[Podcasts]

I'm slightly perturbed to read on the New College website that they had to run the cables on the outside of the building along the roof. How did they get them into the building? Holes drilled in the roof? What happens when it rains?

 

Well, I suppose it is a "holy" place....

[Descriptions]

"The sound of a harpsichord - two skeletons copulating on a tin roof in a thunderstorm."

--Sir Thomas Beecham

[Paper Organ Pipes]

There's a seller on Ebay who flogs cardboard organ kits from time to time. I have no idea if the following youtube clip is one of his kits or not, but it gives you an idea of what an organ sounds like if built entirely out of paper (even the bellows, chests and keys...)

 

[Small Willis organs]

Our Hill organ (OT, sorry ...) is a splendid example how 7 stop can be enough, specs quite like the above.

 

You certainly have a treasure there. Feenstra seems to have really made a name for relocating British Victorian organs to the continent and thoroughly restoring them. He bought up the lovely Bishop from my previous church after the roof blew off during a tornado (!) though I haven't seen it installed anywhere yet, so perhaps he has a treasure trove of organs awaiting new homes.

[Changing tastes]

So, what music (choral or organ) do contributors find they have similar experiences with of things suddenly clicking into place, and is there a rationale behind why this happens?

 

I for one could never understand or enjoy Messiaen, it just seemed a perpetual "messy" blotch of notes and dischords.

 

Until one night in King's College Cambridge, where Gillian Weir concluded a recital with a blast of "Dieu parmi nous".

 

Need I attempt to explain further how the epiphany was triggered, or have I said enough already?

[Blinded sound tests]

The person creating the samples whether CD recordings or any other recording method will know which is which unless you ask someone else to change the names of the files being played and even then you might recognise differences between performances, so I'd suggest there is no way the instigator could be blinded (ie knowing which sample is which). Single blinding ie the audience doesn't know which organ is which, is perfectly possible though. The problem I can see in having different performers playing different organs is that of style and consistency - I can think of recordings on organs that I would have classed as second tier or second rate, yet the playing is breathtaking; and other organs in which the playing is mediocre yet the organ is of the highest calibre. Was your audience responding more to the performances or to the organs? How can you be sure? In medical studies one seeks to eliminate all differences other than the one under investigation when undertaking randomised clinical trials.

 

I risk exceeding the boundaries of this forum, but since we are discussing recordings of organs and Hauptwerk is essentially a pipe-for-pipe recording of an organ, another interesting approach could be to make a MIDI recording (ie just the notes) a single time, then play back through different sample sets to hear the subtle differences between organs of different builders (I presume the sets would need to have been recorded without reverberation so as to create a level playing field). That's probably the method least likely to introduce any sort of performance bias - though that approach introduces recording biases (as does the original of course) - namely that a well-recorded instrument may sound better, clearer perhaps than an instrument of inherently higher interest that has not been optimally recorded.

[The war of the organs]

Sorry, this whole seed message and comments have been deleted after consultation with John Mander because it could backfire on the forum host.

 

If you want to start a "funny" April Fool story about an organ firm, please start with your own firm.

 

Rachel Mawhood

Moderator, Mander Organs

[Turning the pages]

I might be thinking a little too ambitiously but seem to recall the suggestion that some music software, used in conjunction with a MIDI-enabled keyboard, was able to actually recognise where on the page you were and move the music along accordingly so you never need to make page turns at all.

[Turning the pages]

Oooer! - very neat - maybe an iPad is seriously in order.

 

A

 

 

When working in Congo I had to go to Kampala or Nairobi to do any organ practice so would simply take my music collection as pdfs with me on my laptop and set the laptop upon the music stand - not very heavy and you can orientate pdf files to landscape or portrait to suit the orientation of the laptop. Music worked best in portrait with the laptop on its side.

 

To turn pages go into full view and then the left (bottom if turned!) mouse button becomes page advance. Better still if you have a remote mouse that you can click on. Of course you have to turn after every page, not after every second page. I'd imagine that the current crop of tablets might be a little small to legibly an A4 page compared to a typical 13 inch laptop (don't forget organ music takes up three staves for each line of music), but it's certainly a very versatile way of having any amount of music on tap in a jiffy.

 

A number of Hauptwerk users have giant digital monitors - a 26 inch would work well for covering roughly A3 size - for displaying left and right pages and page turning software can turn one page at a time, ie you start with 1,2 after the first turn you have pages 3,2 then 3,4 etc. I guess eventually this will trickle down into a church or concert hall with a digital music desk built into a pipe organ console.

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

The bottom line I think is threefold:

1. Shrewsbury Abbey has an instrument of musically very fine pedigree (i.e. an early twentieth-century, pre-Great War Hill) in original condition with a few later bits tacked on with varying degrees of success.

2. It is absolutely at the end of its useful working life, having never had much maintenance during its lifetime; I suspect Arthur Hill would be amazed and impressed if he could see it now, but equally would not be surprised that the action and winding was on its last legs. Were pneumatic actions ever designed to last centuries without any maintenance, unlike small tracker actions?

