Vox Humana

Some very interesting responses here - for which I thank everyone. Clearly there is a diversity of opinion with, it seems, a general tendency towards the feeling that tracker is OK for small instruments, but less desirable for large ones. Plus a feeling that one shouldn't muck around with historical instruments (which I would agree with, as a rule of thumb anyway). However, I am not altogether sure what to make of the comments about tracker action since posters haven't always made clear whether they are talking of historical actions (which tend to be weighty, if not downright heavy) or modern ones which, in my limited experience, are admirably light. An case in point is this fine organ http://www.konzerte3f.de/orgel/disposition.html It's not exactly a small instrument, yet even with all three manuals coupled, it is no effort to play. Uncoupled, the manuals are hardly heavier than electro-pneumatic action (at least as I remember it - it's light, for sure). However, I hear that not all new tracker actions are like this. I really wanted to know specifically about modern tracker actions, so maybe I should rephrase my original question. Given a clean slate on which to design a new organ, what would be the action of your choice? Mine would be mechanical key action and electric stop action. At least, it would up to three manuals and c.50 stops. Larger than that and I'm not so sure - I've never played a new tracker that big!

Surely you can't beat a modern, light tracker action? Up until this evening I wouldn't have thought there was any argment, but I've learnt that there is! So what does the Brains Trust think? And how variable, weightwise, are modern tracker actions? Of the ones I've played (several, but not a lot), all have been very light and comfortable except for the slightly heavy Gwynn & Goetze at St Endellion in Cornwall - but that's based on eighteenth-century models, including, presumably, the action.

Sorry to veer off topic, but do you happen to know what happened to his piano after he died? A very nice instrument from the Chopin period. I really coveted that.

Quite. I'd much prefer a return to the late sixties fashions. Well, by the girls anyway....

Well, the "Bach is a machine" jibe is just obviously wrong-headed. But you simply cannot draw parallels between organ building and composition. There is no absolute requirement for every organ to be different (except insofar as to ensure it is suitable for its environment). It does not matter if one turns out to be exactly the same as another one around the corner. But a musical composition that in every respect is an exact copy of another is no composition!

I'm very much inclined to see dumbing down as an inevitable product of our soundbite culture. People want and expect instant gratification. They have no concept of the deeper satisfaction obtainable from the more profound utterances in whatever medium because they have not been taught to put in the necessary time and effort to gain the required understanding - and consequently they don't see any point in doing so. There is no appreciation of technique, only of effect. Thus The Sun has a greater circulation than The Times, people cut cows in half instead of painting haywains - and people prefer worship songs to anthems. Perhaps some of these people might think twice if they stopped to draw the obvious sexual parallel. I find the current low regard for the high arts deeply depressing. I retain a slight, but possibly naive, faith that these things go in cycles and that some day we may see a different attitude come into fashion. If and when that happens, I hope that there is something left for them to appreciate.

Reluctantly I have to agree. I think Christopher Palmer had it right in his book about Howells when he said (something like): "I do not believe that in all honesty we can call Howells a great composer. Rather, he is a composer who sometimes achieves greatness." I have all six CDs of the Morning and Evening Canticles (including a couple of communion services) and have to admit that, though you can recognise distinct early, middle and late styles, they do all sound rather the same. Anyway, the best of Howells isn't in the choral music or the organ music - it's in the songs.

No, can't be that, coz I suffer from that too!

Then you can never have heard Francis's very good friend Sidney Campbell. Campbell had exactly the same approach and flair. He, too, knew all the words and pointing off by heart. (They used to do daily Matins in those days of course and after a few years of constant repetition you could hardly help but absorb virtually the whole psalter.) Campbell's Psalm accompaniments were both virtuosic and kaleidoscopic. He would play the first two verses of the psalm as per the chant book to get the choir going. After that anything could - and did - happen. The chords would be would be constantly rearranged in different positions - now clustered at the top of the keyboard with Clarinet solo in the left hand, now down in the tenor register with a 4ft flute solo in the right. Then before you had time to draw breath he'd be improvising a descant on the Pedal Kornet. The colours and textures were constantly changing. And all without batting an eyelid - and without producing any consecutive fifths or octaves. A great man.

