ajsphead

Indeed it is, a good solid one at that and not as well known as some. I also found the music dept there very friendly. AJS

Well what I suspect you're describing here is bad/cheap organ building. I too have played and encountered electric/pneumatic actions with these symptoms. Most of them, although certainly not exclusively all are caused by issues with the keyboard - either depth of touch/firing point or type of key return mechanism or just the basic quality of the keyboard. Also, if the pneumatic portion of the action has been badly designed or poorly regulated then it will display the same symptoms. A poorly regulated or designed mechanical action will display similar symptoms, although rarely to the same degree. It's not a fault with the generic type of action, although there are better and worse designs, as there are for any type of action and I still wonder about the concept of low pressure exhaust pneumatics. It's more a matter of quality of parts, manufacture and maintenance. AJS

A few thoughts to help here, as I think a tracker action and well designed pneumatic action will be as near identical in speed of response to a finger, limited only by the ability of that finger. A pneumatic action is limited by resistances and pressures. The system is permanently full of air, it is not a vacuum. I know this is obvious but it's amazing how many people still think that the molecules of air have to travel from point A to point B before the action will work. Likewise with electrical current, the charge does not have to go from point A to point B. What will affect the system is the pressure of wind and the level of resistance. Pressure of wind is fairly obvious, but don't assume the pressure at the action reservoir which is what is normally quoted, is the same as at the soundboard and don't assume every soundboard is the same. Resistance is relative to tube and boring dimensions, smoothness of inner walls, flexibility of leather, position of wires within registers or borings, negative spring pressures and the electrical resistance in wires and magnets. With mechanical action clearly a lot of these things are not relevant. However, the human finger is more limiting than the speed of air and electricity if they are working to their optimum, so I don't subscribe to the principle that pneumatic or electric actions are per se slower than mechanical. If you position three consoles in identical relationship to three soundboards and achieve the links electrically, pneumatically, and mechanically, you'll never hear a difference, so long as they have all been built properly. I would further wager to suggest that you can fire off a good electro pneumatic action with a machine more quickly than any finger can manage. Don't judge this by the speed of the pipe either. An action can go much quicker than a pipe can speak fully. Also, again I know it's obvious, but is still easy to overlook, electrics and pneumatics allow for consoles to be put in all sorts of places which can trick the ear into thinking there's a delay whereas it's a relative matter of the speed of sound versus the speed of wind and electricity. AJS

My church does exactly this as well. AJS

I totally agree with this. One of the first things I did with my 3 manual practice organ was to remove all the superfluous rubbish enabled by a computer, but for which I could not, and still cannot find a musical use. Yes I had to build a new kneeboard and resite the toe pistons, blank off flashing lights, make new returns etc for the console and do a bit of wiring as some switches which logic told me should have been wired in parallel were wired in series instead, but it only took a couple of days. The thing is much less distracting to play, and with speakers now at ear height rather than knee height (I haven't yet met anyone who listens with their knees, although similar anatomical comparisons are quite widespread), it's very revealing of bad phrasing and inconsistent touch. AJS

Having given this some more thought, I think we have a situation in the UK where almost every organ is eclectic in some sense. even those that apparently are not, still are if you start to be very accurate about a style. I think this has tended to muddle our thinking a bit, and leads me to a question about when an amalgamation of styles is deemed eclectic or not, my personal opinion is that I would regard it as such depending on the level of amalgamation. Yet another grey area. Does adding slotted diapasons, flutes harmoniques and french inspired reeds to a Father Willis make it eclectic; I think you see my point. Furthermore, we have precious few true neo-baroque organs in the UK, so I am beginning to feel that we use the term incorrectly. Again, does adding some open toed, unnicked (don't mention the languids) pipes either a. make them neo-baroque (I think not), or b. make the instrument to which they have been added eclectic ? I wonder if we are talking about pedigree in a breeding sense here. Pure bred versus interbred. we have some pure bred instruments, although again not that many as a proportion of the whole, and many of them are mass market 2 manual village organs. What remains is interbred or perhaps hybrid, and I think we need to determine the difference between hybrid and eclectic. A true eclectic instrument is hybrid, but hybridisation does not necessarily create eclecticism. AJS

