Vox Humana

Of course he is, Paul. As I hinted in another post, yfd stands for "Youngstown Fire Department" (in Ohio, of course), another of Mr Bournias's interests; he is (or was) active in their forum. In my opinion, I think it is pretty clear that Mr B is a troll who, for reasons of his own, has some sort of grudge against either English organs or Manders in particular and is deliberately trying to disrupt the forum (which is what trolls do). His habit of deleting his posts, thus rendering the threads virtually unreadable, is proof of that. It is certainly a great discourtesy to his hosts. The best way - in fact the only way - to deal with trolls is to ignore them entirely (which in future I shall be doing).

Oh yes. Despite the comments above, I enjoyed it very much. It's clearly the sort of organ you need to spend time getting to know. It must be fabulous for accompanying the Catholic liturgy. But it does fall a bit short in repertoire and accompanying Anglican choral music. The organ is by no means on its last legs yet, but it must be overdue for a major overhaul. It was the runnings that worried me most - it did sound like there was quite a lot of wind leaking.

All this seems a far cry from the days when John Wesley turned his hour glass over for a second hour and people sighed with rapture! Personally I find I can concentrate for less and less time the older I get. Life's too short to waste it concentrating.

Well, I played this instrument today. What a curious affair it is. Despite lots of bright upperwork, the voicing is essentially Romantic, but a smooth build-up is next to impossible. The only real solo stop is the Clarinet, but it's on the Swell, which is the least useful place for it. And I'm sorry but the Great reeds are pathetic; they might as well not be there. In terms of style, the organ doesn't seem to know what it's meant to be. Yet for all that, it has a strong persona and it's not a bad one. As noted above, there's a wealth of very nice quiet stuff and I did enjoy playing it. Of course the acoustic helps immeasurably too. It's not in the best of health. The Swell Geigen wasn't working at all, the Rollschweller was playing up (or so Fr Sebastian told me; I didn't use it myself) and the runnings were at times quite distracting, especially when full organ was prepared.

Hmm... Perhaps I should take you up on that drink you offered to buy me after all! Make mine a Bruichladdich Full Strength. Pure nectar!

Hmm... I think I fancy applying for your job when it becomes vacant shortly! Me, sir? I listen! I'm all ears! Honest, I do/am!

Perhaps you'd have more luck requesting one of those stops they have at Ratzeburg - you know, the one that opens a drinks draw when you pull it. I've never come across one of those, though I did once know an organ with an ash tray.

I'm glad I'm not the only one!

I must apologise for lighting the blue touch paper and running away. I'd meant to reply sooner, but I've had a load of accompaniments to learn for a concert. Thank you one and all for your replies. They have certainly made fascinating reading and MM's account of Alkmaar and St Bavo was most moving. It's interesting that everyone has sidestepped the real question, which was "What actually is Bach's Prelude and Fugue in B minor?" (or any other piece of your choice). I guess it's unanswerable, as pcnd suggested at the outset. It seems we can only answer for what Bach (or whoever) means to us personally and I guess that's why the discussion has focussed on how people set about turning "the dots" into meaningful music. Yes, performances of Bach fugues that start on a single 8' and gradually build up to full organ can be very musical and gripping, but, even when this is done incomparably movingly, to what extent is it still Bach? Such performances must surely be very far away from the taste and culture of his day. I can't help feeling that there is a point where where the notes part company with the composition - though I couldn't begin to suggest where that point is. I think the point MM was making (please do correct me if I'm wrong) amounts to advice that we each have to experience our own revelation in order to understand. Given that we can never recover Bach's own performances (and J Maslen's point about there probably not being any definitive ones was well made) I guess that's the fairest comment one can make in the circumstances. (Am I being unbelievably anally retentive worrying about this? Probably! )

Ah, but I know what caused mine: I hit the reply button instead of the edit one. I know it's teaching granny to suck eggs and I'm not sure it's technically possible for it to be the problem either, but might it be that you're double-clicking the "add reply" button instead of single-clicking it?

I have two versions of this. The OUP one, edited by Noel Rawsthorne, starts on a common chord lying between Tenor C and Middle C. The other, in a Peters volume entitled Twentieth Century Organ Music from Russia and Eastern Europe starts an octave higher and also has other differences, most notably B flats in the penultimate chord instead of B naturals. Does anyone know which version is Mushel's original? If anyone has the whole suite from which it comes, that would presumably answer the question. Or was Mushel responsible for both versions?

Oops! Duplicate post deleted.

