Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

ajsphead

Members
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ajsphead

  1. I'm trying to locate a copy of Leo Sowerby's Pageant of Autumn. I think Graham Barber is the only person I know who has a copy, and I can't find one anywhere in the on line music shops or Roger Molyneux. It's a really good piece and I have until 21st September to find and learn it.

     

    Many thanks

     

    AJS

  2. Back to Liverpool, as Bazuin suggested, maybe the best solution would be

    the simplest one: have Willis & Sons bringing it back to its original state,

    according to first-hand archives.

    Again, this won't please everyone. But no other solution would please

    everybody, as well....So at least that one would ensure a benefit: an historic organ

    of world-class value, recognized as such worldwide.

     

    Why go for a fast food if you can have Grande cuisine ?

    Ambition isn't pedantry if there is something behind it !

     

    Pierre

    In principle, with this organ I would tend to agree. If there are enough resources to add an echo organ, then I would have thought returning the instrument, and, if wanted, keeping the current unenclosed choir, resited, is a possibility. All that concerns me is the documentary or anecdotal evidence, or lack of it, of the little tweaks that are inevitably made to many organs as the players get used to them and hear how they function. These are not the changes presented as changes, but those which happen behind the scenes. We say boldly that the organ was so good when installed that it didn't need changing when the cathedral was finished. Ostensibly that seems to be the case, but what about for example, pushing the trebles of the top 2 ranks of a great mixture, which can be undocumented, and carried out during a 'tuning' visit. Just a note of caution, not everything is exactly as it seems or is reported to be.

     

    AJS

  3. Up another road from Gloucester there's this one.

     

    (It is isn't it?)

    Sorry , I think the prettiest thing about that case is the chamber organ in front of it. To my eyes, it's a lumpen overbearing thing, and it's a shame it had to stay. It's also a shame that the organ it clothed was lost. Ah well never mind.

     

    AJS

  4. Thank you for feeling able to share this with us. I would like to say it is a great priviledge to think that what some of us have said has helped and encouraged you, and I hope we can continue to do this. Perhaps some of our London based members can offer practical support. I would love to, but the trip would be rather too long.

     

    Very best wishes

     

    AJS

  5. Oops, have I put my foot in it? I'll take these as a "yes" then.

     

    No, please don't be concerned, you haven't put your foot in anythng (as far as I know), rather come perilously close to banging a large nail on the head with an even larger hammer, which in one particular sense leads to a great deal of collective pain.

     

    AJS

  6. This may be a dumb question since I know nothing of the organ building trade, but how many voicers are there today compared to 100 years ago and could this be a factor in the equation? I imagine the major firms have in-house skills, but I understand that many smaller concerns subcontract their voicing. (Then there are those who merely slot secondhand ranks into an instrument without any attempt at revoicing them to blend - but we'd better not go there).

     

    I know where to start, but perhaps with more relevancy, I don't know where to finish, so it's best I don't start.

     

    AJS

  7. I have heard comments to the effect that some much-favoured UK firms currently end up turning the tonal effect of each organ they work on into 'yet another' of their own jobs. This is not how it should be. HN&B used to do this - scattering minimally-nicked fluework about amongst good-quality existing material - culminating in very 'fifthy' (I nearly wrote 'filthy') mixtures. Look what happened to them....and to the organs that they worked on! We do not need all our organs to start to sound the same...even if the voicing was of the highest quality imaginable. Uniformity ends up by being dull.

     

    You've raised a couple of very interesting points here. 'turning the tonal effect of each organ they work on into 'yet another' of their own jobs'. I am not sure there is anything new here, it's a common thread throughout organ building history that this happens. I understand that this is a bad thing if it's badly or inadequately integrated - jonny half a job never worked. Firms in the past extensively worked on previous material to ensure that it did integrate, and hence, we don't notice because they did such a good job, and in many cases, the styles were not as dramatically different as romantic/symphonic treatment against quasi neo baroque.

