gazman
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gazman
-
-
No disrespect to the manufacturers of imitation organs, (I am sure that they work as hard as anyone to produce a worthwhile product) but so far as I am concerned the only good Viscount comes in a green foil wrapper and consists of a mint-flavoured chocolate-covered biscuit.
Whereas Viscount used to manufacture awful electronic organs, modern Viscounts *are* in a different class. My home organ sounds marvellous through decent headphones and a while ago when I used it at a friend's funeral in a church where the pipe organ had broken down (and the congregation was actually into the hundreds), it sounded surprisingly convincing - and led the congregation and accompanied both choirs superbly - even though I was only able to use the internal speakers.
Although what this has to do with wedding and funeral fees, goodness only knows!
-
I hesitate to contribute here as I have no practical experience in the matter, but if a colleague were to support the pipe by the body whilst it is being cone tuned would this not avoid any damage to the mouth or foot?
Good idea! But I see three immediate problems....
i, How would he support the pipe? If he held it in his hands (the best way to avoid damage to the pipe, I would think), the temperature change of the pipe would affect the tuning.
ii, In most organs, there's precious room for one tuner to work, let alone two!
iii, The cost of employing an extra 'tuner'.
An old Hunter at a church where I used to play several years ago was cone tuned - on the very rare occasion that the flue work needed any adjustment. Indeed, the flue work stood in tune superbly, and the reeds were the only part of the organ which needed the occasional "tickle" as the temperature changed. Several years ago the organ was partly "rebuilt" by the local firm of "Bodgit and Scarper" who - for some reason - fitted tuning slides. The first time I played it after this work, I was rather shocked. It was the first time I had ever experienced the flue work on this instrument being out of tune.
-
A number of people have commented on the desirability of being able to draw certain manual stops independently ono the pedal and I can well see the point. However, one has to bear in mind the compromise that brings with it. Unless the stop to be borrowed to the pedal is on a "zwillingslade" (highly unlikely in an electric action organ) it means that such stops have to be on their own chest and not on the main soundboard of the department they are borrowed from. That means they will not have the benefit of being on the main soundboard. The advantages of being on the main soundboard are that they are subjected to the same wind characteristics as the rest of the stops in that department. Where such stops are only ever used in a solo capacity, that is of little consequence, but for stops which are regularly used with other stops on the home department, it will inevitably mean that by being on a different chest, they will not have the same wind characteristics and that has a noticeable effect on their ability to blend.
One of the reasons a stop on a chest does not blend so well with other stops is that its winding (the inevitable slight unsteadiness) is not the same as other stops on the main soundboard and that is noticeable. Another effect of a slider soundboard is that there is a degree of "pulling" into tune of all the stops. That too is lost if the borrowed stop is on a chest.
Yes, I can see where you're coming from. But how would that argument apply in the large number of cases where, say, the bottom couple of octaves of a double are already taken off the main soundboard and placed on their own chest due to economies of space?
-
My initial response was to think that it is perhaps misguided to restore the organ to its 1926 character, and that this was probably only proposed so as to achieve the HLF grant.
However, having considered this more carefully, I can understand the reasons for this, although I still have some misgivings. Overall, I think the 1926 specification looks rather more attractive than the present specification on paper. Certainly the 1926 specification looks a better coherent whole than the present specification with its neo-classical additions which look rather incongruous. The 1926 specification was also reasonably equipped with registrational aids although, of course, general pistons would normally be expected in an 'eclectic' concert instrument such as this nowadays.
Presumably the organ will revert to pneumatic action. Do we have many organ builders who have sufficient day-to-day dealings with pneumatic action to build such an action well and to maintain such an action for the next 20, 30 or 40 years or more?
But I'm pleased to see that the organ is going to be rebuilt. I first played it a number of years ago when I sat the practical part of my ARCM exam there. It was in good order at the time, but I understand that the RCM later had to move organ exams elsewhere as it had started to show signs of failure. When I last gave a recital on it a year ago it had become very unreliable, and was obviously in need of fairly extensive work.
-
I think the Nanny State would lock people up before there is any evidence to do so, just in case they might at some point do this in the future.
