David Coram

Well, it has 842 twice with contrasting elements, two solo voices and two obvious accompaniments, so sounds just perfect to me. Perhaps just an 8' Pedal flute... from an apprentice of Grant, Degens and Bradbeer, too... curse those neo baroquists! At least on this one the Nones are on the outside...

Well, obviously there are neo-baroque desecrations, some musical and some less so. There are also fortunate occasions when a lack of money prevented the axe fall, and those instances are some of our most prized instruments now. The comment about 4' upperwork was obviously a tongue-in-cheek one but nonetheless indiciative of the direction we were heading with our small organ designs from 1900-1950. Look at the thread on Norman & Beard "symphony organs" for example - virtually all 2 manual output of the era was 8884 + 8888 + 16 or somewhere along those lines. I know of a fairly sizeable parish church about an hour away from me which has a 1920's monster with 88884 on the Great, 8888848 plus an octave coupler on the Swell and 16 on the pedal - this in a building which can probably fit 150-170 people and by no means out of the ordinary. My understanding is that it was the widespread acceptance of equal temperament and the resulting jangling mixtures and 3rds that was a key influencing factor in the loss of upperwork - take J C Bishop (by no means an unrespected or unenlightened builder) and his routine removal of tierce mixtures (because of screaming 3rds) for example - and that it was the neo-baroqueists who were among the first to be seriously bringing the issue of temperament to the forefront and revitalising an interest in choruswork. Without that revival, however misguided or appalling some of its legacy may now seem, I am in no doubt that the organ would be almost entirely without players, enthusiasts and talented makers - not to mention the hundreds of historical relics that would have been hollowed out and sold as mini-bars, rather than carefully, scientifically & intelligently restored by the Manders and Drakes of this world, thereby informing us even more of historical and performance practice. I restrict my argument to a certain size of instrument (i.e. small) because a cathedral organ "of the finest disposition" won't be designed to play contrapuntal music first and foremost - it is primarily a liturgical tool, designed to make 500 people sing loudly, in time and in tune, and in the last few hundred years accompany the choir expressively. A small instrument being designed today to suit the needs of today has no such demands made of it. It seems to me to be reasonable to say that the ability to play contrapuntal music would be high on the list of requirements, as that is also entirely compatible with the provision of hymns and voluntaries, and such a size of scheme could never give a sensible account of Howells or Franck with all the 8' colour and flapping swells in the world. Bach mostly conducted from the harpsichord on Sundays, and taught the violin six days a week for the last 17 years of his life. His organ music is unquestionably string music also. This means not just solo and continuo, but also the idea of a dialogue. A badly designed swell will make nonsense of even a trio sonata as the focus of the sound emerging from the enclosure must inevitably be ill matched to the other voice, with which it should be equal in intensity if not directly in scale or volume. (This also raises the thorny issue of encasement.) Surely it's also therefore reasonable to form the assumption that the ancient builders thought along similar lines? The evidence is in the music for how the players used the instruments, surely, or they wouldn't have carried on being built in the same way?

If you have a big anything, then of course my argument falls over. I'm talking about under 10-15 stop territory here, such as the example given by Alistair, where a swell box takes up a) the cash and b ) the space for another rank which will, by definition, be an important part of the chorus. Personally, I feel the neo-baroque boys (in this country, at least; I don't know enough about the rest of the world) probably did more good than harm. Without them, I have a feeling we would now be referring to 4' flutes as upperwork and doing a great disservice to music. As far as I know transmission of the bass of one of the manual 8' stops to serve as the upper octaves of a 16' Pedal stop is quite common and certainly useful (only 12 pedal pipes to find room for, & pay for) - I have seen instances where Bill Drake and Peter Collins have done it (individually, of course, not a joint venture!)

These are all good arguments. My personal view remains: 1) The bulk of the corpus of organ music up to about the time of Lizst and Debussy is based on the principle of a conversation between two balancing choruses. In a very small instrument, enclosing one of these a) leads to a natural loss of projection, destroying the dialogue and b ) occupies the space of one or even two additional ranks. 2) I would not dare criticise Dr Rowntree but it seems incongrous to add romantic colour to an instrument without enclosure. I have been racking my brains for a single occasion when I have required a celeste without the ability to make it quieter. Considering a two or possibly three rank Mixture could probably be planted on the same space, which we are told is a premium, I don't quite understand that. Even a fairly raucous, bell-shaped Gamba as favoured by Bevington would have added a bit of reedy colour without the tuning issues. But then, it would be a boring old world if we all agreed on everything, and there wouldn't be any need for different organ builders & consultants...

True, as far as all that is concerned. With regard to the accompaniment of hymns and the odd Mag and Nunc, and a typically English staple diet of chorale preludes, it seems odd. Of course I know nothing of the acoustics.

Yes, it is, though I was intrigued by the choice of an undulant on the second manual instead of perhaps the more logical small reed. (Perhaps to do with fears of tuning problems?) If space was at such a premium (as the justification for no swell shutters suggests) I might probably have put a fairly broad Hautbois or narrow Trompette in its place as it would provide a more obviously balanced second chorus and open up the way for a great deal more repertoire, especially early stuff. Any repertoire calling for a celeste is pretty much going to call for it to be enclosed, surely, and it's not going to make its presence felt in any registration much above mf?

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.

Whenever I have had smaller instruments, I have been in the habit of removing the Swell shutters in any case. A fundamanetal requirement of contrapuntal music is to have two contrasting choruses and enclosing one of these in a box seems to do nothing to help. I have very seldom missed it. I know you are aware of the Westbury organ, where since the rebuild the secondary chorus has been very definitely moved to the Choir, with the Swell there to provide sound effects, in a sense. This concept took some getting used to when I first sat at it but is really very effective.