Eh? Then what's that Mixture on the Barber CD that sounds so out-of-character - like it's wandered in from the nearest neo-classical jobby?

As far as English organs go I would certainly agree. I've hardly ever come across one that sounded remotely like a 32ft. However the examples I've encountered in America have without exception been very effective indeed.

It's hardly a world away from drawing an Acoustic Bass stop, is it?

Perhaps they let Damien Hirst loose on it. After all, the organ's already been cut in two...

How I agree! Surely no one builds more ergonomically friendly consoles than H&H.

Yes, I guess it boils down to personal taste. I wouldn't want a Fagotto that is only a Contra Oboe - it needs more body than that - but personally I just find Double Trumpets a bit too thick. But of course it all depends on the voicing, not the stop name. Similarly with Salicionals. I don't think I've ever come across a Salicional I would call bland. Most are gently stringy and a perfectly viable partner for a Voix Celeste. To my mind the most appropriate partner for a Vox Angelica is a Dulciana (when I would agree that they are indeed too bland). But I daresay I just haven't been around enough. I could go with your full-bodied strings: I quite like French and modern German celestes.

Quite good for "Og the King of Basan" though!

I like this (except I don't like Harmonic Flutes and Sw Violes). But why the Bass Trumpet instead of a Contra Fagotto? Aren't you depriving yourself of a miniature Full Swell?

When I was at Buckfast Abbey the other day I noticed a stop tab labelled "Double Touch Cancellers Off" I did have a look round for the double touch cancellers that this tab was supposed to disengage before deciding that someone somewhere had had a logic bypass!

I agree up to a point, but it needs only a dozen stops at the very most to fill any building. The second consideration is what functions the organ has to fulfil: those will start to dictate what other stuff you decide to include. Once you have decided what is essential, you can start to consider what scope there is for optional extras to increase the instrument's flexibility. But perhaps that is what you were really saying. In any case, there is a fair bit of unessential stuff on this instrument that could have been sacrificed in favour of an extra, independent pedal stop or two. I don't know the space considerations,of course, but the Ch/Gt Violone wouldn't actually be missed on the manuals and maybe the space could have been used for a pedal rank of 32, 16, 8 and maybe 4. On the Sw you could also lose two of the celestes, one of the 4ft flutes and one of the Vox Humanas without feeling significantly worse off. That would reduce the size of the Swell box and soundboard and maybe (?) free up room for another pedal rank or two. I just worry about the lack of pedal ranks independently voiced to underpin the choruses - a lack of Gravität in other words. As it stands, all that variety on the manuals doesn't look as if it is going to be adequately supported in the Pedals. I don't know. The only reasons I can think of for having the Clarinet and Orch. Oboe on the Choir rather than the Solo are (1) space limitations and (2) it permits dialogue between two different solo stops. These days (2) can be just as easily achieved by using thumb pistons, so I'd much rather have all the solo stops on the Solo - but that's just a matter of personal taste.

Ah yes: double touch is another of my gripes!

And without the right quality of infrastructure (music, organs) any hopes of a turnaround are a non-starter.

A Methodist church near me, a modest building hardly larger than a big church hall, recently had its interior extensively rebuilt. The contractors advised that the Allen electronic's two external speakers on the rear wall could be ditched and the organ fed through the PA system. The churchwarden, who has no knowledge of, or interest in, music readily agreed - naturally without bothering to ask any of the musicians in the congregation. By all accounts the results are pathetic (surprise, surprise!) but the original speakers are gone forever. Serves them right. Personally I'd be seeking legal advice, but the church doeasn't seem inclined to go that far. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, they do.

That is absolutely correct.

That's why it goes so well at Exeter Cathedral! Oh, yes, absolutely. That's the one blemish on Graham Barber's CD of the Sonata and 6 Pieces at Hereford - that ghastly, percussive, tinkly Mixture that must surely be a later addition: it just doesn't fit the rest of the organ. Otherwise, a great disc.

Ah, but isn't that a lot to do with all the historical instruments you have? Historical instruments are exempted from my grumpiness!