gazman
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gazman
-
-
Five or six posts referring to Rutter have been deleted, and Lee Blick's ability to post to the forum has been suspended for 48 hours so that the moderators can get on with having a good weekend, doing things other than checking on his activity here.
Moderator, Mander Organs
I guess I logged on just a few minutes too late to see the exciting stuff then!
Now I'll never know.....! -
Why not just have the Seventeenth drawing independently? Then you can colour the quint mixture, and use it for Sesquialtera effects in conjunction with a Twelfth.
-
Blimey, MM, I've only one lifetime in which to learn pieces.......!
-
I think that's a shame because, speaking purely for myself, I find well-performed church/cathedral music the most musically edifying and spiritually uplifting experience there is. But that's just me.
Me too, Vox....
-
This is part of the game. Organists frequently book their opposite numbers to play, recitals as return matches etc. because this way fees are kept between friends and reasonably balanced. Just a theory, of course....
Cynic by name.......
-
Thanks for all those suggestions, folks! I'll certainly look at some Eben. G
-
What about his Magnificat? Yes, formulaically Rutter but a damn good romp!
Peter
Yeh, I forgot about this, and only conducted it last Christmas! (Maybe that's saying something!) However, I seem to remember enjoying the experience....!
-
Coincidentally, we had a discussion about Rutter at choir practice last night. I asked the choir to come along with suggestions of what they would like to sing for Christmas and at least half of what they brought along or suggested was Rutter. This was done rather apologetically as they know my usual response when they ask to sing Rutter! They're quite a good amateur choir too. I guess that, despite Cynic's valid observation, Rutter's style is found attractive by a number of singers, although I personally tend to find his very formulaic style uninspiring.
However, I have to take my hat off to him for his Requiem which I find a very atmospheric and moving work.
-
Hmm... reminds me... I must go practice my spontaneity.
-
Sometimes panache involves risk!
Yeh, but the more you practise it, the less the risk becomes!
-
Perhaps the issue lies in exactly why the recital is being given. The effect of a performance goes a long way beyond the technical accuracy of the playing. Some organists may play their potboilers that have not been properly revisited for years, just because they think it will show the organ in the best light; others will present something they have just learned, because they have to play it somewhere for the first time.
I am trying to get the organ here played and heard as much as possible, both because it is a very fine instrument (though fallen on hard times) and also because I hope that interest in it will enable the funding of substantial work that is needed.
High quality accurate playing is obviously what I would like to hear when we have a recital (this is why Paul Hale and Cynic have played for us this year) but this would please few others than our organist and myself. The principal purpose of the occasion is served when the recitalist delivers the 'wow' moment that makes the audience want to come back again and opens their wallets. It is the panache that ultimately matters to most of the audience.
Occasionally I hear pieces played that I can actually play well. The liberties that some recitalists take (not the above-mentioned I hasten to add) - even in recordings - are frightening; and when I hear errors as well, it blows my mind. But again, if it delivers the occasion, then perhaps it has served the purpose?
Why not aim for high quality accurate playing AND the "panache"? That would appeal to your organist, yourself, and the audience who want the "wow" moment!
-
The only explanation I can come up with is that these people hear music, but don't actually listen to it.
I think you've hit the nail firmly on the head there, Vox.
The way that bad performances sometimes elicit praise is something which has had me irritated on a number of occasions.
I remember a recital by an eminent female organist which was very disappointing in its untidyness, which was most unexpected due to her normal virtuosity at the organ. The untidyness was readily apparent and, I would have thought, anybody with a musical ear would have been distracted by it.
However, afterwards, I spoke with a fairly big name in the organ world who was in the audience (who had studied under this lady, and held her in absolute awe), and he said that the recital had been one of the greatest musical experiences he had heard in recent times! Likewise, a couple of undergraduates studying organ also thought the recital splendid. I started to wonder if my senses had deserted me. However, I spoke to another organist and he said how glad he was to find somebody else who agreed about how bad the performance had been. He had begun to wonder whether his senses had deserted him too! Were we the only ones in the audience who actually listened?! Were the others just in awe of hearing such an eminent organist perform?
-
Clearly performers of integrity such as Rogg, Richter and Hurford produce recordings that , to the best of their musical understanding and resources, recreate the intensions of the composer.
I don't think it's merely a case of recreating the intentions of the composer. If it were, why not just program a computer to make music and then call that the definitive performance? Surely all good performers bring their own interpretation to the composition - and aspects of their own character - when they play. This is what makes hearing different performers play the same work all the more interesting.
I've heard it said that performers sometimes discover aspects of the composition which were never directly intended by the composer, but were approved and enjoyed by the composer nonetheless.