     

    'We do not need all our organs to start to sound the same...even if the voicing was of the highest quality imaginable. Uniformity ends up by being dull.' This is a different point, and to me, extremely pertinent. In the 19th Century builders were working from different standpoints, some with a German bias, some with French influence, some still doggedly English. Each of them produced a distinct and recognisable sound which we tend to lump together as 'Victorian symphonic or Romantic' depending on who, how and when. Remember 1840 and 1900 are both Victorian, and there was an amazing metamorphosis in instruments tonally between these dates. In fact we could say the same for 1940 to 2000.

     

    However within whatever period, builders had a distinct style. An 1880 Willis, Hill, Walker and Bishop organ will all sound distinctly different. This is what I think we lack now. Responsibility must lie with both the builders and the advisors, and also to some extent with the customers who for example ordered a Willis etc organ because that was the sound they wanted. They all now sound so similar that I don't think it applies nearly as much now; yes you can tell a difference, but only if you are initiated and listen properly at an appropriate distance to determine this characteristic. I am a firm believer that voicers hear too much on the machine, and not enough from 50/100 etc feet away.

     

    As I have said here before, until we start to look for a way forward, builders are prepared to develop house styles that clearly differ and don't just look backwards to look forwards, advisors are prepared to give them the flexibility to do it, and customers are prepared to take a 'risk', I'm not sure where we will end up, but I do feel it could be even more uniformly dull than it is now. It's not for nothing that houses are painted beige inside before sale. Apparently it offends no one, is readily accepted and can be lived with day to day. Well bland homogeneity offends me. Lets have some gold, silver, orange, purple, yellow etc. It worked for Messiaen, it could work for others too.

     

    AJS

  8. If you need reassurance on this, I can speak with player and builder experience of Nicholson and Lord jobs - they are very well made, splendid-sounding instruments. A N&L is fully the equal of the contemporary firms in the provinces, John Nicholson, A&S, Binns, F&A, early H&H etc. I have a lot of pipework from their job ex St.Paul's Walsall and it's splendid stuff - modest pressures, solid but transparent choruses etc. Put it this way, I have never met a poor one and there are not many firms of which one can say that.

     

    I am also happy to say that N & L jobs generally are well made, if a bit tight. The mechanical actions are perfectly good, but make sure you have it rebuilt sensitively and thoughtfully, as you can still improve the touch a little. The pipework is normally good quality too. Should give you donkeys years of good service.

     

    AJS

  9. A happy and holy Easter to each and every one.

     

    I shall be spending Good Friday morning with one of the accolytes removing the engine from my MGB. After Easter Sunday morning both I and the other regular organist will be handing in our letters of resignation. Credo nonnullus ibi mortuos esse, and as far as the vicar is concerned, nemo aspicit, quin ingemescat et id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

     

    There's still time before choir practice, and I feel the composition of an introit in the Latin style of William Byrd coming on, as soon as they here 'credo' they'll all be happy.

     

    AJS

     

    If anyone wants a translation they can pm me after Sunday.

  10. The most recent Nicholsons I've seen speak to me of unapologetic modernism in their own style, when the gloss of traditional English nomenclature is removed: they are built in an uncompromising modern way which speaks more of efficient manufacture and wholesale adoption of modern techniques than building in a particular style. Not that there is anything wrong with that: builders have always done this throughout history and Nicholson organs are soundly made and finished. The same goes for the tonal result, which seems to aim for the same sort of tonal qualities that Wyvern and Makin seem to arrive at, albeit with the advantage of real pipes. Not that there's anything wrong with that - they are competent and worthy organs and fulfil the needs and expectations of their customers - but they're not like a vintage Hill, Lewis or Willis. Not that you should understand I am criticising Nicholsons in any way: when faced with something genuinely competent, the senses are keyed up to the next level and the bar for excellence rises. I will be interested to see how far Nicholsons go to recreating something genuinely romantic at Llandaff or whether it remains on the gloss of the stop list.

