gazman

Me too, although it might not go too well with the morphine and other medicine.... Cheers!

I wasn't trying to imply that it was the other way around at all, Vox. I too am sure that the Novello edition was just copied from the Griepenkerl which, as you correctly say, is the source for the old Peters edition.

Very sensible. The only thing I wouldn't be happy about is the need to take my eye off the score to read the digital display if something went wrong. Interesting to note that nobody yet has argued the case for sequencers (if there's a case for them, that is!) as they seemed "all the rage" just a while back.

I understand, although I do not have a copy here to check, that the Peters edition used the same source as Novello as it has considerably less ornaments than the highly-decorated Bach Gesellschaft edition. I believe that there was more than one manuscript.

Ok, I'll try and explain myself better! When I mark a score "General 6" and then, perhaps, a few bars later "General 7", it's pretty obvious what's required. If, say, I were just using a stepper and were to make a mistake and either not press the "Next" button when I should, or press it when I shouldn't, and not be quite aware of what's gone wrong, it's rather harder to rectify. At the next point at which the button needs pressing, should I press it once or twice? I would only know for a certainty if I'd also marked in the score the General I wanted to be on at that time, and would also have to read the number on the display in order to read what General I was presently on. The other problem I've encountered with steppers is having the toe piston for the "Next" button where I would normally expect to find the toe piston for Gt-Ped which has quite a potential for disaster.

I wouldn't even go that far!

The discussion about the piston system on the St. Edmundsbury thread has got me musing about the various qualities of general pistons and sequencers. I have always avoided sequencers (and even steppers) as I feel myself to be in less control should I press the "Next" piston in the wrong place, or should I forget to press it at all. I feel that, say, "Level 39, General 6" tells me exactly what to press, and gives me a point of reference should I find that I've made a mistake, rather than wondering what's gone wrong and whether to press the "Next" piston or the "Back" piston to get the combination I require. When the organ at one of my churches was rebuilt back in 1998, the organ builders strongly encouraged me to have a sequencer fitted. They argued that, as I was using the organ then for weekly organ recitals, it would be of great utility to be able to programme combinations in on a sequencer, and that I was being a bit of a stick-in-the-mud by saying that I'd rather just programme combinations in on general pistons, and move between each of the levels. Despite having given recitals on a number of large organs with sequencers, I've continued to stay away from sequencers because of my concern that it would be too easy to press the "Next" piston in the wrong place or to forget to press it and find myself completely lost. However, last month, I decided I'd break with my habit and join the 21st Century when I played at York Minster and to use the sequencer. Although I latch on to modern technology reasonably quickly, after five minutes of John Scott Whiteley trying to show me how the sequencer worked, I was still at a loss, and decided to play safe and to keep to general pistons again. What do others on this forum think? Are sequencers generally more useful than generals (and, if so, in what way)? Or do they remove a certain amount of control from the performer? I'd be interested in any views. Thanks.

Danke shoen!

The History of the Development of the Art of Organbuilding, I think.

But didn't he sell his business?

I think it's the people who took over Cawston who had previously taken over Daniels.

Thanks, Vox. Me too! Unfortunately I shall not be playing the organ for a little while!

Yes, of course. I stand corrected, thank you, although I think the second version less clumsy. Have we further lessons to come? After the surgery I'm having tomorrow, I guess I shall be needing some Movicol too!

"nor kick"?

How refreshing to discover that pedantry is alive and kicking!

Welcome, Bernard. You're with Talktalk too? Then you have my sympathy!

But surely, on a recording, pipes and speakers will sound much more similar when coming through the speakers on your CD player. It's in the actual hearing live that the differences are far more detectable. Having said that, I am finding that electronics can now compete well with pipes for 16' stops both on tonal grounds and, in the case of open pipes, on commercial grounds. It's the higher frequencies that seem, to me, less convincing.

Yes, as far as I know, he is, unless something has happened very recently.

Some things don't change much, do they!

Flooding with glue, to prevent wind going where it shouldn't!

It might be a good idea to delete the posting, considering that it gives out a private 'phone number and an email address.

I've always assumed that "The Well-tempered Clavier" was just that, i.e. a well-tuned instrument, capable of being played in all keys. But I do wonder if it might also have implied an instrument in equal temperament, also capable of being played in all keys without any wolf intervals.

Don't worry, PCND. I think MM had his tongue firmly in his cheek!

Each to their own! I took a couple of friends to have an evening on this organ a year or so ago. Two of us didn't know it, my other friend did. We found ourselves rather underwhelmed by it. It certainly didn't live up to expectations.