3. Vicar, choir and congregation cherish the instrument and want it brought back to first class condition.

 

Whilst there have been minimal tonal changes to the original pipework (I don't know if the Swell oboe had to be revoiced or not when it was transplanted down an octave, but the remaining Hill pipework is pretty sound and all made in one batch), there have been a small number of later additions, none of which have with hindsight been spectacularly successful. So we know what doesn't work, and these can be modified if necessary.

 

We also know what was intended - and yes it's bizarre that the earlier modifications (apart from the Great reed) never really seem to have followed the original plan to complete the organ. So things are at a crossroads. One could reverse the more unsuccessful later changes (for instance I think there is room for a 2 foot on the Choir, but the Choir needs a Gemshorn 4 rather more than it needs an insipid 2 2/3 stop), and try to recreate what we know Hill intended had the money been there from the beginning. In doing so it gives a chance to amend slightly those things that in practice have been limiting but could easily work more effectively without modifying chests or pipes - for instance turning the buried and poorly sounding Choir from an Echo division to a Choir division just by considering the internal layout and maybe jettisoning the (later) box since originally only the two choir reeds were enclosed. There is no reason why that should require new soundboards (I note elsewhere Nicholson's response to the earlier question about Malvern Abbey was that they reused all the existing soundboards). To answer another question, yes an extra chest would need to be placed in the Swell where there was floorspace left for the heavy reeds but no windchest (I haven't risked my neck to climb up and confirm but am going on what was reported a while ago). Incidentally some of the later changes (e.g. the Great Posaune) were specifically given in memory of people, and it raises an interesting question about what to do when someone generously donates something like a stop that turns out not to be very useful or attractive. Unfortunately the console at Shrewsbury is a bit littered with little brass plaques beside the donated stops, and at the very least one would want to tidy these up a bit (though the Posaune itself would certainly be staying!)

 

Alternatively all additions could be jettisoned and the organ returned to the incomplete state that it was originally installed in. Inevitably that would also mean throwing out the blower (added in the 1920s) and going back to handpumps (long since removed, but the two slots in the lower case where the hand bellows used to sit, and get flooded whnever the River Severn rose, are still present). Oh and it would also mean scrapping the simple but fine case since that was later too.

 

On balance I think the former approach is the more sensible, the more musical and the more useful for the purposes for which the Abbey needs to use its organ.

[Anyone know where and which this is?]

I'm struggling a bit, but having thought about it, this organ has a certain 'Wicks' look about it, and there is a VERY similar looking instrument at St. Mary's Cathedral, Peoria, Illinois by that company.

 

MM

 

I'm not sure Peoria is that similar:

http://www.scottmontgomerymusic.net/wicks.jpg

 

Interesting challenge - is there a prize for the first correct identification?

 

Contrabombarde

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

Please don't!

Well OK, if the reservoir proves to be a part of the organ frame and the frame has to be dismantled to get at the reservoir then of course the reservoir would be dismantled! I would have thought the logical thing in that situation would be to put back the reservoir but not built into the frame so that the only way of repairing the reservoir in future is to dismantle the organ. No idea about the Abbey, but other organs I have encountered with buried reservoirs seem to have been designed in such a way as to make repairs impossible and that doesn't strike me as sensible, especially where there is actually plenty of potentially unused space.

 

My guess would be that only the first 30 (or 32) notes of the Great Double are on an independent chest, above which they sit on the soundboard. Therefore, you're not going to be able to borrow or extend to the pedal without making (and locating) a standalone unit chest for this rank. Therefore, you may as well provide an independent rank and not take up valuable floor space with something which is not going to add anything (because it's already doubled by the manuals).

 

There is some sort of mechanical/pneumatic borrowing device to enable the DD16 and Violine 16 stops to be drawn together or separately; the pipes themselves are on the facade so must be conveyanced from somewhere. For what it's worth, several notes of the Violone don't sound on the Pedals when the Violone is drawn alone, but do sound if both the Violone and Great DD16 are drawn.

 

The very instant you change anything. Restoration means putting back.

 

In which case I guess even completing the builder's original scheme counts as a rebuild not a restoration!

 

I'm glad there has been no mention of digital pedal stops. I know some here like them, but they never seem to last long.

Hey, what a great idea! Thanks for the suggestion, that way we could have a 32 Contrabombarde and a couple of dozen other stops too....

 

Noone has commented on the question of temperament - my expectation would be that the current flat pitch of C517 would most likely be maintained, but how close to concert pitch can an organ be, if not already at concert pitch, and be brought to concert pitch without significantly altering the character of the sound? Reading earlier comments about the subtleties of perceived control of pneumatic action makes me wonder whether in a blind test there would be any discernible difference for some of these things.

 

If it didn't materially affect the sound then it might be worth considering to allow the organ to be played along with other instruments. Even for choir practice, switching between piano and organ can be annoying.