At the practical level, the future addition of pipes would never materialise. Well, hardly ever. On existing pipe organs, how many "prepared for" stops ever get put in? If the initial electronic is sufficient to meet the churches needs, the church is probably not going to be interested in spending more money on it. So if the organist wants any pipe additions he is probably going to have to raise the money himself. I've played this instrument in the states. About half of it is digital. It was almost impossible to tell which was which. The reeds were electronic, though you probably would not guess if you didn't know. One class of flue stops was also electronic. I think it was the flutes - or was it the strings? I couldn't tell.

I'm sure that's right. I guess we're talking about the era when Early Music was being rediscovered and "authentic" performances needed to avoid contamination by Romanticism. Germani wasn't the worst offender though. I remember reviews of Lionel Rogg's first set of Bach recordings being criticised for being too clinical (and Rogg himself agreed).

Almost the first organ recording I bought as a teenager was a 10-inch LP of Germani playing the great Bach Preludes and Fugues in C minor, e minor and C major at Alkmaar. It fundamentally influenced my early approach to Bach. I still think his majestic interpretation of the 9/8 prelude gets to Bach's core more profoundly than the superficial dance most modern players offer us.

All this talk of the reeds is interesting. I have the Kynaston LP referred to above and in all the fortissimos what you hear is mainly mixturework. Maybe it's different in the building.

Wow, Steve. Five manuals, 168 stops and they couldn't afford an adjustable bench? Nice pics though.

You often get a similar sort of reaction from people who prefer their Baroque music played by modern orchestras rather than on "original" instruments. I don't know that I'd call it supremely arrogant. I think it's probably more about comfort zones. Either way, I agree there's a fault in their musical receptiveness (I think that's what I mean, but I'm tired).

I am finding this info on Notre Dame most enlightening. It goes some way to explaining my puzzlement when I heard the organ in situ two or three years ago. It was an Italian organist playing the Reubke and Ad nos (just my luck - not!) and I was most disappointed at the underwhelming impression the instrument made from less than halfway down the nave. Glorious tone, yes, but very far from hair-raising. However, judging from a recent CD I have I suspect he never used the instrument quite at full bore. I'm not convinced I ever heard the GO Cymbale, for example - or do I mean the Grand Choeur Plein jeu?

If philosophical topics aren't your cup of tea, read no further! On the other hand, if anyone cares to debate it, I'd be interested to read your views. It's a matter I've pondered from time to time without yet reaching any firm conclusion. A question was asked on another thread about what type of organ you can play Bach on and whether all his works require the same type of organ. My eye was caught by this response: "it's a question of making Bach's organ music work on the instrument at your disposal and making a musical effort of it." Now this begs some interesting questions (well, they're interesting to me!) We may get it to work, but is it still Bach? What exactly it is that constitutes a given piece by Bach - or anyone else for that matter? It certainly isn't the dots on the page, which are no more than a notoriously imprecise mechanism for composers to attempt to communicate their compositions to others. I would suggest that the composition itself exists at a somewhat more intellectual level: the sound in the composer's head, or at his finger tips. However much we try, we cannot know exactly how Bach played and interpreted his music. We can call on historical evidence and scholarly arguments to produce the most honest approximation we can, but true "authenticity" is impossible. So at what point does an interpretation of the given piece cease to become Bach? Is there even any point in trying understand how he would have played it?

I think it depends very much (well, entirely, really) on how you like your Bach. Not just organs and registrations, but things like speed, articulation, rubato (or lack of) etc, etc. The Hurford set is still available and very highly regarded. Personally I prefer my Bach a bit more serious (i.e. less fast) and I've come to find the endless tinkly registrations a bit tiresome. But it is an excellent set and if you like your Bach like this you'll love it. Herrick is very well thought of too, though I've not heard it myself (Radio 3 recommended it for the Trio Sonatas) I did have Bowyer's volume of the "Eighteen", but gave it away because I found the performnces a bit lacklustre (partly due to the reverb, if I recall).

Touché!

I hope they also left enough money to revoice this agglomeration into a single organ. I remember hearing some scathing comments once when I was in the states from the owner of a 4-manual E. M. Skinner about a neighbouring church's giant 5-manual being "several organs thrown together". PS: Nice try, Steve. I was wondering how long it would take for the Youngstown Fire Department handle to appear. Now: does your instrument really exist? I think not.

Including this one, hot off the press:http://www.die-orgelseite.de/disp/PL_Lichen_Bazylika.htm Clicking on the photo on the top left of the page will get you some more pics. Looks rather attractive, I must say, even if it is one of those "several organs sprawled around the building" jobs.

AND a musical vicar to boot!