Yup, well, look at some of the policies our government were trying to push through a while ago about so-called terror suspects....
-
The CAS says otherwise, to quote from their website:
STANDARD DISCLOSURE
These are intended for those who regularly undertake limited roles which bring them into contact with children and young people but who have no supervising or training responsibilities. This includes those who prepare refreshments, caretakers and cleaners and similar roles as determined by the denomination. (Occasional helpers who are never left in charge, one-off helpers and visitors should understand what is required of them and are recommended to submit self disclosures to the local church.)
Yes, and I think that utterly ridiculous, and a symptom of the Nanny State.
-
Sorry, but this view - and one or two others - are just ridiculous in my opinion because they are founded on the principle of weighing guilt and innocence, rather than of safety and danger. I am now going to rant at the keyboard, even though it is way past my bed-time.
Why should I expect parents to entrust their offspring to me for several hours each week without some kind of warranty that I don't have convictions for grooming choirboys?
If a stranger turned up at your service tomorrow morning and announced he was a semi-professional tenor who had just moved into the area and would like to join a choir, would you not consider it your duty to ensure this person hasn't previously abducted and raped a vulnerable person of any age or gender?
Having a policy which requires all to undergo a police check enables such things to be discovered in an impersonal way which doesn't imply any finger pointing or character asassination - it's just the way things are. Its existence would also prevent such a person from coming forward, whether as a volunteer or in a paid capacity.
Put another way, if someone were to donate an electric heater for your choir vestry, would you ask a six year old child or a ninety year old woman to plug it in for the first time without first having assured yourself it was safe? Could you live with the consequenses if it threw that person across the room and possibly killed them? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, and there was me thinking it would all be lovely in the end" if you had cheerfully waved off a minibus full of people in your care being driven by someone whose licence and fitness to drive you had not previously checked, only to learn an hour later they had ploughed drunkenly into an oncoming lorry?
If not, then why would you allow an individual into your organisation with exactly the same capability for harm - in fact, considerably longer-lasting, more profound and infinitely less visible harm?
Whistlestop wrote - "I am thankful that I shall not hear the howls of derision when I remark that it is unchristian to single out those with a 'record'. Are only those with an unblemished history to be allowed in our organisations?"
This is so fatuous it makes me want to weep. Never mind whether only those with an unblemished history are allowed into organisations. That's missing the point. It is the right of the organisation to make that decision when it has received the recruitment recommendation of the Criminal Records office. Your argument entirely counters itself because it overlooks the question of prejudice, about which more anon.
Holz wrote - "No, the fundamental erosion of civil liberties comes when we presume that people are potential sex offenders until they can prove that they don't have a conviction for such a crime."
It assumes nothing of the sort. It merely asserts the right of any organisation to know the safety of its individuals to work with other individuals. I, acknowledging that I am significantly less vulnerable than a 7 year old child or 85 year old parishioner with Alzheimer's or 40 year old male with severe learning difficulties, am quite happy to assure my organisation that I am a fit person to be help, teach, assist or care for any of the above. Refusing to give such assurance at no personal cost to myself ought to ring sufficient alarm bells to ensure I would be rejected.
As the body taking responsibility for the wellbeing of those vulnerable people, and giving assurance to parents or family or other carers that their charges are in a safe environment, I think it is the inalieable right of the organisation employing me to be able to make the decision that I am safe on the grounds of documented evidence.
Furthermore, we are in a society more alive than ever to the conflicting concepts of discrimination and of personal choice. As a person applying for employment, I would far prefer to have decisions about my suitability made on the basis of documented evidence rather than the assessors personal prejudices about, say, the colour of my hair or skin, the number of pierced facial extremities, crossed eyes, a pronounced lisp or two missing fingers. Someone walking down the street with green hair and a 'Glad to be Gay' t-shirt in 1950 would probably have been jeered at, spat at, and then locked in prison for being homosexual. No longer. That person now has just as much right to be considered on their abilities as you or I and to do what they want with any number of consenting adults behind their own front door. In a world where that change (as yet incomplete) is possible in a generation, how can you possibly claim that ensuring the safety of minors and vulnerable citizens is an erosion of liberties?