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

The proposed scheme seems to suggest, with its 4 swell reeds, that some sort of separate swell reed chest is required. Is this chest already there? Is there space in the swell box for this? Was this part of the structure of the organ in the first case?

No and yes. A high-pressure reed chest would need to be built for three high pressure reeds but there is space in the Swell box. The present Contraoboe 16 (sitting on the Vox humana slide) would ideally be returned to 8 foot pitch as Hill left it; the slightly vulgar later Cornopean sits on the old 8 foot oboe slider.

 

The next issue is the wind system. What reservoirs are there in the organ? What is their history? What divisions do they supply? My suspicions are raised here because of the stated lack of tremulants on the organ - original Victorian builders rarely included tremulants if there was just one reservoir in the organ as it would affect the entire organ. Tremulants that are on Victorian organs with one reservoir have usually been fitted later (although I'm sure somebody will come back with some organ that proves I'm wrong on this point).

 

There are currently four double rise reservoirs; I believe the Great and Pedals are on slightly higher pressure than Swell and Choir and I assume there must be something to charge the action but don't know what or where. Being a Hill, the action is charge pneumatic, not exhaust (which I presume is relevant to the discussion around possible electrification).

 

If there is to be a new separate reed chest for the Swell Organ, you'll probably need a second swell reservoir. Where will it go? If you throw out the existing reservoirs in the organ in preference to a system of several modern single-rise regulators, are you really "completing the instrument to its designer's dream"?

 

All the current reservoirs will need to be releathered; the main reservoir is an integral part of the instrument and the whole organ would need dismantling to get to it. Whether it should be replaced by something more easily accesible for future repairs might need to be considered. But there is oodles of space for additional high pressure reservoirs; the organ takes up a significant chunk of Abbey real estate behind the North Choir but behind the Abbey in the Chancel bay is the vestry and the organ could extend back a good couple of metres if necessary (but hovering over the vestry if it did). A new blower might well be needed for other reasons.

 

Similarly the Great Reeds/ Choir Tuba item. This will require a separate soundboard if you want them playable from the Great and Choir keys, which, ignoring important stylistic considerations for a minute, will lead to questions about a different wind pressure as well, which means you'll need to think carefully about the wind system again. Was this part of the original scheme? The (utterly magnificent IMO) Hill organ at Eton has a Great reeds to Choir transfer - and very useful it is too - but the reeds have their own soundboard.

 

No, not original and perhaps the biggest deviation. The trouble is, the current Great Posaune is quite big (double length resonators) and a bit too loud for a trumpet but certainly not a tuba. For big civic occasions something bigger would be useful, at the end of the day the purpose of the restoration is to have an organ fit for purpose and fit in health, and what is being proposed is almost the completion of the original scheme yet allowing for the fact that its uses, and the Abbey needs, do change over the course of a century!

 

Pedal Octaves and Super Octaves are not part of any Hill 1911 scheme and are entirely inappropriate. I doubt they would add value, except in an attempt to play the organ in a neo-classical manner which is foreign to this style of instrument. If you want more weight on the Pedal Organ, I would suggest you look at the solutions Hill used and do something similar - the Pedal Trombone and a 32ft Open Wood are more appropriate suggestions. A Pedal 4ft Principal will be a weak and disappointing stop if it is buried with the rest of the pedal organ at the back of the organ because its sound won't get out. At best it'll be carried on stops beneath it and will only add some harmonic interest to these rather than provide any drive or power.

Granted, though the original scheme stipulated a Cello 8. In fact a lot of 3 manual Hills of similar vintage had an 8 foot Cello but no 16 foot pedal string (why the fascination of 8 foot Cellos?). In the case of the Abbey, the 16 foot Pedal Violone is the same as the Great Double Open Diapason (case pipes), so Cello 8 could be taken straight off the existing pipes but I don't know it would be particularly useful to do so. Would doubling up the 16 Diapason/Violone add clarity more so than having a Pedal 4 foot superoctave? For the same reason of definition it was suggested to have a Pedal 8 foot reed and Great Clarion 4 (in addition to Hill's Swell 4 ft clarion), but of course subject to discussion.

 

If the Pedal Principal isn't situated with the rest of the Pedal Organ, then where is it going to go? It's going to need its own soundboard, action, the wind supply will need to be worked out... you get the picture?

 

One very good option is to find ranks of suitable provenance and include them instead of creating from fresh.

 

That would be the preferred choice, though it doesn't always work. Indeed, most if not all the later Abbey organ additions were second hand (such as the Great Open Dia I which is thought to have come from Glynbourne - originally it was to be the Open Dia II but proved so big it had its mouths soldered downwards and yet is still too big...and then there's the rather battered and sad looking second hand Swell Cornopean.)

 

However, this shouldn't be read that the organ shoudl be re-ordered, especially as the organ is reported to sound muffled and it doesn't project well. I think it's worth investigating why it isn't speaking clearly. There could be a number of reasons - such as wind leaks, poor conditions of soundboards and actions, or the placement of the organ in the building or the building's acoustics. It may not be a layout issue. If the layout of the organ has been compromised through numerous rebuilds, then maybe there is good reason to re-consider a re-ordering - or to remove additions. Again, it needs somebody knowledgeable to survey it before decisions can be made. Certainly the Armley project (a transplanted organ) was considered very carefully before any decisions were made.

