ajsphead
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ajsphead
-
-
Hi
I'm well aware of the physics of the situation - including the inevitable time lag with detached consoles - and at one time I played a pneumatic action organ with an attached console weekly (one has to ask why pneumatics in that situation - but it was the "in thing" when the organ was built). Where that fell down was in:- 1) lack of "feel" in the action, and 2: repetition - fast trills tended to sound as 2 adjacent notes sounding together. I've seen/heard the same issues on other non-tracker organs.
Every Blessing
Tony
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
-
Hi
Simple physics (and a few moments thought) shows that the pneumatic relays in an EP action will take a finite time to respond - whilst a tracker action, by it's nature, has no inherent lag. pipe voicing is another issue.
Maybe I'm ultra-sensitive to timing delays, but the only EP action I've been really happy with was the Rye Wurlitzer, with action running on something in the region of 20" pressure (that was before the recent rebuild). This was helped by the fact that console was close to the pipe chamber.
I'm pretty sure that the St martin organ at Girton College doesn't use modern lightweight parts - these seem largely to have fallen out of favour in recent times.
Every Blessing
Tony
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
-
Sorry, but I don't agree.
Such electronic organs are, by their very nature, imitations of pipe organs. I find it quite frustrating on such instruments to find lots of MIDI switches, pistons and the like being installed in place of other more traditional registrational aids. On an electronic Nave Organ in a certain Cathedral I played on for a Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, I found that - where a Swell to Great thumb piston would normally be expected - there was some sort of MIDI piston instead, and the Swell to Great piston had been placed in a rather unrealistic position towards the treble end of the Great manual. I wonder what use these MIDI devices are in the actual playing of the instrument. And why, too, include such devices as "Harp" and "Chimes" in an electronic which tries to imitate a pipe instrument?
I'm not a stick-in-the-mud (I hope!
) but I wonder why it is generally quite easy to spot an electronic imitation of a pipe organ from its console even before "switching on the wind"....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
-
There are different ways of building an eclectic organ; not all of them terribly successful. Was the idea ever valid, or was it merely a musical sleight of hand? Is it desirable to build organs suited to all pieces of music from all ages? If the idea had validity, who did it best, and why?
MM
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
-
Forty years ago there were a number of Anglo Catholic priests in the Brighton area - and elsewhere - who worked on the principle that their church would do what Father said because Father knew best, Father was in charge, it was the right thing to do, it was what Father wanted and Father would have a childish tantrum and "one of Father's turns" if Father didn't get his own way. It had the advantage that you knew where you were and it stopped the more domineering and uninformed laity insisting on getting their own way as often happens in churches now. The downside was that Father was NOT always right and usually he had an army of sycophantic dotty old women and rather camp young men to see his every whim was carried out. One well known vicar actually brought his sycophants with him, lock, stock and barrell, from his previous parish in another part of the country. In his particular case he transformed a somewhat run down Brighton church into one with a national reputation of excellence and activity.
If anyone tried this kind of behaviour today (in either the Anglican or the Roman Catholic church) I suspect that everyone would very quickly tell them where they could go and what they could do with their opinions.
There are varying degrees of pros and cons to both sides.
I would add that nearly all the people in the scenarios I have described above are long since departed. The sad thing about them is that, by and large, they were good, faithful, caring priests but most were absolutely terrified of having to deal with people and confrontation and therefore felt safe behind this shield of autonomy.
Malcolm
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
-
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.
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
-
"there is the beginnings of a book here "
(Quote)
Aha ?
B-H's "Modern organ stops" is still a reference today, despite
the preconceptions against it from the later Neo tribe; he knew
quite better than those what a chorus is...
Pierre
Perhaps such fundamentalists should have been called a Dia tribe.
AJS
-
There's a Tim Dud Smith set of words to the Clarke Trumpet Voluntary and years ago I remember singing a paraphrase of Psalm 46 to the tune of the Dambusters.
'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 don't agree that match pipes need research, investigation and testing over and over again. Historic pipes may warrant material investigation, which would be undertaken by a specialst metalurgist, but general replica pipework is very ordinary stuff for metalhands to make. "
...true - but how many actually get really close to accurately re-creating replica pipework? I can't think of that many successful examples. I probably preside over one of the most successful efforts in the UK - but even here, the builder is at pains to point out the pipes are not exact replicas... (and I think their integrity has much to commend them, despite the very convincing results).
The point here is that you can't know whether you have accurately recreated the pipework unless you can compare it to the original. Your builder was stating the obvious rather beautifully.
"There is nothing new in Organ Building, just a re-cylcing of ideas. The days of Vincent Willis experimenting with pipe constuctions are, I think, largely over. "
If this is the case, then artistic interest in organbuilding is effectively dead and it's just degenerated into plumbing. Without trying out new ideas, refining ideas and constructions, then development of organs and organ construction is effectively stagnant. And sorry, but people like Richards/Fowkes, Pasi, Fritts, Aubertin, etc - are constantly experimenting with pipe construction today. That's partly why they're counted amongst the best builders in the world.
