ajsphead

I don't know the organ intimately, so I hope members will freely correct any factual inaccuracies but the situation appears thus to me. The organ was not originally built for the Parr Hall, so there is no argument for saying it is an artistic union of instrument and environment. Therefore it can be moved. Sheffield Cath have 'no money'. Therefore it's not going to be put there, at least until such large scale funds become available. This takes time, and town councils are not known for their patience in artistic matters when other priorities arise, although some are more enlightened than others. Is it the right place ? I think the issue about the dry acoustic is a justified one. Should it be restored. All things are possible, but if you took a straw poll of cathedral assistants, how many of them would choose to accompany evensong on a Cavaille console, compared to a typical English one. If it's a matter of, the only way it's saved is to restore it, then I don't really think an English Cathedral is the right place for it. To say that some churches with choirs in France have original Cavaille consoles, so this should follow suit, is not really an argument. There are countless others which perform the same function and have been altered. If it is a matter of saving it because a new custodian will accept it only in its modified form, then I would argue for it to be left modified. At least it will then be protected and used, which for an organ of this importance I would regard as more relevant than a dogma over action type. The barker lever could be restored with electric stop action. This is a compromise that often works well. To be able to restore the action and retain protection and use is the ideal to achieve. Better to do something, save it and use it, than argue, do nothing and lose the lot. It should be remembered that the clock is always ticking. AJS

It looks like a tender type specification, not totally refined, but with the overall concept worked through. Consequently it is a little muddled to me. Lots of questions to answer before some reasons may become apparent. Big church - how big and what shape, seating capacity, choir & relationship of organ to choir position. Relationship of organ to other listeners/ congregation. Height and depth of organ site and proximity to walls, corners, ceiling. Nature of construction and design of the walls, floor and ceiling. Acoustic, rough duration, and what is amplified or lost. Primary use of instrument. Secondary uses of instrument in priority order. Some basic fundamental questions here. Doesn't stop it from appearing a bit like a list of stops plucked from a list of stops. Definitely needs focus whatever the answers to the above are. AJS

I don't think this is a typo. It depends on what you regard Man I to be. In the context of this organ I suspect I the Great (Hauptwerk) ie principle manual. I agree with pcnd's view of the case. The architecture at organ level is based on circular forms, so straight lines will jar a little. I also wouldn't want to associate the word werkprinzip with this case. I don't see how a true werkprinzip would work, and as we are not blessed with soundboard layout, I'd steer well clear. It's hard to really understand some aspects of the tonal design. A true traversflote 4 and a principal 2 in what I am assuming to be a widescale cornet decompose, assuming by virtue of the inclusion of a Nazard; hmmm, need to see the scalings and precise pipe design before I could be sure about that. Would have been happier to see two 2's on the positive, the principal based one then designed and voiced very brightly to account for the lack of a mixture. Both 16's on the Swell ? Surely more versatile if they are split either way on Swell and Great, don't specifically have a preference, depends on the context, but a Clarion in the Swell would otherwise be good. Not sure about the Pedals. Much depends on the Open Principal 16, not sure, by implication what a Stopped Principal 16 would be. What is it and how has it been designed ? How punchy is the upperwork ? Could Untersatz actually be Hintersatz, which would make a lot more sense. Whatever, it's a tall order to get an organ that looks like this not to sound harsh and dry in a space like that. Let's hope they pull it off. AJS

In light of the H & H console, I was particularly happy to see the name of one of the editors at 02:19. Surely not a badly disguised nom de plume. AJS

You lead me to a fundamental point which I have oft mentioned, and never really got very far with. When we build an organ, what we should collaboratively seek is the right organ for that space and for its use. My own standpoint is that the latter should be tempered by the former, in other words, you have broadly the stops you want, but the tonal philosophy, ie rightness for the space must be the final arbiter. That can therefore be any type of organ, from a style existing, or indeed not yet created, and until we stop following the old Irish addage for giving directions 'well if I wanted to go there, I wouldn't be starting from here', we will always potentially compromise the foundation of the philosophy behind the piece of art. The basic building block will not be in place. It is however next to impossible to say to the customer, in effect, you shouldn't have what you want because it's wrong for the room. You end up doing what the customer wants and trying to make it fit the room as well as you can, sometimes more successfully than others and we regularly call the more successful ones a success, not knowing how much more could have been achieved if we hadn't started from the thinking of, I want a French Romantic, North German Baroque, Victorian English, American Classic, etc etc organ, or indeed from the organ builder saying, my preferred approach is a ... insert all of the above. We all have our preferences, but we come and go. The organ and building remain, and we have a duty beyond our own desires to use the opportunity to get it right. AJS