Conclusion - I am willing for my background to be checked as a person applying for (or volunteering for) activities involving vulnerable people, because it tells me I'm applying to an organisation which takes its responsibilities seriously, it tells me I'm being considered on merit not on prejudice, and it unquestionably enhances the civil liberties of more vulnerable people and asserts their right not to undergo physical, mental or sexual torment at the hands of those they are supposed to trust.
What can any right-thinking person possibly find wrong with that?
Ok, so, tomorrow morning, I should make sure that none of my choir are likely to be child abusers before they sing. When I drive down to the church, I should find some way of ensuring that my car has actually been built by people who know what they are doing, and that my mechanic knows his stuff, and isn't some crackpot potential murderer who has cut my brake-cables in order to kill me.
And, I should ensure that the people who have built the roads on the way to church haven't incorporated death traps. And that the builders who built the church knew enough about what they were doing so that the roof doesn't collapse on me. Likewise the organ builders.
Sorry, David, but that is utter nonsense. You have to assume that people are decent, well-meaning and can do their job unless proven otherwise, or constantly make ridiculous checks before you do anything in life.
-
Unfortunately the reality of this world is that people do things we don't like or agree with, and it is our Christian duty to abide by the laws of the land (there is Biblical precedent for this) and to do our best for people. However, taking the worst case scenario, when a convicted child sex abuser turns up at the church and wants to join the thriving choir, involving perhaps 30 children, would we be doing our Christian duty to allow him (or her). My conscience wouldn't let me.
By the same argument, there's also a Biblical precedent about forgiveness, is there not?
However, in one of my church choirs, I do have a convicted sex-offender. He's an absolute pain, however, and, if a CRB check would enable me to evict him from the choir, I could *almost* be persuaded to support CRB checks.
I must say, having been a professional organist for a good many years, in parish church and cathedral, I would not take up any appointment where I wasn't required to fill in a CRB form. But, I would feel the same if I was offering my services in a voluntary capacity, I just wouldn't feel safe.How on earth do you think that filling in a CRB form makes you feel safe?
-
No such assumption is made. The principal purpose of the CRB is to protect ALL parties, including the person being checked.
And how on Earth can it do that? A CRB check cannot prevent false allegations in any way, shape, or form. The only way to try and avoid false allegations is by taking great care to ensure that one is not in a situation where one could have allegations made, which includes having at least another adult around at all times when dealing with children and "vulnerable" adults.
-
...The fundamental erosion of civil liberties comes when we decide to investigate people without evidence, not when we go through checks for our safety as well as the safety of others.
No, the fundamental erosion of civil liberties comes when we presume that people are potential sex offenders until they can prove that they don't have a conviction for such a crime.
While on the subject of multiple checks, I understand that a full report is sent to the authority in question, showing all convictions, not just those for abusing the vulnerable. These other offences do not show on the certificate received by the applicant - perhaps they should, but they don't. So a check might show that Fred is perfectly safe to be in charge of children, but that he has six points on his licence for speeding, so it might be advisable not to let him drive a minibus full of kids - or the elderly come to that. This information is only revealed to each authority, and that, I understand, is why a full check is carried out individually.But it all does seem rather authoritarian I must agree!
That's utterly ridiculous. Why on earth should - for example - a priest be told that his organist has points on his license, say, 15 years ago for going at 40mph in a 30mph zone?
-
I feel that this is a fundamental erosion of civil liberties. It assumes that each of us are guilty of being child abusers - or whatever - until we prove that we aren't. Whilst I can understand, to a point, a possible desirability for choirmasters working with children to have this check, the thought of choir members having to go through this is utterly ludicrous.
The Nanny State and Big Brother march onwards and upwards....
-
I think 65% fairly normal.
PM sent.
-
As far as I remember it is a 12.17 stop voiced as a Cornet, not as a Sesquialtera, and it can be used in chorus.
Yup!
-
Except the gradual erosion of personal liberties with our implied consent.