 

Unlikely the interior order has been changed, there have not been any rebuilds and so far as internal reordering goes, probably nothing other than the movement of the Violone/Double Diapason to form the case pipes, with associated borrowing mechanism to share it between pedals and Great. There is a huge great pillar in the way of the organ on the side facing down the Nave; the Choir is buried under the Swell box immediately behind the Great and is totally enclosed and is very hard to hear, even from the console. Originally only the two Choir reeds were enclosed and a space on the soundboard shows where the Choir shutters were originally fitted.

 

This is where my unease about this scheme surfaces. On the one hand, it talks about "completing the instrument to its designer's dream" and yet within almost the same breath it seems to be sanctioning a complete internal redesign, with a new action, a new wind system and quite possibly new soundboards. It looks to me more like a (conservative) rebuild than a completion of an original scheme.

 

Maybe; when does a restoration become a conservative rebuild?

 

Just a note to mention on the climate around the organ - clearly the Abbey does flood from time to time and it is not unknown for vicars to paddle up the nave in a small boat! But over winter the combination of heating and low temperature has meant humidity is very low, and this is very probably the cause of more damage than flooding can do - at least the organ is now several feet higher than the floodwaters are thought to be able to reach.

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

Does anyone here know a British organist who regards his or her pneumatic action as a viable modern-day solution to making music, rather than a quirky but interesting relic to be carefully nurtured and tolerated? If so, please invite them along.

Interesting question from Heckelphone.

 

I can't help thinking if if electricity had been sufficiently reliable in the latter half of the nineteenth century, pneumatic actions would never have even begun to be developed. In "The Art of Organ Building" George Ashdown Audsley in 1905 claims the first patent for electropneumatic action was filed in 1863, and the first organ to be built with this action, in Paris, and by a certain Mr Barker of lever fame, was in 1866. His assessment of forty years of subsequent development was hostile:

 

There remain the objectionable elements of uncertainty and unreliability...notwithstanding what has been done....we can with perfect assurance advise the rejection of all such systems for Organs that can be satisfactorily constructed on the most approved tubular-pneumatic systems.

 

Clearly the development of pneumatic and electric actions began almost in parallel, though by the beginning of the twentieth century it was recognised that both had their issues - an article in Etude magazine in 1900 stated

 

Tubular and electric actions are so delicate and susceptible to atmospheric changes that there will generally be about five "silent keys" or "ciphers" with tubular or electric action, in the course of a year, to every one with tracker action in an organ of the same size.

But with the substantial improvements in electricity that came with routine domestic use, electropneumatic actions rapidly overtook pneumatic in popularity - why?

 

For a church like Shrewsbury Abbey, the preferred action would be by definition the most reliable action since the organ has a job to do, and the organist does not want to spend every weekend on the phone to the builders asking them to adjust fiddly pneumatic motors when electric solenoids are more reliable especially given the different climatic zones in your typical Anglican church. Of course, had electricity not have taken off, then we'd be left with pneumatics for all organs. I don't recall when the last new pneumatic organ was built in this country, but I would be very interested to know how often brand new organs these days anywhere in the world are built with tubular pneumatic action (as opposed to EP, mechanical with servo assistance or straight mechanical). Can someone point me to any?

 

Of course, one could go the whole hog and have direct electric action with motion sensors (as opposed to contacts) on the keys that control the speed at which the pallet is opened. What experiences if any have people had with these systems? Do they really offer the panacea of adjustable control of pallet opening speed in organs too large or remote from the keys to accommodate tracker (or pneumatic) action, which seems to be an essential element of Pierre's enthusiasm for pneumatic actions?

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

Well, I really think you should wait a bit more before restoring that organ....

 

I assume that's said tongue-in-cheek: at Christmas half the pedals were not working, most of the Great was off intermittently and services had to be accompanied using whichever notes on the Swell decided to sound (transposed into whichever key had the most functioning notes), whenever they decided to sound (some prompt, some taking a short while to decide whether to come on or not, by which time you'd be onto the next note....at least that's an improvement on Christmas the previous year when the piano was brought in to accompany some services. Things have improved considerably with the warmer weather since December, but given the action has been causing problems for probably a quarter of a century, is it fair on the poor organist to have to wait any longer?

 

As for the organ being elevated, preventing any flooding to reach it, this won't empeach the moisture in the building to cause damages, as any organ-builder will tell you.

 

Apparently the whole organ was actually elevated about four feet above floor level many years ago, and its present height is probably higher than the floods will ever reach. The staircase leading to the console is steeper than some ladders, but could be relocated within or to the side of the case if only the space behind the console wasn't so cluttered up with console pneumatics and action reservoirs. There is a huge amount of unused space in the organ chamber that could be utilised if the current layout was revised to enable the pipes to speak more directly - but to do so would probably mean abandoning pneumatic action.