Pray give some examples. I would be fascinated to know how you can change the construction of a pipe. I am not aiming to be facetious, as I'm sure someone said the self same thing to John Compton. I think just to say that organ building is now a recycling of ideas, is a bit harsh. However there can be a legitimate challenge to the man that says 'This has never been done before' - Are you absolutely confident of that ?
"There is always a place for specialist suppliers/subcontractors as long as they are under the control and instruction of the main firm."
It's not merely a question of control and instruction. It's a question of collaboration and working together towards a shared vision. They are different things and I'm sorry if I can't explain the sublties of the differences. One is fine for manufacting plumbing parts, the other supports artistic development.
This is wonderful, and of course quite correct ! A builder would be daft not to work with his subbies. It is as much a man management issue as an artistic one in the first instance. Ultimately though, the builder has to direct, and be responsible for the outcome. It comes down to personalities, as to whether, if the subby has a good idea, it happens or not.
"The craft is in specifying to an appropriate level of accuracy the scales, halving rates and other information; communicating that information effectively..."
I think there are many, many organbuilders (and artists and craftsmen, for that matter) that would take exception to this. I could do all you outline above with comparative ease. Does this make me a great organbuilder? Of course it doesn't. There are many organbuilders in the US that do precisely this - have all their parts (including soundboards and cases) made by trade suppliers, put it all together and put their name plate on it. You can even sub out the design work as well. Is there anything original in what they've created? Why don't we count some of these builders amongst the finest in the world? (except I'm told many of these types of builders (esp in the US), relying on trade suppliers, believe they are amongst the greatest builders in the world - and they also have the salesmen to back it up - well, what else do they have to offer?).
Ah, but could you do it all and know you would be right. Or could you be wrong and convince everyone you were right because the result was what you intended all along. Many things happen behind closed doors. Also, how much of what happens is accidental, but succesful, and if so, who will take the credit. What I am merely saying is you can't always exercise the level of control you would like, claim to have done, or indeed think you have, to achieve the final result. Some of it is down to luck. Absolutes do not really exist in practical reality.
"Cutting the metal sheet up and soldering the bits together in a given order is something either done right or wrong"
Errm, no it's not. It takes many, many years to learn how to make a metal pipe. It's not a black and white process as you make out - it's something that requires great skill that takes years to perfect. Just like playing the organ, for exmaple. There are so many little details to take into account - it's just not a question of supplying all the technical dimensions and data and thinking you'll get the same pipe from 2 different supply houses.
But, you're either any good or you're not. Do the pipes work or not. Even the best pipemakers get a dud one now and again. Voicers will normally tell whether a pipe is any good. You can teach a monkey to make a pipe, and it'll probably work. Making good consistent pipes takes practice, adopting different techniques takes time, if you're willing to do it, sorting out the funny ones needs experience, and sometimes a bit of luck. However, making pipes is a mechanical process which you're either good at, or not.
"The list of firms Bazuin provides are not, as s/he states, the best organbuilders in the world. They are merely the most successful... implies nothing whatsoever about excellence, only salesmanship"
Oooh! David! Do I detect inverted snobbery and jealousy here? Define "success" as you see it in the context here.
Most of the builders Bazuin lists don't employ salesmen and operate on a small-ish scale - maybe 8-12 people - but some are significantly smaller. Some of them have a very small output indeed - maybe one organ every 18-24 months and an all-new organ every 3-5 years. I know of one builder Bazuin particularly admires that is a 1-man company and yet he makes everything - metal pipes, keyboards, etc - himself. Very few of Bazuin's admired companies have had large financial backing to get them started. Why does Bazuin admire them so? Because of their artistic achievements in the field of organ building, their understanding of the craft of building organs, their standards and their principles, their desire to make sure that every part of the organ construction, to the smallest detail, as good as it possibly can be. The reason why people want their organs is everything to do with artistic excellence and very little to do with salemanship: most of these builders will get a contract not through glossy brochures and an offer they can't refuse from a slick salesman, but through discerning clients experiencing their organs and letting their organs' qualities speak for themselves. And, for some reason, these organs are so good that discerning clients are sometimes quite prepared to pay 50-100% more for one of their organs or to accept a significantly smaller organ for the money they have. And, no, these companies don't make vast profits and these organbuilders don't drive around in swanky BMWs to get to their mansions and holiday homes.
I wouldn't want to be too effusive here. You really would have to get to know the man and how he makes, spends and invests his money. As a client you have no real right to know this, so only know what you see.
In summary, there is a great deal of difference between parts supply and collaborating with a specialist in their field and I'm interested how many of the responses above have ignored this point.
-
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
-
"Philipp Klais explained the company had been particularly keen to secure the Auckland project because it envisaged a style of instrument closely matching Klais’ own evolving thinking on the future of the concert organ."
(Quote)
YESSSS!!!
Pierre
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
) but I wonder why it is generally quite easy to spot an electronic imitation of a pipe organ from its console even before "switching on the wind"....
Wakefield Cathedral Choral Evensong
in General discussion
Posted
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