-
I've never actually got around to learning any of his organ compositions. Which works would people recommend?
-
I doubt it would be possible to explain why at this distance in time since what seems "right" in any given situation depends not only on the player, but also on such external factors as the organ, the acoustics, the position of the work in the programme, etc. - or, to be more precise, the player's sensitivity to such factors. I have occasionally heard fast performances of Bach that sounded "right"; I have also heard slow performances that sounded "right" - and of course examples of both that didn't. There is never just one right way of playing anything and those who try to insist that there is (and unfortunately there are a lot of them about) reveal more about the limitations of their musicianship than anything else. I'm sure it doesn't apply to any of our erudite members, but there are those who seem to love nothing better than to pick holes in other people's performances. My theory is that such people criticise in an attempt to establish credibility ("Ooh, look at me: I have high standards; I know what a good performance is!") Of course any fool can find faults. In my view it's far more profitable to look for what's right in a performance. This doesn't mean you lower your own standards. Not at all; it means you expand your horizons and develop your appreciation.
Of course, being able to appreciate different styles of performance doesn't mean you have to like them all - that's an entirely different matter!
Sorry for the rant; I admit it's a bit of a hobby horse of mine.
I agree entirely, Vox. But it does seem to be the case that slower playing of Bach is coming into vogue, whereas brisker playing seemed to be all the rage a few years back.
-
We will never know why great players change their minds about the “correct” way to play Bach. Karl Richter’s earlier and later Bach Cantata and Passion recordings show significant differences in tempi. At a public lecture, Lionel Rogg said that he had not done any historical research for his series of Bach recordings – he said he played from the heart! This is really what everyone does.
I am afraid we are all people of our own time.
Perhaps Bach would have changed his ideas of tempi throughout his musical life too!
-
When you see the trackers (massive wood...), the valves -of a size choosen in accordance
with the 8'-rich specifications- you understand at once these organs were
heavier than ours from day one.
Pierre
So, Pierre, are you suggesting that none of Bach's organ works should be played briskly because the organs he played made it impossible?!
-
Holz, give a try to some of those central-german baroque organs we still have,
and tell us, afterwards, if they allow Schumacher-like tempis like with mega-light
neo-baroque suspended actions.
Pierre
But I wonder how much that has to do with the age of the mechanism.
-
....a performance of the Wedge by Andrew Millington in a recital at Halifax that sticks in my memory as quite outstanding. I thought the tempo was exactly right, which probably means it was on the leisurely side...
Why? I fully agree that Andrew is a superb organist, but I wonder why the tempo seemed exactly right if it was "on the leisurely side". A few years back, many of us seemed to think that the tempo was exactly right if playing of Bach was "on the brisk side" (as, I feel, were some of Hurford's tempi despite the musicianly playing)! I wonder why the change....?!
-
As a Bach-maniac, I am rather selective.
Among the british players I'd vote for...
http://www.guildmusic.com/artists/whitelej.htm
Want a sample ?
Pierre
I quite agree with you Pierre. His playing of Bach's organ music is exemplary.
-
Does it make anyone nostalgic?
I could tell you a tale or two, and I'm sure others could too.
Well, go on then.....!
-
For anyone in the south west who has never heard Hauptwerk, but is interested in doing so, the Plymouth and District Organists' Association is hosting a demonstration this Saturday afternoon at the Ridgeway Methodist Church in Plympton, Plymouth, starting at 2 p.m. DHM will be bringing along all the organ samples he has mentioned in this thread and more. There won't be any sales pitch - just the chance to hear some of the organs demonstrated and try them for yourselves.
The church is located at the eastern end of the shopping centre in Plympton (here) and the event is open to anyone interested. There is no charge, but donations from non-members would be more than welcome!
Are they intending to replace the present pipe organ at Ridgeway? I was asked - probably about 12 or 13 years ago - to "rubber stamp" this "new" instrument after it had been moved from the old Ridgeway Methodist Church to the modern building. It was awful! The Swell had a chiffing - one could say unvoiced (certainly un-nicked) - Fifteenth added to it which wouldn't blend with the other (Victorian) material, and the Great soundboard had been removed and the Open Diapason and the Claribel Flute had been put on extension chests to make an extended Great organ, extended as far as possible - and further! It was a pretty awful example of this sort of thing. Needless to say, I said a few things which upset the "organ builder" who had moved it and carried out this work.
-
.....the expense of a 4p flute.
Is this the sort of stop given by an impecunious donor?
-
It smacks of idiotic bureaucracy to me.
Now I'll never know.....!
John Rutter
in General discussion
Posted
Thanks, Vox. I do! I was just doing something else at the time!