likely to be encountered than the situation you describe later.

YES YES YES YES YES YES. Yes. Well, nearly. "As light as it'll go to retain repetition" can be too light and end up being counterproductive. You need to be able to control it too.

As others are keen to avoid other types of generalisation, I am keen to avoid the one which says backfall actions are necessarily 'heavy' or 'difficult'. There is no reason this should be so.

I don't know what the criteria are, but I have seen some seriously fishy ones. I particularly think that there ought to be the facility to strip accreditation from anyone who, upon being presented with a Grade 1 historic certificate, sees fit to put it in a plastic-glazed picture frame and affix it to the console with Pozidrive screws. Rather missing the point!

No, I didn't, but I'll listen again. Glad the organ was back on its feet, I was wondering about that earlier. I take it that the blower wasn't at fault, then?

Sounds like Phil Spector or Brian Wilson. I don't think I could cope with the full on Wall of Sound stuff all the time. "Succeed or not to implement it afterwards" - shades of Downes?

Here here.

As opposed to...?