Vox Humana

The American liking for lots of celestes well in evidence here, I see. I don't mind that personally. Not sure I feel comfortable with virtually all of the Pedal being borrowed. (Or is it, Midmer-Losh-like, really the other way around?) I'd happily have sacrified some manual stops for more independence here. Tell me: why the Clarinet and Orchestral Oboe on the Choir instead of the Solo? I know Ernest Skinner did this sort of thing and there must be a reason. I've got an idea why, but I'd be interested to hear from an American.

In that case, a very warm welcome, David!

I haven't been able to sleep and I'm in a mean mood, so I thought I'd inflict you all with a good old grump. In another thread Tubular Pneumatic made the interesting comment that he much preferred high English consoles to the low-level American ones. Neither is the exclusive preserve of one nation, but I know what he means: as a generalisation the distinction is valid. My heart warms to our American friend: I wholeheartedly agree! A low level console means that in a large organ you've got to have three or four columns of stop knobs for each division. Once this happens it seems that the logical sequence of pitches from low to high goes to pot. A case in point is Washington Cathedral where the layout is somtimes quite bizarre. To take the Pedal reeds as an example, the 2ft Kornet appears in the middle of the five 8fts. The 16ft Bombarde is nowhere near the 32ft Bombarde, but is immediately above the 32ft Contra Fagotto (why didn't they swap the two 32fts?) The 8ft Bombarde is directly above the 16ft, but the Clairon is three columns to the left of them. Maybe this sort of thing happens over here as well, but I've never personally come across the three-column design in this country. I feel the Americans have a lot still to learn about console layout. Or is there some logic here that I'm failing to see? Low level consoles also mean that the couplers tend to get placed in a row of stop tabs above the top manual. This is very common in America where you have lots of couplers, but you get it fairly regularly in Britain too. And how I hate it! I can never find the one I want quickly. Bung them in their respective divisions every time, I say! In fact this problem of quick location goes for stop tabs generally. Give me knobs every time. It's said that an advantage of stop tabs is that you get from pianissimo to fortissimo quickly simply by doing a glissando across the top of them. No doubt. But what discriminating organist wants every Dulciana, Salicional and Celeste (not to mention Erzhälers) in the fortissimo? Then there's the continental type of low-level console with the stops in curving horizontal rows. Now I don't mind these nearly so much. At least the ones I've encountered were easy enough to manipulate. But because the stops are well below eye level it requires more eye movement to locate the ones you want. So I still find them less helpful than the traditional English design. Then there's console lights. The most crass design was one I came across a few times in America where the horizontal part of the music rest - the bit that stops your music falling onto the keyboard - was a flourescent music light. No doubt its inventor thought it a whizz-bang idea, but what actually happens is that the light shines not only onto the page your reading, but behind it as well, making the music on the reverse side show through and thus obscure what you're trying to read. Quite impractical! There, I feel better for that! Views, boquets and brickbats awaited.

Next best thing to Windsor! The specifications are very similar indeed, except that Coventry's Solo Organ is really another chorus division - I've never worked out what the point of it was. Also when I played it it felt a lot more "spongy" owing to the detached console. Apart from that, yes, a great instrument!

A certain amount of overlap with MM here. 1) If I had the choice of only one organ it would have to be St George's, Windsor. For an all-rounder you really can't beat it. It really can play anything. I daresay there are other organs that can produce a roundly Romantic full organ in Howells and a thoroughly French one in Messiaen, but I've yet to come across them. There are a few tweaks I'd want done, though. It needs a new Great Cornet for a start (unless that's been done since Sidney Campbell's time). I'm fairly sure H&H cobbled it up from leftovers from the Rothwell/Walker. At any rate it's rather nasty. And if I remember rightly, the Solo Cor de Nuit 8ft was the old Great Open III revoiced. It works, but could be bettered. Then there's the Swell Mixture. Being a French Plein Jeu (22.26.29.33) in all but name it doesn't work with the flues alone. I wouldn't want to get rid of it, but there is a need for a lower-pitched flue chorus Mixture too. For the rest I just haven't the first-hand experience to make a definitive choice, but for the moment I think it would have to be: 2) The Hildebrandt at Naumburg. What an organ! Surely the ideal Bach instrument (whether or not he had any say in the spec). Wonderful choruses, real gravitat in the pleno and some wonderful sonorities possible by blending 8ft stops. 3) St Bavo, Haarlem 4) St Ouen, Rouen, or St Sulpice. 5) Sidney Town Hall for a good old English Romantic instrument with bags of brilliance and a wealth of quieter colours. 6) The "Wetheringsett" organ. Essential if you want to understand the early English repertoire properly. Wouldn't want it as my only instrument, but I'll take it in conjunction with any of the others.