I suspect that the understanding of eclectic that we have, is closer to your use of the term neo-classique. The problem with the term eclectic is that it can encompass the baroque and neo-baroque too, hence my multiple use of the term eclectic to differing degrees. I think perhaps we could tighten up our use of terminology a bit, and certainly consider that what we have as a common organ style now is closer to your description of neo-classique. However, eclectic and neo-classique cannot be interchanged, and I wonder if our thread author might have meant neo-classique. This would remove a certain amount of mud from the mire. If so, I would think it was the extant style from the early 50's onwards in the UK, and is in fact far more common than neo-baroque. It started by being weighted by its Romantic forebears, moved towards it's neo baroque cousins, interbred with them, and produced a lighter breed of instrument, looking more like its romantic forebears on paper but with a moderated lightness of tone assimilated from the latter. In short, a hybrid, definitely eclectic, but the eclecticism of today is not the same as it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I'm therefore still struggling to answer our author's questions. AJS

I suggest that it would be useful to look at what was being done prior to the main 'eclectic' period, quite where one argues that it should start, develop and end I think is part of the difficulty in understanding it. It is easy, as it tended to coincide with the neo-baroque, that the two can be muddled. It also needs to be looked at alongside musical developments in the associated period of time, arguing about which side drove the other, or whether they developed together in a form of synergy. Having achieved some kind of respectable conclusion to those debates, I think one needs to look at those instruments that were built 'eclectic', those that were changed to be 'eclectic', and those that were 'eclecticised', but are not necessarily 'eclectic', and as per my point above, those that were neo-baroqued to make them 'more versatile', and hence in some senses 'eclectic'. Having trudged through the mire of these arguments, I suggest that what we commonly produce now in the UK is an 'eclectic' instrument which has developed from what we used to call an 'eclectic' instrument, and doubtless will evolve further into an equally 'eclectic' instrument. Is it desirable ? Well, I find it easier to argue from what seems to me to be the other side of the same coin, which is homogeneity. There is a great risk that, in pursuit of the goal which you quite reasonably suggest above, the net result can easily turn into all instruments sounding broadly the same, which is what I tend to find now. This leads to your last point, again justified I think, about validity, and leaves the point about who did it best as virtually unanswerable. AJS

This is still true today. I have experience of working with three such priests, very much as you describe, barring bringing their sycophants from a previous parish. However I also know three priests who embrace none of this, and I hasten to add that their churches do seem happier, with a noticeable closeness of community. Your description rings true in so many ways, but my great frustration was always that, for those of us who declare a Christian faith, dealing with people, and accepting confrontation are very much entwined with who we are and what we profess. AJS

Cheers Paul. It's beginning to make a bit more sense now. AJS

This instrument always makes me smile. Neo baroque with a hint of nuts. Not for those with an allergy. AJS

Can someone put some bones on this one please (no rags needed). . At 1.47 you get a good view of the maker's name on what's obviously a tpn console, but I can't get the resolution on my screen to be sure of what it says. Am a bit concerned given the context, that this might be a redundant 4 manual organ of reasonable pedigree in need of a good home. Thanks AJS

Someone else may see this differently, but I'm assuming the other end of the backfall is at the back of the lower set of keys. If so, can someone please enlighten me as to how this action is going to work properly. For there to be a point to the springs, the collars should be below the backfall, unless it's meant to be part of a G-P coupler, acting on the top notes of the Gt. Anyway, why does it need 2 springs to return the action, assuming there's one at the pallet !!! If it's part of a manual action I was assuming/hoping the wires weren't attached at the other end. See my comments in the thread on mechanical action and performances. AJS