An organ should be clearly audible throughout the building. I have found many people mistake, 'hearing the organ' for 'the organ is clearly audible' - note the word clearly. Wherever the instrument is positioned in the building there will have to be an allowance made for that position to achieve the latter state. In this country we have innumerable organs that fall into the 'hearing the organ' category and I think that has contributed to people's minds becoming atuned to thinking that this is what it should sound like. When listeners say the organ is too loud, I find myself needing to ask so many questions to find out whether this is a valid opinion, that I normally can't be bothered. Allowances for position will therefore inevitably mean it's loud in some places, and less so in others. Many instruments are not sited to fulfil their primary function, or if they are, they may experience compromise to fulfil secondary functions, so someone will say it's too loud, or too quiet, depending on what the instrument is being asked to do. What we need is more focus to help instruments perform more than 1 role from one position, or adopt an entirely different philosophy. This is not just about adding an odd stop here and there, but an integrated plan. Consider this question. How many cathedral organs can adequately lead and support a full nave congregation on full Great, not an unreasonable suggestion I think, and when making the judgement, ask yourself if you have ever stood in the 2nd bay from the west door, and not felt like you are singing a solo. I am not saying that there is nowhere where this is not the case, but rather looking for suggested weight of evidence leading to analysis. In a square dry box room, scaling and overall conceptualisation are so important, you have much less margin for error. Warmth with clarity tends to work well, but if your client wants fat or brittle and you know they won't work, they are probably not the right customer for you, trouble is they have £800.000 dangling over your pocket, so don't be too critical of the organ builder. This type of room throws up another issue. To take an example, in my opinion sharp mixtures and french type chorus reeds are very rarely successful. This is not necessarily loudness, but tone quality, and we have to differentiate between these two things as well. Again many people say it's too loud, when in fact it's too sharp toned. A sound can be quiet but still be aggressive, likewise it can be loud but bland, and equally as unsuccessful. We are very good at hearing, but not always so good at listening, and often fail in thinking about what we are listening to in terms of where we are when doing so, not just physical position, but our position in the entire environment. AJS

You've made me look at the front of mine. As it's priced at 10 & 6 I suspect it's a first edition. Am revelling in the fact that, at long last I have a chamade reed to play it on. AJS

Langlais Suite Breve 2nd movement needs top g, also Sowerby Pageant of Autumn and a big piece of Sigfrid Karg-Elert (other than his name) that needs a g too. AJS

Straight and concave for me. I find you have far more space for your feet around the heel end, and I personally find I can pedal in more styles far more precisely. It also seems easier to adapt from S/C to R/C than vice versa. Have found that straight flat pedalboards are quite a stretch for the leg opposite the extremity where the notes being played are. There's obviously a degree of personal taste in this, but a quick trial of one against another won't really work as your legs and ankles and brain will tend to go with what they know. AJS

We should also remember that things are different in other parts of the world. Below is a cut and paste of a description of an organ from across the pond. Out of deference, I have removed the name of the builder concerned, although it was writ large. The worst organ that I have played is a pneumatic organ in a Presbyterian church in town. It is an XXXXXXX built in 1980. In the pedal, the action caused the ranks to sound like a harpsichord plucked a string, first the 16 foot, then the 8 foot, then the 4 foot, and last the 2 foot. The manuals don't feel good under one's hands, and did not feel crisp, like I prefer. The organ is as cheap and cutcorner as imaginable, borrowed ranks from unenclosed divisions and enclosed divisions, making the expression pedals only good for certain registrations. The entire thing is crammed into and 8' X 8' X 10' space, every long pipe is mitred. There is only room to crawl under the chests. The pedals were marked and scratched from years of being played in dirty tennis shoes and the pedals had lots of sideways play. Every time you push a piston there is a sequence of bangs from inside the console and a loud smack as the drawstops all fly in and out according to the registrations. The expression pedals don't move smoothly, but scrape along loudly. The tone colour is sick at best. The flutes sound airy and underpowered. The lower octaves of everything is muddy and distorted, as if submerged. The swell mixture is shrill and screechy, overpowering the rest of the swell organ. The bombarde on the pedal is underpowered and sickly sounding. The nastiest stop on the organ is the Trichter Regal, a four foot extension of the trumpet. It produces tones like an alley cat raping a light socket. The great Mixture is shrill, like an angered Chihuahua with amphetamine psychosis. I couldn't make one thing sound good on it. This thing will tear your face off! AJS I would also hate for Cynic to stop contributing. The forum would be collectively poorer without his contribution.