Why a 4ft flute that isn't usable in a chorus? Surely that's limiting the organ's flexibility? A good 4ft flute ought to be able to fulfil both functions. I assume you achieve the different pitches of your Swell 8ft flute by drawing it in stages. I wouldn't want the pitches appearing in order from bottom to top - and what is the point of 1ft stops anyway? I'd go for a sequence of something like 8, 4, 2, 2 2/3, 1 1/3, 5 1/3. But with so many draw stages, isn't it going to be very hit-and-miss if you want to pull just the 8, 4 & 2 pitches quickly? And I think Anthony's point about the tuning needs considering too. Personally I'd lose the mutations. And then how much money would you save by having just one stop knob instead of separate ones? Voix Celeste and Salicional every time. At least Howells sounds OK with a Voix Celeste; I don't think French music does on a Vox Angelica. I'm thinking of the typical English Voix Celeste, which is not so astringent as the French ones (nice though they are). Also, you say your Full Swell is going to be fiery, so wouldn't it be better to have the quiet stuff not totally at odds with this personality? Like Pierre, I'm not sure whether the Great Mixture should be so high. Depends what breaks you envisage, of course. Maybe it could be made to work, but, personally, for three ranks I'd stick to 19.22.26. Edit: Just read this post again and it struck me that it sounds a bit belligerent. If so, I apologise. It wasn't meant to.

Nah, that's the Roman Catholics. This one's nearer: Q. How many Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb ? A. Change? What do you mean, change?

You missed another trick, Lee: you can get loads more toe pistons in at each end of the pedal board! http://www.davidhegarty.com/images/photos/Harrah_organ.jpg (And just for the record, this console's real!)

I quite like this, but wouldn't the Dulciana chorus sound rather colourless? I can't quite see what advantages it would have over a diapason chorus. Maybe the 8ft could be a Gemshorn. I've come across American organs which have this on the Swell, plus a Gemshorn Celeste; it's quite an effective compromise.

Dame Monica will be spinning in her grave. When she gave the money to build the chapel she expressly stipulated that no organ should be installed there (or at least that was the received wisdom as I heard it). Fabulous acoustics there for choral music, I remember.

Ah, yes. An occupational hazard, I reckon: Optimist: My glass is half full. Pessimist: My glass is half empty. IT technician: My glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Isn't there just! It doesn't seem to matter how carefully I proof-read a post. Once it appears on the board I nearly always spot a mistake. I entirely agree about commas. My personal bugbear is people who put a possessive apostrophe in "its". That and people who don't know the difference between "there", "their" and "they're". Actually, I lie. What really gets me going is the "I know what I meant" brigade who think it really doesn't matter. But the world is full of people who don't seem to consider whether their drivel will be intelligible to others. (Cue for someone to ask me what the hell I'm wittering on about... )

Whatever the arguments for and against digital organs in churches, they most certainly have a place in the home as practice instruments. Has anyone heard any of the Hauptwerk samples live? I know of one electronic organ builder who is very excited about the latest version. Most of the mp3s on the web sound almost indistinguishable from CDs of the real thing, but then, coming out of loudspeakers at at CD quality they would, wouldn't they? The proof of the pudding, however, will be in the eating, not in the cookery book.

Just to clarify: Howells had his lessons (as Brewer's articled pupil) on the Willis organ. The H&H rebuild didn't happen until 1920 - long after Howells had departed to study at the RCM.

I played St Paul's decades ago and, unless I'm going senile (quite possible) the swell pedals were of the ordinary variety. As far as I can recall the only time I have ever come across the infinite gradation pedals was on the old organ at Canterbury Cathedral (even longer ago). Your description is correct. If I remember correctly, so long as the swell pedal remains very slightly depressed forward the box will continue to open slowly until fully open. The further you press the pedal the faster the box opens. To stop it opening, you have to return the swell pedal to a centrally sprung position (at least I think it was sprung). To close the shutters you used your heel to move the pedal in the opposite direction. What I do remember is, it took some getting used to! I suppose with these swell pedals you could engineer a slow crescendo during a double-pedal passage by engaging the pedal a tad just before you start it.