 

Interestingly, some years ago a suggestion to rebuild the organ with mechanical action was actually mooted, but it sounds like converting the soundboards (not having been designed for tracker in the first place) would have required reductions in wind pressures and other compromises for a comfortably playable mechanism to be possible and things went no further. One could even make a case for fitting a new Barker lever action, but that is no more in keeping with Hill's early 20th century style than rebuilding with electropneumatic action! Whilst mechanical action was fitted at Chichester Cathedral in its 1984 rebuild (and enlargement), it always struck me as pretty exceptional that a pneumatic action organ (Hele, 1904, which let's not forget had been failing since the 1950s) was being converted back to tracker. I say "back", because in the case of Chichester, the original 1851 Hill (complete with long compass) had of course been tracker. But by 1911, when Shrewsbury's organ was built, Hill had long since abandoned mechanical action for instruments of this size.

 

It was mentioned earlier that the R&D soundboards at Malvern were not reused in the recent restoration - obviously someone connected with that organ would need to comment on the reason, but clearly if the soundboards are in good condition, already have the space allocated to the additional ranks and no pipework beyond the original intentions are foreseen then I can't see why you would want to dispose of them, unless the rebuild changes the internal layout so that the originals will no longer fit where they need to. If there has been woodworm, rot or other irreparable damage, clearly it's a different matter altogether.

 

As for ivories, the Willis organ at Auckland has ivory keys too - if you have the money you can indeed still get it legitimately (at least reclaimed ivory), though I shudder to think what a set of four ivory keyboards would cost today. The quality of Willis' finishing, when I saw the Auckland organ in the factory recently, was such that you would never guess the surfaces were anything but new. As the Shrewsbury ivories are worn to varying degrees, some will need to be replaced and it's good to know that can be done without, as the film credits would say, any animals being harmed in the making of this organ. I once read somewhere that with global warming melting the Siberian tundra, millions of woolly mammoth tusks are emerging from the mud, so perhaps ivory keys will become more affordable?

[Organists and Steam]

Without wanting to seem too eager to dust off my own anorak, I'll happily admit to a childhood of plane-spotting, largely instigated by my school organ teacher. The most notable organist/aviation buff, I think, is David Briggs. He once showed me a superb picture of a Boeing 747 flight deck with a Cavaille-Coll console superimposed, which looked about right (although I forget the source of the picture now). I get the impression that the organ-steam connection is a little stronger than organ-aviation though.

Oh yes, I guess you mean this:

 

And I'm sure I saw a cartoon of an organist, arms and legs going in all directions in a frenetic French toccata oblivious to the speedcops in hot pursuit, visible in his rear-view mirror!

 

I've never driven a train but can claim to have flown a plane (well, OK, copiloted a Cessna 208) in Africa.

[Smallest five-manual ever?]

The best I can afford is to offer them a free recital next time I'm in the West Country. You'd think that an instrument like that would qualify for Lottery money, wouldn't you?

Well, it has a historic organ certificate, so it can't be that bad, or can it?

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

Following up:

 

Shrewsbury Abbey are lucky to have (still playable) a largely untouched organ from 1911. It has a mostly complete tonal scheme which is effective in the building, though I accept that some of the most impressive stops were left prepared-for because of cost. At one time it was thought that Shrewsbury Abbey would become the mother church of a new diocese, when this failed to happen the source of money for the organ dried up.

....

Good luck to you anyway..I am much heartened that the church is getting proper support and help these days.

 

Fear not, even if the money was available, there is neither musical nor liturgical reason to undertake an enlargement on anything like the scale of what happened recently at Cirencester, magnificent though that instrument surely now is. The Abbey thankfully recognises the historical significance of its organ, and the importance of getting it to full working order once more. A restoration will allow the original scheme to be completed whilst providing the opportunity to make subtle adjustments that limited earlier changes failed to address; allowing the pipes to speak more clearly perhaps through making better use of the internal space, adding tremulants that inexplicably were not originally a part of the scheme and perhaps adding a little more definition through a tuba or an extra Mixture rank. The only reason for throwing out the existing soundboards would be if they proved to be beyond economic repair, which seems rather unlikely.

 

The comments around electric action are very interesting; perhaps twenty years ago noone would have hesitated to replace an ageing pneumatic action with an EP or direct electric but how the tables have turned. It would be interesting to speculate, had the organ been built another ten or twenty years later, if it would still have been built with pneumatic action. Evidently Hill (and later HNB) carried on with pneumatics into the 1930s as Rushworth and Dreaper, Harrisons, Willis and others were getting the hang of electropneumatic actions in even their smaller instruments. There are certainly pragmatic reasons for electrification: creation of much-needed space at ground level, avoidance of delicate organ mechanisms close to where floodwater can reach, accessibility of underchest actions, the opportunity for a more versatile combination system (there are something like six organists currently playing at the Abbey on a regular basis who share a grand total of eight unadjustable pistons), and last but no means least, probably cost. Obviously the final decision would not be made without a careful examination of the present action and a consideration regarding the merits of retaining this versus electrifying. In any case, so long as the existing soundboards are retained it will be difficult to enlarge the organ beyond what was prepared for in its original scheme!