There is a point worth bearing in mind. If, as a player, one has a problem, or opinion whether good or bad of an instrument, it should be voiced, in the first instance to the custodian or owner of the instrument. There may be a good reason for the situation, and it may be currently under consideration, or have been dealt with in the best way possible by agreement of the parties involved. Unless absolutely cogniscent of all the facts and background, it is impossible to make a jugdement, and therefore inappropriate to make a comment. These things, by and large are private matters. this doesn't stop an opinion being voiced, it just tempers how, when and where it is done. That, to me, is the point here. AJS

OK, at the risk of being deliberately provocative, I'm going to suggest that the 4 broad areas for giving a firm a job are sound, money, friends and nods and 'salesmanship'. At this level I'm not including quality of workmanship because that should be a given. Money here is clearly not a primary issue. As far as connections go, only the people involved know whether they have them or not, so we're down to talking about sound. This is where in the context of this forum I get particularly provocative. Where is there a British builder who can, in their recent repertoire, demonstrate an organ with the sound of a typical modern Kuhn instrument, assuming that that is the sound which the RAM have asked for. There is a trade off in some customer's minds for the direction in which British organ building is currently going, and this may be an example of it. If there's a general collective direction and production of Hillocks and Willisons, you'll entertain the possibility of going elsewhere if that's not what you want. AJS

It could be a Kuhn, a Mathis, a Felsberg or a Hauser, but I think I know what it will be, a I'll be very happy to listen to it. AJS

It's hard to answer this one without knowing the relationship between the note played and the extraneous notes sounded. The suggestion of the oft unused Mixture is very plausible to me. Is the Mixture a mixture 3 ranks 1-61, or a repeater, or taken from a selection of other ranks a la Compton. I'd expect it, on your description to be a 3 rank repeater. If so, I would start my checks with a multi meter following the voltage path looking possibly for something like a failed diode allowing the current to return along a path it should not. Impossible to know really until you catch it in the act. Suggest you check for spider's webs as these are quite conductive on solid state. AJS

:angry: Ha ha ha. What intrigues me is the use of the word earthquake on a German organ. It wouldn't have been my first thought for English nomenclature being used there. AJS

Went to Liverpool a few weeks ago and found a recital in the Met. William Mathias's name popped into my head, and I fished out Invocations when I got home. Why does no-one play it now, or is it one of those pieces that just needs to be brought back onto the collective radar ? AJS

This topic stirred sumething in my subconscious. I found this link http://www.infrasounddesigns.com/. which skates over a few things including what I remembered. 64' and 128' stops are only a small skip and a jump away from sonic weapons, investigated although I'm not sure if ever used by, the US dept of defense. AJS

The clunk you can hear is probably the drawstop machines or solenoids returning when the current is switched off. Therefore the stops are off with the current off, so there's no point leaving the drawstops out. Even with mechanical drawstop action, the benefits are minimal, and probably outweighed by the potential for letting dirt and small creatures into the soundboard. Cleaning dirt off the pallet, resetting the pallet spring, or adjusting/cleaning the pallet guide pins is easiest done with specific tools, so if it continues, call your organ builder to do it. AJS

and a different curve. AJS

Certainly in my experience your assumption is correct. The reeds are placed on a separate soundboard or chest allowing them electrical or pneumatic independence from the rest of the Great. It's often seen with heavy pressure reeds of the Tromba type which can then be accompanied by the Great, used in a fanfare style, or coupled through choir to pedal to provide a different tone to any pedal reed. It's an inevitable compromise, but something is normally better than nothing. AJS

Some of these have sealed for life bearings. You'l know if they're worn when you turn it on. If you have one with oiling points, chain oil for chain saws is the right sort of viscosity. AJS