People's stories on here highlight the Kafka-esque nature of the situation. Someone must be making money out of this but even if not, we are all so afraid of being without the prized symbol of acceptablity that we will undergo levels of intrusion previously undreamed of in a free society. I certainly would not endure 6 of these things. This is only my second and it is more than I wish to endure to prove my suitability for a duty that is performed reluctantly. I don't seek preferment as an organist; I'm just the 'spare'.
Indeed. In your situation, I think I'd tell them to take a running jump.
-
John and I are following this thread. The board being slow might be have one or more possible causes but this board isn't "run by the same company": it is hosted on the Mander server, not at Invision Power. It would help if people included information about when they found the board slow (then we can look in the access logs to see if anything else of note was going on at the same time); also, if possible, with whom they have their broadband connection: I would not be surprised if one effect of the economic downturn were that ADSL kit is not being replaced or upgraded.
Rachel Mawhood
Webmaster, Mander Organs
The board was slow this evening from about 1810 to 1822, and wouldn't display any pages. Other websites loaded without a problem, so the problem wasn't this end. Hope that helps.
-
The moral of the Church Times saga is that one should think twice before pressing 'Send'. Anyone might be reading...
Yes, indeed. It is this fact that decided me that I agree with those who would rather remain anonymous around here.
-
I thought you were doing a leg-pull when I saw the title of this thread!
The only pieces I can think of are by Noel Rawsthorne viz. Hornpipe Humoresque, Chorale Prelude on 'The Londonderry Air', and a harmless little Air in F.
-
Who knows? Either way, it is being advertised on the Minster's website. Closing date of 07th November, Interviews 01st & 02nd December 2008 so perhaps we will find something out in the not too distant future.
http://www.beverleyminster.org/ => News, Events & Service Times
Dave
-
Merry Christmas to all!
-
I'd have a really strong terz in that set up and a very gentle holzgedackt 8.
My Spec:
Great Organ
1. Grand Chorus XV (based on 16' open metal diapason)
Swell Organ
2. Full Swell VIII (Trumpet 8 + 7 rank Mixture)
3. Celestes (at least 3 ranks - more would be nice)
Octave and Suboctave couplers, unison off
Tremulant
Pedal Organ
4. Bombarde 16 (Full length, spotted metal, "French Voicing", with 12 extra pipes in each direction (full length, of course - no skimping here - I've been thinking really hard about this)
Octave and Suboctave couplers, unison off
If I was allowed another stop, I would have a Tuba Magna en Chamade on a solo manual, enclosed - maybe it could be prepared for?
Swell to Great at 16,8,4, Great to Pedal at 16,8,4, Swell to pedal at 16,8,4 (extra pipes to cope with all these couplers)
Lots of thumb pistons, generals, levels of memory, stepper, etc.
Would it be too much to ask to have this with tracker action with a detached, moveable console?
C :angry:
Thank you Colin! The whole of that post has given me the biggest chuckle I've had all day!
-
It will be a few weeks before my next lesson so I would be grateful if someone could give me a quick -ish guide to when to use this. It's called Tremolo on the one I use, and the last time I pulled it out (experimentally) it felt as though the whole edifice would crash in on me, so great was the vibration.
Assuming the thing is not faulty I s'pose the degree of tremble (?) depends on what else is engaged. I can't imagine it sounding pleasing in anything other than Romantic repertoire - am I missing something?
Any tips gratefully received. You will have gathered I am no expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremulant is a reasonable introduction.
It's mainly used in conjunction with solo stops or combinations.
-
Very perceptive! I have been told by PM "a toaster with a decent spec"
-
Whilst not directly 'on theme', I remember playing for a funeral at my regular church a few years ago where the family objected to paying my usual fee. They felt it was most unfeeling & wrong for me to charge for my services, so much so that they wrote to the local Bishop! He was highly amused as the church in question is URC! I would also add that the family concerned were unknown to the minister & congregation!
I eventually got my fee!
I wonder if they thought that the funeral directors shouldn't be paid either....
-
All on December 10???
No, I don't think so!
But I do share bombarde32's preferences!
Bach Bwv 579
in The Organ
Posted
http://www.bh2000.net/score/orgbach/organ10.pdf
I agree with Vox and Paul's suggestions too!