[Organists and Steam]

Allegedly the organ in Bedford school chapel had a model steam engine that used to run along the top of the music desk, connected by pulley to the reservoir to indicate the amount of puff left in the organ!

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

Some very interesting and pertinent comments being raised here as ever, and characteristic of this wonderful forum that so many organists have had personal experience of the organ.

 

I can't be absolutely sure of the wind pressure but do recall something in the region of 3 or 3 1/2 inches, and a little lower for Choir and Swell being written down somewhere within the case.

 

The aim of restoring an instrument of this pedigree should be with the original builder's vision in mind; that it was never completed but the prepared for specification is known makes it relatively easy to complete, though equally knowing its present limitations (beyond its perilous condition) that could not have been known at the drawing board (a weak pedal for instance and almost inaudible choir) mean that were Arthur Hill to revisit the Abbey today to give an opinion he would probably agree that simply recreating the proposed scheme would not quite be sufficient. Any deviations from the original scheme are entirely conjectural at this stage; comparing the Abbey's specification with other Hills of similar vintage suggests that a second and "hornier" 4 foot such as a gemshorn would be better than the out-of-place 2 2/3 that is clamped to the choir soundboard for instance. I think on balance it would be hard not to justify adding a tremulant to Swell and Choir. The 16 Swell Oboe really needs to come back to 8 foot pitch. Most of the minor modifications over the years have neither enhanced the instrument nor taken it in the direction of the original builders. Certainly there is neither the finance nor the will to enlarge it beyond the original scheme (except perhaps for an 8 foot pedal reed and 4 foot Great reed for extra definition, and a tuba for the all-important civic services in which the Abbey is packed).

 

From the comments above the most contentious matter would seem to be whether to retain the pneumatic action or electrocute the instrument. This photo illustrates what happened as recently as 2000:

 

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/05/61/056158_b6bc8f1a.jpg

 

The organ is at the East end, and the abbey floor slopes slightly up from west to east. In addition the organ was raised many years ago about four feet off the ground. Nevertheless, the presence of vast amounts of intricate console pneumatics not all that far off the floor is a worry, and takes up valuable space. The pneumatic motors under the soundboards are virtually inaccessible. Given that difficulty, plus the need to make a new soundboard for the proposed Swell "high pressure" reeds and the wider question of whether the organ could be reordered internally to speak better means that far from retaining pneumatic action it would be more like building a completely new pneumatic action. I touched on the internal ordering earlier; the Choir does not project well at all (not helped by the ineffective box, originally only the two Choir reeds were enclosed). Malvern Priory was transformed through cunning internal layout changes, and it is quite possible the same could be done at the Abbey. There is after all a very considerable amount of space in the organ chamber, even accounting for the space required by an octave of 32 foot pipes, and the chamber is open to chancel and nave.

 

The Abbey congregation, choir and clergy are all very proud of the organ, desire it to be restored to full health and consider it a vital part of the ministry and worship of the church. DRD and SL have expressed its core functions very well. Given its slightly flat pitch, supporting orchestras would be difficult unless it was raised, but this unlikely proposition introduces the possibility of further tonal changes and I am reminded of the tension at Reading Town Hall that resulted in a faithful historical restoration but an instrument that cannot be used with an orchestra any more.

 

Finally, I'm not sure why MusingMuso wonders if Wesley's "Wash me throughly" is the official church anthem, but he will be delighted to know that we sang it earlier tonight for the Ash Wednesday choral Eucharist (along with the Byrd four part mass). Except we didn't sing it, we sang "Wash me thoroughly", as the church secretary thought it was a typo and "corrected" it. It was changed back again....and then subsequently "corrected" again. Sadly my own proofreading of the service sheet was insufficiently thorough and I thus entirely missed the change back again!

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

Times indeed change, in the past few months there has been a new vicar and a new director of music and a vision to see the Abbey become better known for its music and its worship. The choir is non-professional but sings for the weekly Choral Evensong in addition to the regular Sunday morning and weekday festival occasions.

 

The arguments in favour of retaining the pneumatic action essentially come down to historicity. I have played a number of instruments with recently restored pneumatic actions that were historical restorations to an original state and fine they are too. However, the organ in the Abbey isn't entirely original (probably nothing was revoiced subsequently, but extra conveyancing and mechanisms have been created at various points for the new stops, which would be lost if the Hill action was restored to its original state and the original tonal scheme would then not be possible to complete either); the action is hardly untouched Hill. Plus an entirely new soundboard will need to be made, under higher pressure, for the Swell reeds; at the moment there is just a big space in the box where the high pressure soundboard was intended to go but was never actually made, and three blank stops at the console.