My definition of retaining repetition includes this. There's no point getting a machine to do repetition if your fingers won't do it. Mind you, this is part of the problem as many organ builders do not have agile enough fingers to do repetition like an organist. I've met many frighteningly light touches - 'go on, give a recital on it if you dare' and agree with you. I think you also have the message about many parish type organs in this country. Bazuin, in what I say, I'm not making any judgments about what is good or bad. The point I am making is that actions are not necessarily set up to encourage the player as much as they could be - hence the relevance to the thread. The fact that historically there are differences in actions throughout Europe at different times is all perfectly true, and if we are to work with them, or in their style we should respect and understand that. However, it's a bit of a smokescreen to what we regularly encounter in this country, and how we encourage everyday players, and new players to take to the instrument. We have to relate what we say to what we find, and thence to what can be done about it if it's negative or discouraging. You can always blame the organ for the problem, but it ain't necessarily so. AJS

I find myself becoming very frustrated, the more mechanical action instruments I encounter. So many of those that are old enough to have been rebuilt, and plenty of others besides, do not need to be as heavy as they are. So much depends on the training and mindset of the builder who last rebuilt, and/or subsequently 'adjusted' the action. If you are rebuilding, then you have what you have in terms of components, unless you choose to replace them, but say, barring pallet springs, centres and threaded wires you choose to leave them as they are. I have found numerous instances where actions remain unnecessarily heavy to produce a verbal comment to the customer, replying to the self-consideration of the builder, about the risk of ciphers. I still see things too tight and too strong, and hence, unless there is another factor, which quite often there is, the action is too heavy. In short, safety over responsiveness, accepting a good knowledge and competency, which is easy to argue, but not very satisfying to play. I would dearly like to hear 'that's as light as it'll go to retain repetition and not cipher' a lot more often. That then leads me to ask more questions about how repetition is tested, and to what levels, but that's off on another thread. AJS

Perhaps such fundamentalists should have been called a Dia tribe. AJS

'God is our strength and refuge Our present help in trouble And we therefore will not fear Though the earth should change Though mountains shake and tremble Though swirling waters are raging God the Lord of hosts is with us Evermore'. It's around 25 years since I sang this, but I'm pretty certain this is an accurate first verse. I believe it came from a book called Psalm Praise first published in 1973. AJS

I have found that some pipeless organ specialists are more considerate to their surroundings. One I recall turning down a job because they wanted to install a custom 2&26 when the church wanted an all singing off the shelf 3&50 odd. The problem is that often, the off the shelf models are considerably cheaper than the custom ones IRO 20-25K for a stonking great thing, and people think they are getting value for money. It's rather like 'Fill up your plate for a fiver from the local pub' It's bland, its dry, and some part of it definitely came out of the microwave - forgive the allusion, it's ended up being more accurate than I first realised. A good custom installation can cost a similar amount to moving a good quality redundant small 2 manual mechanical action organ, but as for rebuilding what you have, that becomes a piece of string argument, and I suspect the digital alternative will more often be cheaper. I am not against digital instruments, and have often recommended them when faced with a church who want an organ, can't afford much, and are faced with a decaying heap of junk. Different arguments exist at different levels. The solution needs to be tailored to that. We should remember that we are predominantly collectively drawn from one sphere of the argument, and that most people involved in the decision making are not, hence what is obvious to us is not always so obvious to them, and, dare I say it, vice versa sometimes too. In terms of the cost of ownership, until you start to talk about specifics it's impossible to really answer it. I like 2 manual mechanical action organs with about 10-15 stops, and no reed. Once a year tuning, and should otherwise be bombproof if installed properly. Much beyond this, and you can't really compare the 2 sides of the argument. A pipe organ will cost more, on a yearly basis, to run. I don't generally find that talking about whole life costs is of much interest. Many churches struggle to survive financially from year to year, and that is what clergy and treasurers are most concerned with. Hence digitals win hands down, unless there is a movement in the church to keep the pipe organ for whatever reason. Much of this does come down to PCC arguments, and hopefully good common sense from the DoA, and a willingness for the parish to listen. AJS

