gazman

The place with the funny stained-glass?

Now, what about speed relationships between movements in that?

But that requires us to accept that that is what Bach intended! And I don't see much proof (if any) that it is what he would have wished. But I'm happy to be proved wrong.....

Thanks, John. The cheque's in the post.

I don't think historical grounds really come in to it. I just don't see any obvious reason why one would be obliged to work to any tempi relationships - they just don't seem an integral part of this fugue in my way of seeing things. If you want to apply historical grounds, you could then try to argue that the fugue should have a strict tempo relationship with the prelude, which I think just as unnecessary and unlikely! I've been wondering what would be a suitable subject on which to read for a PhD! That sounds a bit of a challenge.... However, I suppose a starting point could be the extant examples of organs which were around in Bach's time and which need to be played rather more slowly. Well, only another 79,963 words to go....

Always tricky without actually hearing the organ, but here's my suggestion. Swell: Rohr Flute 8' Principal 4' Great: Open Diapason 8' Principal 4' Mixture. If the Double doesn't make things too muddy, add that too. Pedal: Sub Bass 16' Bass Flute 8' Sw-Gt, Sw-Ped, Gt-Ped Play the first section on the Swell. Play the second section on the Great. For the third section add the Swell Horn 8', and continue to play on the Great. Hope this helps.

I think this answers the question and sums up the matter perfectly.

Sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to get your thread hijacked! Yes. I maintain that there are no strict tempi relations implied between the various sections, and that any attempt at this has to be rather contrived!

Were the famous organists among those talking, though? If so, shame on them!

Mine might too! I can very much agree with you about the middle section often being played too briskly, and can agree about the third section growing out from it. But it is reconciling these with the tempo of the first section that I find less than convincing. Is your argument that the basic pulse should be the same throughout, or am I missing something? The latter is quite possible! ATB

I can see where you're coming from but I don't feel it necessary, nor perhaps even desirable to confine each section to a common pulse. The same argument can be - and is - extended to the Sei gegruesset variations where I find performances which insist on having the cantus firmus at the same tempo throughout rather limiting and can lead to tempi for certain variations which just feel unsuitable and limiting.

So, is the argument that the subject of the first section should be at the same tempo in each of the three sections?

I don't have an authoritative source, but my gut feeling is that this is just silly dogma, and likely to confine music to a straitjacket, when one's personal instinct should dictate tempi. It's rather like people stating that the tempi in the three sections of the "St. Anne" Fugue in E flat should all be related. How and, more importantly, why?

Ever considered moving?

I teach one of my pupils on a small two manual tracker action job in a private chapel which was built from parts of a previous organ by a local organ builder, not known for his skills in mechanical action. I guess the instrument is only about two years old. It is horrendous. It is incredibly noisy, the touch is heavy, uneven and urgently requires regulation. A number of keys don't play through Sw-Gt or through Sw 8ve properly, so sound out of tune when played through the couplers as the keys don't go down all the way. The rattle of the (unfelted) pedalboard has to be heard to be believed. The organ builder ticks off faults in the tuning book, but never does anything about them. When my pupil tackled him the other month, he said that these faults were an "instrinsic" part of the instrument. It is the most appalling demonstration of organ building I think I've ever come across.

Which four? It has always felt to me as if it needs a slow introduction.

Hear hear! One of the organs at which I preside has a gorgeous 1967 Willis IV Positif. It is a department of great beauty and utility.

That doesn't surprise me!

Simon Preston tells a terrific tale about Richter. Richter was due to give a recital at the RFH. Ralph Downes met him, let him in, and then listened outside the auditorium for a few minutes. He heard Richter play the last bar of the fugue in D (BWV 532). Diddle-iddle dum. DUM DUM. The last two notes, of course, on the pedal. After a few seconds, there it was again Diddle-iddle dum. DUM DUM. Well, this went on for about 10 minutes. In the end, Downes couldn't resist his curiosity, and went in to see what was happening. Richter was practising pushing himself off the stool with the last pedal note, spinning round as he did it to land on the floor behind the organ console, and taking a bow all in one swift movement. Preston decided to do the same at his next recital where he was playing on a detached console in full view of the audience, and he chose to finish his recital with this piece. There was a piece of carpet behind the organ stool. Unbeknown to him, between his rehearsal and the recital, one of the church ladies decided that the floor behind the console should be polished so that it would look good for the concert. So, she removed the piece of carpet, polished the floor, and then replaced the carpet. Preston played through the programme, finishing with the D major, sprang off the pedal board, onto the carpet, which slid, with the result that Preston ended up flat on his back at the end of the recital!

I suppose that the purists would argue that there is opportunity to change the stops between each of the Sei gegruesset variations (and the other three sets of variations). But I feel that the Passacaglia cries out for this and I'm not ashamed to say that I change registration - judiciously - for each variation.

Welcome!

That was lovely, Pierre. Thank you for drawing attention to it. Play it to anybody daft enough to want to perform this on full organ throughout.

It's not just you. All I get is "Sorry, we can't play you the programme you requested".

I almost feel a bit bad about having posted this now. Having spoken with somebody who saw the organ tuners yesterday, it turns out that the organ tuner has recently had surgery and is in a lot of pain, and barely mobile. It seems that he held keys whilst his normal key-holder (a fellow organ builder) "tuned". I'm grateful for them having turned up to try and tune, albeit that they were only there for a couple of hours, but wonder if it might have been better had they just said that he was not up to it. There are now pipes out of tune and off speech which there weren't before. I can't justify the church paying them for what they did yesterday.

Great minds think alike, Barry. Already done!