     

     

    Making no reference to any current builder, except to discount those who choose to build predominantly in a historically biased style, I think you have touched on a problem with modern British organs, that seems to have no current resolution. They are, for very largest part well designed and made, and as machines, competently executed to a world class level. But they have, to my ears, no character. I think the same comment can be levelled at some continental builders, but I am choosing here to limit myself to comments on home soil. I think the problems extend to differences in the manufacture and treatment of pipe metal before the pipes are made and the grades and scalings chosen to achieve the desired result, the quality and nature of the timber used in wooden pipes, the layout of instruments, disposition of soundboards, choice of winding system etc. The Romantic organ, or the baroque organ or whatever is a synthesis of all these things and more.

     

    What we have produced is a modern organ. What frustrates me is that organ builders and advisors try to pin what they are doing on things from the past. Out of great Hills little hillocks grow. Even a modern Harrison with an Arthur and Harry style stoplist will sound different, and I wonder what exactly customers are looking for when they order an organ from a particular company, and are presented with an instrument with a particular style of stoplist. To build a Romantic organ, you have to build a Romantic organ, not produce a Romantic stoplist, use some period scalings, and call it a Romantic organ.

     

    My personal opinion is that we are producing a lot of 'Vanilla' organs. Almost everyone likes them, very few people find them utterly distasteful, and they perform their role perfectly. This of course makes very good business sense, and with the cost of new organs, from that perspective one would be foolish to criticise. Our electronic organ manufacturers have also realised this, and are producing machines that make a similar sound (finer points notwithstanding). They know it sells, but are doing nothing to further the art. Sadly, the art is, in some senses very much secondary to the finances. You are principally running a business, so to produce something that might further the art, and take it on a stage, is a calculated risk which few are willing to take. In most instances, we are back to a common human thread - 'we buy what we like because we know we like it' .

     

    I wish we could lose the tags and references to the past, something which I suspect neo baroquery has tricked us into doing - did we ever do it in the UK before 1950? - and start making a true distinction between those organs that are built wholly in a period style, for which the tag of that style is appropriate, and otherwise call them 'modern organs' . What I think we will still lack is a vision for the future, but at least the present will tell its own story.

     

    AJS

  11. 2 movements from Christopher Steel's Suite 'Changing Moods'. It seemed apt for that particular clergyperson.

    Tournemire's Improvisation on the Te Deum. This was particularly sweet as the churchwarden had asked me to record it as part of the audio track for a promotional video for the town, and my credit will be there for evermore.

     

    AJS

  12. Why didn't you tune the Swell to Great is a particular favourite.

     

    Also don't you tune the Pedal Open Diapason. Explaining that partial removal of the instrument to do so, wasn't really understood. Last time I went there - actually a blessing.

     

    AJS

  13. This one is awful. Given the description, I think Rieger developed a new type of action called mecahanical (trecker) which is slower than a bad exhaust pneumatic. I think the acoustic is exhaust pneumatic as well. It also shows a detached console to the right of the stage, not being used by a recitalist in a concert hall, perhaps they couldn't get it to speak at all from that.

     

  14. This may be overstating the case. There exist in this country many Romantic instruments in a variety of sizes, a number of which have either had little or no alteration (tonal or mechanical) and others which have been treated with respect by virtually any standards, save those of the most fanatical preservationists - which themselves could be considered restrictive and occasionally obstructive.

    Etc, shortened for the sake of space (which I unwittingly appear to have taken up myself).

     

    At the risk of spending the next series of posts having to defend my opinion, I find much here that I have to agree with. Possibly because of the deleterious treatment of some instruments in the mid and later 20th century, I limit my comments to the UK, having insufficient depth of experience to comment on European occurences, it appears that there is a lack of clarity in understanding the purpose of a pipe organ. I do not include the USA in this, as attitudes there do not entirely mirror those here, and I find the attitude towards protectionist preservation, or not, better argued, although this may be just coincidence. I by no means limit myself to considering comments posted here.