 

Given the need to create space under the organ in case of flooding, the need to be able to access the action mechanisms that are currently failing and totally inaccessible, the desire to reposition the soundboards so the organ can be heard more clearly, and the need for a brand new high pressure Swell reed soundboard, it seems difficult (though not impossible) to justify retaining a pneumatic action. The advice of various organ advisers has been generally, but not unanimously, that conversion to electric or EP would be the most sensible option. It does raise an interesting question about when a restoration to a known historical state actually diminishes the instrument - whilst the 1930s and 1950s additions are hardly improvements and could be reversed, a faithful return to the incomplete instrument Hill first installed would seem a missed opportunity, when we know what he wanted the Abbey to have. (Indeed, a prerequisite would be if possible to find Hill or similar pipework of the same vintage as the organ if possible to complete the scheme.) If converted to electropneumatic action, the original pneumatics would be retained; if there was a good case for direct electric, only then would the Hill pneumatic motors no longer be required either.

 

Incidentally it is on quite a low pressure - around 3 inches to Great and Pedals, I think possibly even less to Swell and Choir.

 

Another potentially thorny issue is temperament - it's a bit flat (c=517). Annoying enough for choir practice, but impossible for an orchestra to play with it. I wonder how much the Hill tone would change if raised the quarter semitone or however much is it flat by?

[Shrewsbury Abbey]

The fine 1911 Hill organ at Shrewsbury Abbey is one hundred years old this year and definitely feeling its age. It just about survived the Christmas services, but the combination of a century of Abbey flooding, heating problems, lack of humidity (when the Abbey isn't flooded!), grime and virtually no maintenance over the past hundred years means that it's come to the end of its working life. And so a major project is planned to restore this wonderful instrument back into full health. In addition, since when it was originally installed a number of stops were "prepared for" but never actually installed, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to complete the instrument to its designer's dream, whilst making subtle improvements to later additions that on balance weren't very successful.

 

Here's the current specification, with suggested amendments in italics:

 

Couplers

Swell to Pedal

Swell to Great

Swell to Choir

Swell octave

Swell suboctave

Choir to Pedal

Great to Pedal

Choir to Great (never part of the original plan but useful especially if a Choir Tuba is to be added)

 

Pedal

Open Wood 32 (new, prepared for)

Open Diapason 16 (A)

Violone 16 (from Great)

Bourdon 16 (B )

Octave 8 (A)

Bass Flute 8 (B )

Principal 8 (new, not prepared for but suggested for brightening the tone)

Superoctave 4 (new, from Principal)

Trombone 16 (new, prepared-for)

Trumpet 8 (new, from Trombone)

 

Great

Double Open Diapason 16

Open Diapason I 8 (added in 1939, possibly from the famous HNB at Glybourne; intended to be OD2 but it turned out to be an oversized OD1- revoice to blend better with chorus or replace)

Open Diapason II 8

Hohl Flute 8

Principal 4

Harmonic Flute 4

Twelfth 2 2/3

Fifteenth 2

Mixture III 17.19.22

Posaune 8 (Added later and needs revoicing up as a Choir Tuba or down as a chorus reed, since at the moment it's neither one thing or t'other)

Clarion 4 (either independent or taken from the revoiced Posaune if that doesn't end up becoming the Choir Tuba)

 

Swell

Bourdon 16 (prepared for)

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Salcional 8 (sic)

Voix Celestes 8 TC

Principal 4

Fifteenth 2

Mixture II 19.22 (add a third rank for extra brightness)

Contra Oboe 16 (originally Oboe 8 but unsuccessfully transposed in 1945 - either retain at 16 foot or transpose back to 8 foot pitch and add a new 16 reed)

Oboe 8 (prepared for, or use the existing 16 contra-oboe pipes as above)

Horn 8 (added 1945, second-hand using rather battered pipes, slightly vulgar)

Clarion 4 (prepared for)

Tremulant

 

Choir

Lieblich Gedeckt 8

Dulciana 8

Viol di Gamba 8

Suabe Flute 4

Nazard 2 2/3 (HNB pipes added in 1958 - not very useful so may consider replacing by a Gemshorn 4)

Piccolo 2 (HNB pipes added in 1958)

Clarinet 8

Orchestral Oboe 8

Tuba (new or revoiced Great Posaune, also to be playable from Great)

Tremulant

 

A few stops were added in the 1940s and 1960s but these have not been particularly successful and did not complete the original vision. Surprisingly for a moderately large romantic instrument, the organ never had any tremulants, something that would need to be addressed. The above specification essentially completes the original scheme, with the addition of a Choir Tuba plus 8 and 4 foot Pedal diapasons, 8 foot Pedal reed and 4 foot Great reed. Originally the Pedal was scheduled to have a Cello 8 which would probably have been extended from the Great Double Open Diapason 16 (actually the Pedal Violone) but the additional borrowing probably will not enhance the Pedal's current weediness so much as adding a 4 foot and a couple of reeds. In fact even though the organ is open to three sides of the Abbey, it does sound rather muffled and does not project well either into the nave or the choir, and the Choir box, buried under the Swell is almost inaudible. So it is a good opportunity to revisit the internal ordering of the instrument, and hopefully by rearranging its structure it will project far more confidently, just as Malvern Abbey and Armley have hugely benefited from internal reordering.