Very nicely put indeed, if I may say.

Try: http://npor.emma.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch...ec_index=N18148 Fyvie Castle, N18148 in case the above link doesn't work. Proclaims itself to be a "symphony organ" Also, up the road from me at Somerley Park there's a 2m (N11438) which, although 2 years later, only has A compass (one above is C) and has a similar tonal pyramid, although more conventional nomenclature.

But we're so GOOD at it!

I know. Incredible, isn't it? It's a wonder anyone stays there. If only us straw-sucking tractor-driving peasants could summon up the intelligence to understand any of the above (I know, a tall order), the rural and non-Londocentric arts scene might not be such a completely desolate, barren wasteground. I did hear that we've got Bingo in some places now, but mostly people are still voting for Michael Foot and supporting "Tie a Yellow Ribbon round the Old Oak Tree" in its bid to win Eurovision. My point is that there are serious benefits (both to the organisation and the paying membership) of being NOT in London. Now, if you will excuse me, I must go and feed my pigs. David Coram Too far up the M3 to be of any relevance

Hear hear.

Well, from a Romsey base there's a complete stunner at the abbey, plus within 30 minutes of Salisbury Cathedral & St Thomas', most of the big Bournemouth ones, Wimborne Minster, quite close to Sherborne... someone really enterprising could set up a "treasure hunt" leading to next venue? Perhaps take in an improvisation class at Sarum College, or the English Organ School @ Sherborne?

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 was just looking forward to another 4,236 pages about the Worcestertershire Sauce Organ. You may of course sing the Requiem if you like. Mozart, preferably. I can't hear the Faure one any more without mentally hearing the Classic FM jingle between each movement and "Smooooth classics at 7" before the Agnus.

Here we go - all together now..... one... two... three... *ppft*

The fact of something being in London would make me far less likely to travel there. Personally, I can't stand the place - you can't park, it's noisy, slow, expensive & smelly to travel around, you have to pay six quid for a weak coffee and a sandwich with a sneeze of cheddar on it... No, you may keep London as far as I am concerned. Birmingham is central, well served by road and rail (don't know enough about aeroplanes to express an opinion), far cheaper in terms of property and able to be more lenient in terms of building alterations. You could probably have your own large car park. Or, perhaps go even further oop north - think of the wonderful wool warehouses in the Little Germany area of Bradford, for instance - equally good road, rail and air links as Birmingham. I'm a confirmed Southern shandy drinking... well, I'll stop there, but in these times something being 100 miles further away is pretty much only a psychological problem, not a logistical one; such a move would at least help bring a bit of life back to those fantastic buildings that were restored diligently and carefully a few years ago, and have laid virtually empty ever since. And, even if there were objections, how much would it actually cost to put an examiner on a train to Bristol and London two days a year, to use some existing fantastic buildings and fantastic instruments as regional exam centres?

Sure, it's just an illusion, but it's a hugely useful one and encourages one to articulate as one would on a tracker instrument - it has exactly the right feel. On mine, as much of the organ is located in distant triforiums and inaudible at the console, it's handy to have the noise as well - trio sonatas become two-part inventions with a percussion section, and about three rows back down the nave it sounds lovely. The object of the question seems to have been fulfilled - i.e. Barker and similar devices are still part of the repertoire of the organbuilder, and the choice isn't just between trackers or magnets - that's good to know. The ultimate refinement would seem to me to be something that works normally as an unassisted tracker action on light registrations, but once you start adding reeds and doubles and reach a certain touch weight, the servo kicks in. On paper such a modification doesn't look too tricky - some kind of pressure sensor on the backfall pivot - or you could cheat and just switch it on with certain stops.

I would imagine membership of that particular club is the very last concern on David Wyld's mind at the moment. Getting a full order book and motivating staff would probably be seen as more important. I can think of 4 very prominent organbuilders not on the list either, one of whom has a royal appointment. Isn't it ironic to be applauding a determination to avoid inflammatory comment, then posting this!!!!!

Too late - done it anyway - www.organpractice.bravehost.com - two instruments on at the moment, post yours and I'll add 'em.

I have always found it very difficult to find practice instruments. Even my local diddly church with a horrible 1920's ratbag was wanting me to pay £5 an hour. Other much (MUCH) larger places nearby have quite different policies - along the lines of if there's nobody else using the building, help yourself, and that goes for anyone who wants to use it. Can we, in the spirit of the "learn the organ" campaign, begin a "use the organ" one? I will volunteer to open and run a website (something like organpractice.co.uk) if others will offer the use of their instruments.

I have removed original post, or at least edited it empty. I accept that I had absolutely no idea at all about the political nature of the project. I had assumed from only having read the "official" site briefly that it was a generally happy project with a couple of people sneering, not out-and-out guerilla warfare. I further accept, and have apologised personally to David Wyld, for the nature of the original post which was supposed to appear as a rhetorical question, not as a statement of fact, and happily he has accepted my apology and explanation. I'm staying WELL out of this one. I don't like fighting and even less like getting in the way...

Well, you do have to choose carefully, I must admit - my staple diet is the Orgelbuchlein, 18, trios and Schublers - most of the preludes don't really do it for me - I find Bach works at his best when clearly writing for strings.

The best way to get people to applaud Bach is to play nothing but Messiaen, Tippett and Arvo Part for a couple of months...