     

    I cannot recall a time in history when organs were subjected to preservation arguments as they are now. Occasional instances have, I am sure, happened, but not as a cohesive and recognised movement. It seems to me that my comment above is probably to some extent at the root of this, but I would not be so bold as to say that I entirely understand why.

     

    To me, the knub of the matter is whether the organ works - I will try to identify what this word may mean later. Organs in the past that have not worked, when the opportunity arises, have been altered so that, with the best intentions (not without exception) of the custodian and practitioner, they do within the context of how they were understood at the time. Now what about the people subject to changes of fashion - well that's human nature, and a matter of record throughout the entire history of organ building, in a sense, that is the historical norm. A trawl through the histories of any 10 prominent organs extant for more than 150 years will easily demonstrate it. So, for the first time, collectively, we are deviating from the norm, and I think understanding why should help to polarise thinking and provide some of the missing clarity. I am sure that Pierre is right when he identifies those proponents of neo-baroquism, who said they were trying to re-create the baroque, and clearly were not, as being part of the problem. Whether they truly believed they were or not is another debate, but I think constant cries of disingenuousness, for the UK, are somewhat misplaced.

    My own opinion is that we are deviating from the norm, and looking back to preserving our history because we both recognise that some changes were made which should be reversed, but that also we have no live vision for the future. In a sense, neo baroque was the last collective vision for moving forwards into new territory, and having identified it's mistakes, we have not replaced it with anything new, merely a re-working, reconstruction, restoration of the past.

     

    Inevitably, somewhere, this will be at odds with the concept of whether the instrument works or not. Sadly, in my opinion, very many of the organs in this country do not work at one level or another. They must be reliable in their construction and operation, and excuses that, in the words of the car mechanic, they're all like that sir, or, it was made that way sir (so you'll have to put up with it), will not do. We know enough, and have the skills, to make those that do not work properly in this way, do so. There are a small number of instruments which, by virtue of being unaltered from their original or prime state, should be preserved despite the fact that they do not work at this level, because they are historical documents and should be preserved. They however are the exception, and not the rule.

     

    To continue the argument, the instrument should be capable of performing the musical duties required of it by the custodian. Organs are foremost musical instruments, not museum pieces, exceptions above acknowledged, and so should have the resources, and reliability, to perform this function. I think we can scrutinise fashion here, but we should, if we do so, scrutinise the fashion of our current age at the same time. The question should be answered, why is leaving something more valid than changing it, if, in leaving it, the past is preserved, but the present day, and the future are not promoted. We have, as a general rule, to be aware of now, and prepare for the future. Again, I caution this with recognised exceptions, which is why I say a general rule.

     

    The player should be able to play the instrument with relative comfort, and reasonable resources, and if changes are needed, they should be placed in the context of the points made above. We have a liturgical context to consider in religious buildings, which differs from place to place and tradition to tradition. One size (often in the chancel) does not fit all. Mind you, DAC's are tarred quite often with the same protectionist and preservationist approach, being influenced by the arguments of the day, so as to render the musical uses of a musical instrument secondary; they are also very good at stopping acts of vandalism, so there is a continuum here that we should be aware of, but a basic question which, quite often is improperly answered, or not answered at all. In a civic context the requirements are different, and should be addressed in different ways. There is nothing new here, but we still seem unable to get it consistently right with new organs in either context.

     

    When dealing with instances of eminent and highly experienced organists who wish to make changes, in my opinion, they are the authority on the use of their instrument. We should not quite so readily question them on the grounds of historical context as I think at the moment we are inclined to do. Again there are clearly exceptions to this, but we are not dealing with idiots, and we should be very careful so as not to appear patronising towards them.

     

    At the risk of carrying on ad infinitum, I will pose a question to conclude. Do the roots of the future a. lie in the past, b.replicate the past or c. view the past as something to be mimicked in a modern context. Hindsight, foresight, reaction and responsiveness are four key elements here.

     

    AJS

  15. Getting back to UK instruments; my first encounters with a 'Trompeta Real' type reed, and definitely the most striking organ sound I had heard as a 12/13 year old was the 1961 Walker at Ampleforth Abbey.