My daughter aged 4 1/2 has swine flu. She is going around the house making pig noises and foraging for food she has hidden. My wife also has swine flu; she is not graced with the same sense of humour. I do not have swine flu, and retain a penchant for bacon sandwiches. AJS

Ah yes, but what about all those visits to the supermarket where you pick up a tin or packet that someone else has touched before you, or travelling on the bus or train where someone has touched the handrail before you, or been to an eatery where someone has touched, or even, shock horror, sneezed on the table before you. Hundreds of people may have scratched their arses before touching what you have just touched, and we never complained about that. I think if someone sneezed into the chalice before you, it would be withdrawn regardless of swine flu. With the existence of gingivitis, oral thrush, herpes simplex or even a common cold, existing prior to the outbreak of swine flu, and on any chalice anywhere in the world, you'll forgive me for laughing out loud. Should we all now refuse to shake hands with people when we meet them. Should we refuse the peck on the cheek from our European brethren, or a pretty lady (or gent) for that matter. It's all rather risable. I know I'm clean, but I don't trust the person next to me; where would we be if we keep that attitude up to communicable diseases. I would worry if we all grew short curly tails, and began to forage in the mud for our food, but we won't. The reaction is utterly disproportionate. AJS

I first think we need to differentiate between instruments that are a work of art and those which are not. Those which are at the same level as the works of Constable, Lowry, Francis Bacon, Jackson Pollock, Salvador Dali, Reubens, Raphael etc are, to my mind, excluded from the discussion. However, there will always be the opposing sides of an argument, trying to resolve the question 'What is the organ here to do?' Analysing the organ as you would a piece of art - style, school, motivation and message, method etc, helps here more than you might initially think. Was the original builder motivated to produce it solely as a work of art, or as a living breathing usable instrument, in fact, in the case of many instruments, both I think apply; or was it something produced to meet the needs of a simple mass market, or the call of a patron ? Not every organ falls into the former category, and certainly in the UK, many fall into the latter mass market category. Those, and others, substantially changed over time could be said to fall into the 'mongrel' category. Some might initially be aggravated by my use of the word mongrel, but not every dog is a pedigree, and look at what character, interest, usefulness and enjoyment would be lost if there were no mongrels. Per se, it is not a bad thing, and to my mind, there is no place for one-up-man-ship in this debate. It does however encapsulate the seeds of the argument that these instruments can be altered, as indeed mongrels are when they interbreed. I see little strength in the argument that they should be left as they are. A particularly noteworthy example of the genre of Victorian mass market organs can be argued as desirable to keep as is, and I think, should be - however not all of them - there is some genuine rubbish out there not just from the Victorian period, and we should be man enough to admit it and sort it out. We should also be able to see evolution in an instrument, and categorise it as an evolving instrument. This too is a distinct format, and who are we to choose where to stop the process. What I think is sadly missing is an algorithm - a way of guiding custodians to know what to do with an instrument. If well enough constructed, all instruments that should be saved and kept as they are will be, and those that can change will be allowed to change without every one being described as worthy of restoration because someone considers it historic. It could also give power to the argument for reversal of past mistakes if enough substantive material and evidence remains for this to be done effectively. I am aware that this is a massive topic, and I don't want to take a whole page trying to explain what should be the subject of a book. The short answer is, it depends on the organ. AJS

I suspect what we have here is the difference between those of us who are technically correct and knowledgable, and the issue of how being so appears to the general public who are much less likely to be either bothered about what is technically correct, and are probably far less knowledgable. One recital/concert will be different to another and will appeal to different people, some of whom will care what it's called and will care about being correct, and others will not actually give a fuff, being more interested in the music, venue, performance etc. I suspect the increasing use of concert may be a marketing ploy by concert hall publicists, note that we also have recital halls too, in order to attract people to hear the organ in the way they would come to hear an orchestra. I don't think it has anything to do with musical content, although something popular and accessible would be more likely to be the order of the day, but merely a way of trying to get people in to hear the organ. The organ world is often seen as very insular, and I think they are trying to get over this. I can live with being technically incorrect, after all I know whether I am right or not, if it means people get to come and listen to good performances, on good instruments, and to increase accessibility to the organ. AJS