Hilarious, Brian! If I ever get fingered by the fuzz (oo-er...), you're my man!

Only guessing, but it's gotta be Salisbury!

I remember Howells going on about how he had to fight sometimes to get publishers to follow his notation and not amend it to their house style (yes, I had him for composition too!) I wish - oh how I wish! - that I had had the courage to quiz him much more about his music. Did you ever ask him about the left-hand A at the bottom of the second page of Set 2 No. 2? It surely has to be an A sharp (I note that Dearnley plays one there). Sidney Campbell taught me very firmly that in French music the dynamic markings always referred only to the position swell pedal and that stop changes were always specifically marked. He had read very widely on the subject, I think, though I don't know his sources.

Hi Graham I've just had a listen to Dearnley's recording (this is the Hyperion one, yes?) and I don't detect any crescendos at either of the two places Howells marked them. What I do hear is: (1) a slight opening of the swell box in the first bar of the second system on page 5. This might have been accomplished by playing the right-foot marcato crotchet D as a quaver and opening the box in the ensuing quaver rest (it's exactly there it occurs, but I can't hear what happens in the pedal) or else by the right toe under the swell pedal technique (but in that case he could have done it where the hairpin is); and (2) a Great piston pressed for the last chord before the fortissimo.

I'm sure it was more general than that. Perhaps I should have explained the context. The organist in question did not like Howells's music; he believed in clear, lean contrapuntal textures and thought Howells's writing fussy and messy. Although I wasn't present when he asked the question, Howells may have picked up a hint of unspoken criticism. In that context Howells's reply may have been slightly dismissive. It would therefore be tempting to ignore it as irrelevant, but that misses the point of how important strings were to Howells. In this earlier years - when he was still writing primarily secular music - Howells was very much pre-occupied with the sound of strings. In a BBC talk he spoke of "sonority without noise - which is the great abiding power of the string medium. In a world of sounding brass and tinkling cymbal and of noise magnified to the nth degree, this is it - sonority without noise - that marks the supreme contribution made by string music to the fund of our musical enchatment." [And, yes, I looked that quote up!] He once asked Elgar whether there was any hope of him acquiring the great man's sheer sonority of string writing. Elgar replied, "Yes. Study George Frederick ... now and all your life." It chimes. But all that is meant by this, I think, is that string writing was the inspiration for Howell's textures and counterpoint. It certainly doesn't imply that we have to interpret his pieces as if they were chamber music.

I'm not at all sure that Howells necessarily expected a swell pedal to be used here, or even stops to be added. He might well have intended it a "mental state" rather than a real crescendo. Although Howells had been an organist, we should remember that he belonged to the era when the instrument was thought of at least partly as a one-man orchestra. When an eminent organist (who had better remain nameless) asked Howells about the texture of his organ writing, Howells apparently replied "Oh, I always think in terms of a string quartet". Coincidentally that same organist also published a piece which ends on a crescendoing chord in which the feet are playing a simultaneous twelfth. I charged the organist that you couldn't do the crescendo and received the retort, "You can!" He clearly intended you to stick your right toe under the swell pedal and heave!

At my last but one church I used to slip out for a smoke on the vestry step, but the vicar eventually put a stop to that. I'm not convinced he needed to do it in the middle of the service though! But you could say I got my just deserts! At my last church (20 years ago now) the problem simply didn't exist. No priest, no sermons! We only had a weekly choral evensong so it was simple for one of the choir to do the honours. And this in a church that had hefty income from city centre rents and really only the music to spend it on. Eat your hearts out, folks!

Thanks, Richard. I'll do that. Glissando? I'm sure that's not in either of the scores I have. I suspect a bit of showmanship there! For what it's worth (not much, since I'm only guessing) I would put my money on the OUP/Rawsthorne version being adapted. I haven't got my copy in front of me (at work!), but I'm sure it says something about him having added the registration markings. Perhaps his intervention went a bit beyond simple registration? The Peters version has both the Toccata and another movement from the same suite, which perhaps makes it marginally less likely to be a rearrangement.

Well, I guess it will only be tricky if he behaves himself - the mega specs are a dead giveaway! I think the mods have the means to ban individual ISPs and I would imagine he'll run out of alternatives eventually.

I tried them both together against a Full Swell accompaniment. Full Swell won hands down!