    This vast instrument features a 'Trompetta Argentea' which is situated away from the main organ in a small gallery at the base of the large central dome (rather like siting the Trompette Millitaire in the whispering gallery at St. Paul's), although not a true chamade the reflective effect and superb acoustics of the spacious chapel give this stop tremendous impact. If I remember correctly it is of the spun brass type and was silver plated (hence the name).

     

    This instrument (finished shortly after the influential rebuild at York Minster) was the first of 3 ground-breaking 60s instruments for major churches: Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral and Blackburn Cathedral. All feature chamades of varying resonator construction which sound quite different. Oh, not forgetting of course, Winbourne Minster.

     

    Walkers also included chamades in a number of their 'house style' tracker instruments from the 70s onwards; City of London School comes to mind, I'm sure there were others.

     

    Considering the size, quality and importance of the Ampleforth organ it is surprising how infrequently it has been recorded. Noted musician Philip Dore was the first organist and I think his son William now has some role there on the music staff.

     

    DT

     

    The Ampleforth Trompetta Argentea was also made by Boosey and Hawkes. It is of course not strictly a chamade reed, but in a way I am glad. Without its construction as is, we could never have called it 'The daffodils'.

    This remains one of my favourite instruments, early neo baroque JWW without the Downsian oberton, and IMO a perfect marriage of instrument and acoustic. I think it represents a more natural example of the genre developed by the builders without the overbearing influence of a consultant, and is all the better for it.

    I have a recording of the Dupre Stations of the Cross played by Simon Wright, a really lovely man, I hasten to add, which is simply stunning.

     

    AJS

  16. I can imagine that type of sound being v useful on the pedals. I play an organ near me once a month that has an 8' Dolce on the Great, that is very soft and slightly stringy - too soft to accompany the Oboe, so I wonder what use it is! On this organ too, there is a (very soft-attenuated by enclosure) Dulciana on the Swell, which I don't think can be very common - the only other one I can think of is Bristol Cathedral.

     

    Also on this organ, the Hohl Flute is why I hate Hohl Flutes, and the Large Open on the Great is far too big to build even a chorus to mixture on - it just dominates everything. I tend to use it as one might (very occasionally!!!!) add the Tuba to full organ.

    I am familiar with an instrument in South Wales where the word Tuba could be inserted in the name of every stop on the Great, it creates an undeniable blend of tone, best heard from the channel. Tuba is a wonderful acronym.

     

    AJS

  17. Has anyone ever mentioned a Dolce? What use are they?

    To pick up on one of the other threads, the Pedal Dolce on the Grove organ in Tewkesbury Abbey is a triumph. Soft, clean, slightly stringy and so much more versatile than a Bourdon. It's completely in keeping with the concept of the instrument, and a great shame IMO, that we don't encounter more pedal basses like it, particularly on smaller organs although there are many similar examples often with different names on our larger ones.

     

    AJS

  18. Flor Peeters'-Largo? Great fun to play, as you would discover :P and how about Jongen's Choral, short and concise, and very beautiful indeed. With Holy Week on the horizon, how about the Lament by Harvey Grace? Little played, but a gem.

     

    To really surprise people, Aaron Copland Episode!

     

    R

    What about the Jongen Minuet Scherzo. Requires some careful synchronisation, but has some lovely lyrical passages and a light touch. I often play it alongside the Chant de Mai, during May (obviously). Picture crisp spring sunshine, cherry blossom, and a light white wine, and you're along the right track.

     

    AJS

  19. I think I would agree with what Norman & Beard felt about close-toned chorus reeds, which would possibly include Edwardian Swell Cornopeans, as well as the usual Great Trombas.

     

    They may have a place as colouring registers in very large instruments, and Trombas often make a nice foil to the more overwhelming sound of Tubas, but in my experience, these type of stops simply do not, and cannot, blend with normal fluework successfully. They blend OK with Tibias however, which possibly says it all!