How about the Langlais Fete. I think you could work the Tuba into it without too much problem. AJS

Still use, and have yet to find a better version than, the Willcocks God rest ye merry, and The first Noel. AJS

If it helps at all, I have a list of Hope Jones patents, one or two of which, as you can see, have little to do with organs. What also helps is not to think that H-J wanted to create a theatre organ. I tend to find it's better to think of his work as a Zenith of the symphonic style, not an intended creation of the one man band. 1. 1890. Pat No. 6,172...... UK..............Increasing the amplitudes, sonorous, or other vibrations 2. 1890. 15,245........UK..............Apparatus for reproducing sonorous vibrations 3. 1890. 15,461........UK..............Ten inventions involving keyboards, contacts, valve seats, tremulant, swell shutters etc. 4. 1890. 18.803........UK..............Second touch, transposing device, sforzando switch, swell shutters etc. 5. 1891. 18,073........UK..............Reduction of current, contacts, couplers, first stages of unit organ construction. 6. 1893. 14,466........UK..............Contacts, current saving, roller board couplers, Pizzicato touch, flap valves etc. 7. 1894. 5,782..........UK..............Pipe designs, diaphragms in organ cases, forms of reed pipe. 8. 1894. 16,849........UK..............Organs. (As per Patent Register list only.) 9. 1894. 22,414........UK..............Diaphone, Reed tongue, bellows springs, compound composition keys. 10. 1894.24,067.......UK...............High pressure solid air chamber. 11. 1895. 21,558.......UK...............Modifications to Diaphones. 12. 1896. 14,473.......UK...............Operation of prompt starting of Diaphones. 13. 1896. 24,352.......UK...............Springs on single ribbed wind reservoirs. 14. 1897. 21,389.......UK...............Valvular reed. 15. 1897. 28,157.......UK...............Assistance in operation of drawstops or tabs, and Swell pedal. 16. 1899. 449........ ..UK...............Double touch on composition or combination pedal or piston. 17. 1901. 26,737.......UK...............Seven forms of apparatus for producing sonorous vibrational sounds. 18. 1901. 26, 738......UK...............Diaphone, worked by rapid vibration of a perforated piston inside. 19. 1902. 702,557....(USA)............Same as British patent 26738, above, assigned to Fog Signal Company. 20. 1903. 4,531.........UK...............Modified form of Diaphone. 21. 1903. 9,159.........UK...............Suitable Bass, Push-button couplers, moving stop tabs, coupler cut-outs. 22. 1905. 787,984....(USA)...........Piston type of Diaphone. 23. 1913. 8,192.........UK...............Stabilising tuning wires in reed pipes. 24. 1914. 1,119,080.(USA)*.........Automatically operating electrical mechanism for revolving doors. 25. 1916. 1,203,621.(USA)+.........Second touch giving initial inertia finger pressure. 26. 1917. 1,230,165.(USA)*.........Improved sound-trap joint in swell shutters. 27. 1918. 1,283,774.(USA)*.........Xylophone with hollow wood resonators. 28. 1919. 1,292,321.(USA)*+.......Expressive electro-pneumatic action for player pianos. + Assigned to the Wurlitzer Company. * Administered by his wife Cecil Hope-Jones AJS

Members might be interested to read the information contained here: http://www.cathedralorgan.nl/ which gives a certain amount of detail, and here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7686...ag=content;col1, which gives a translation of the Dutch, and some additional comment. AJS

I know. Perhaps the obvious to some of us is finally beginning to sink in. Question is, is it just fashion, or will it be here to stay? Are some consultants, and builders finally beginning to use their ears and brains? I really hope so. AJS

This http://www.orgelbau-klais.com/m.php?tx=91 gives a stoplist, but doesn't say what's new. This gives the details of the public opening http://www.aucklandorgan.org.nz/. Interesting choice of timbers and finish for the console. AJS