 

The current charge pneumatic action is sluggish and inaccessible, so on grounds of cost, ease of access, and not least to ensure that the innards are less susceptible to flooding, the most logical thing seems to be to convert the instrument to electropneumatic or direct electric action. That would also enable the "full complement of playing aids" including playback to be fitted - the vision is for to develop the Abbey as a centre of musical excellence, and it would be useful both for teaching and to allow playback of the organ whilst the many tourists who visit the Abbey are looking round. Hopefully once this scheme is realised the Abbey will once again be the proud custodians of a magnificent organ capable of leading the next few generations of musicians and worshippers in this glorious 900 year old building.

 

Contrabombarde

[Cost of a new instrument]

Also, some organ builders are designers and subcontract the manufacture of components - if they have no metal shop, for example, they would subcontract the metal pipework (**)......

...Obviously, the major houses like Mander, Harrison and Willis like to present themselves as having the capability to build all the major components in house. I can't think of another engineering enterprise that still does this. Even car builders get specialists to build major components like gearboxes, seats, wiring looms...

 

Looking on the IBO website the other day for addresses of organbuilders I was surprised to find a manufacturer of luxury fitted kitchens (of all things!) listed as a company offering services to organbuilders. Even more surprised when a curious surf of their website showed photos of several cases of large and significant organs they had worked on for at least four major manufacturers (Mander, Harrisons, Nicholsons and Tickell). Their work is clearly of the highest quality if they are considered good enough to have the above names subcontract major work to. Presumably the subcontracting is done not for reasons of saving money but because they are considered of sufficiently high quality and capacity to undertake the specialist work that casebuilding requires, though it would be entirely for our hosts and others to comment on whether we are talking about the construction of an entire case or "merely" say the carving of pipeshades. I can't see any particular reason why contracting out such work should be considered less "worthy" than making the components in house.

 

Equally I wouldn't expect any organbuilders to manufacture standard pistons or ivorine drawstop heads when there are specialist companies like Kimber Allen that do so in mass production. Creating reproductions is however another matter (like the organ that I play has unusual pistons and stop bushes and would be a challenge to add any more should it ever be considered in the future).

[Getting to know an unfamiliar instrument]

Indeed - and worth asking beforehand on an organ with multiple memory channels if one is set aside for guests and if it can be adjusted.

 

I once had to give a recital on a well-known London organ with no preparation at all (part of a rolling recital day). I deliberately selected earlier, baroque music to begin with that didn't require any piston changes, and finished with the more complex registrations of Franck. After each piece I would frantically whizz through as many pistons as possible without there being too long a delay between pieces. Eventually I hit upon memory channel 37 (it felt like that!) where everything was quite logical, increasing in power from left to right, and that was how I ended the recital.

 

Even if the stops are logically placed there are other things that can throw you - distance to pedals, music stand too high etc. You just take a chance on those things.

 

And finally, make sure you remember to ask how to switch the thing on and off. One service I played at, the console was rather dark and I searched in vain for the blower switch as the vicar was standing at the front announcing the hymn. I must have pushed every button in sight of the console before I found the right one.

 

During the sermon a churchwarden wandered up to me. "You don't happen to know why the baptist pond pump has been turned on ?" he asked......

[Makin takes over Copeman Hart]

This puts both my church, and myself, in a strange position. Our C-H is but a mile from Makin HQ, and I used to work for that company! It's a bit like the Rolls Royce situation- the best quality by reputation being owned by a competitor. I do hope the ethos of C-H can be maintained. As their technologies are quite different, I suspect that one may give way to the other, depending on which is considered the 'best'. The reputations of both companies has been founded on their own systems, of which both have equal claims to superiority! It could be an interesting scenario.

 

CP

 

Except that as I understood it, Makin uses Johnannus' sound technology. Conceptually an electronic organ is a console, a sound generating system (normally digitally sampled or digitally constructed) and a sound-producing system (ie amp and speakers). You can build a handsome console, but if the samples are poor it will sound dreadful. Equally you can have fantastic samples, but if played through tinny speakers in the kneeboard it just doesn't sound right either.

 

The genie in the bottle though is Hauptwerk, and I don't think any of the British digital organ building companies are set up to build consoles for Hauptwerk as yet. Meaning that to play a reproduction of a complete and real organ you must either commission a specialist console builder or put the bits together yourself, which I suspect is why it has been perhaps slow to catch on, especially in churches. Forum rules understandably restrict discussion of electronic organs, though I think it is worth mentioning that part of the cost of buying many of the sampled organs for Hauptwerk goes back to the original organ, and for the more "popular" instruments it has apparently brought in a lot of income for the care of the real instrument. Plus you are not dependent on kneeboard speakers and indeed some of the more spectacular systems spend a small fortune on multiple serious quality hifi speakers.