     

    Quite why anyone felt it necessary to improve on the imposing Trumpet registers and much more fiery Tubas of Fr.Willis, is beyond my understanding. One only has to listen to St.Paul's Cathedral to realise how effective such stops were, and then compare these to splendidly restored, but much "clangier" sounds of the Trombas at the RAH.

     

    Close toned reeds need to be "bound" to a chorus, and that was possibly the reasoning behind the classic Arthur Harrison/Dixon Harmonics mixture, and when such Mixtures are replaced with quint ones, the effect is not especially fine with the Trombas drawn.

     

    Norman & Beard spent a lot of time trying to make closer-toned reeds blend with the fluework, and when Hill, Norman & Beard did their best work, they always chose trumpets over closer-toned reeds, to great effect.

     

    So, I hate Trombas!

     

    MM

     

    Trombas, specifically of the honking type, often 1930's, tick side out on about 8'' pressure. Nasty noise. Quite different from the Willis or Walker ones which have a genuine ring to them.

     

    I also have a particular dislike of 'frying bacon' strings. Just because you can get a pipe to go at that scale and with that mouth treatment doesn't make it a good idea.

     

    And to the other extreme in style, 'biscuit tin' principals, as found in some prominent recent new instruments.

     

    AJS

  20. "However, the question rermains, should such an instrument be altered - or should one simply not apply for a job at this school and leave it to those who do like it?"

    (Quote)

     

    Dear Pcnd,

     

    YES!!!!

    You are 100% to the point there.

     

    Pierre

     

    I think this organ falls into a difficult category, hence to some extent, the diversity and division of opinion. Put briefly,is it successful and representative enough to justify being kept exactly as it is; is the argument for saving based on this, or because it is unaltered, and should therefore stay that way. I would want want to know more about it's 90 year history, both written and aural, before making a judgement on that. If it was saved unaltered, could it guarantee to provide regular, effective and satisfying use to its owner.

     

    Whilst it seems to me aurally, as far as one can judge in these circumstances, to demonstrate the skills of the firm that built it, and even on that basis alone is not without merit, that does not necessarily make it effective and satisfying to use, again much depends upon the context it will be used in.

     

    It seems to be one that could justify being saved as it is, with it's owner being very proud of their fine example of the tonal concept and design of a small Skinner organ, and I feel that the way the pendulum on these matters is currently swinging would be in favour of this, which is not to say that it is right of course. We are, after all, very often confident that what we currently think must be better balanced than what we thought before, and doubtless our predecessors were and successors will be similar.

     

    In my opinion, you could keep it as it is, although I question whether long term success and satisfaction from all different perspectives will result.

    The Skinner work could be augmented in Skinner style succesfully to increase the potential in repertoire and liturgy.

    It could be sold "Cheap to a good home" and make it someone else's problem.

     

    If asked whether I would want to play it, as a one off, probably yes, on a regular basis, thank you but no.

     

    AJS

  21. I find a good Swell Open Diapason to be one of the most useful stops on an organ, as they can do so many things in repertoire and accompaniment. I far prefer a diapason as the foundation rather than the flute+string option. I used to play a Father Willis with a "minimalist" swell of Open Diapason, Gemshorn, Mixture and Trumpet. The whole thing was was superb, and the diapason was a real "multum in parvo"

     

    Couldn't agree more. I also often play an 1870's Willis with the minimalist Swell of Open Diapason, Lieblich Gedackt, Gemshorn and Hautboy, albeit with later Octave and Sub couplers. The Open is often the first stop you draw when registering. It's small scale, about 2 7/8'' Tenor C, the bass is stopped wood, 4 1/2 mouth, slotted and drilled. There's enough foundation tone, but it's not weighty, and, understandably, has a slight cutting edge to the tone which helps clarity. It also works well up to about treble g on a partial draw, beating against the Great Dulciana. If it didn't have these characteristics, very much inherent in its period Willisness, I doubt it would be nearly as useful.

     

    AJS

×
×
  • Create New...