Vox Humana

I agree with every word of this. Except the very last one.

My dear GDH (or is it Mr Bournias in disguise?) welcome to the forum. I think you must be not so very experienced in the ways of the internet. If you imagine there is animosity here, have a look round usenet a bit. You will soon change your mind! We have robust views, yes, but animosity? Very little, I think.

Interesting post, Nick. Thanks. There does seem to have been a definite friendship between the Messiaens and Ms Bate. He actually took the trouble to come to London (an event in itself) for what I think was the first British performance of the Livre du Saint Sacrement when Ms Bate played it at Westminster Cathedral. The whole thing was televised; I've got it on video somewhere.

Quite! It all depends what you do with them, doesn't it? Nothing wrong with a bit of levity, but if your treatment is no more adept than that of the average worship song, well, 'nuff said! I must admit - oh the shame of it! - that I once improvised the choir out to "Happy birthday to you" when one of the choirmen had a birthday. But I did disguise it in 4/4 time and used it as an introduction to the Fugue from Mendelssohn's second in order to make people wonder whether they'd really heard what they thought they had. Didn't fool the choirman, fortunately.

Having noticed some comments on another thread about the grande orgue at Chartres, I wondered what members' views on the Beauvais instrument are. I have Jennifer Bates' (almost complete) Messiaen cycle which she recorded mostly on this instrument and I don't quite know what to make of it. It actually sounds like a very interesting instrument and really quite nice - but it just sounds so wrong for Messiaen! The tone colours are very far from those at La Trinité and not at all what I understand as "French" (which, basically, is Cavaillé-Coll). Yet, according to the liner notes Messiaen heard the recordings and "endorsed every one with enormous enthusiasm". So do I (as I suspect) have a terribly narrow view of French organ tone? And is the Beauvais instrument typical of Danion-Gonzalez's work?

I hugely enjoyed Brigg's improvised symphony on the pipedreams programme here. It sounds as though Martin Baker is worth hearing too, judging from a review of one of his recitals here.

Just so that this thread can continue to make some sort of sense, here again is the spec that Steve posted:

Thanks for the views. I think I'll go for a CD or two rather than the DVD. I enjoyed the video in Douglas's link!

Hi, Tony, and thanks for your observations. I said I wouldn't pass judgement on the rights or wrongs of using a popular style of worship and I won't. However... Why do I think that less than 10% of the UK population are in church on an average Sunday? Well obviously because they don't see the church as an essential part of their lives. Very often they will lump God in with that too, of course, but I'm constantly surprised by the number of people who do admit to believing in a deity, even if they are not sure what form it might take. However I see no evidence that dumbing down the music is filling our churches. Nor am I entirely sure that a popular style of worship draws more people than traditional services either. In my experience, what fills churches is the charisma of the priest, with the standard of musical performance (in whatever style) coming a close second. I suppose it's about getting the place to come alive. And that can be done in a traditional manner as well as a popular one.

Odd as it may seem, I don't seriously disagree with you. To my mind the problem lies with society's attitude to the high arts. Until there's a change in mind-set at this fundamental level, there is no hope of congregations appreciating how much more enriching art music can be (because it simply won't enrich them).

Steve does seem to have a habit of deleting his posts. It's beginning to look like throwing stones and running away. At any rate it makes following the threads difficult. Maybe best to "quote" when replying?

Sorry: another rant coming. It's only down to "musical opinion" if you take the view that it's a valid opinion that self-expression is all and any assessment of standards is a mere value judgement. The accepted values that traditionally schooled western composers are brought up on have evolved over many centuries and IMO it's a brave man who dismisses them as irrelevant. (I'm not saying Lee does, but some do.) To paint the broad-brush picture, the main problem today is that Britain is a nation of philistines who have little or no interest in high art and who consequently expect nothing more from music than an instant "quick fix". I could draw a sexual parallel, but I won't defile this forum with it. So the concept of what constitutes good music has been dumbed down. Look at the way it's taught in state schools now. It's been brought down to the level that art had been when I was a kid (where it was all about self-expression; we were taught nothing about its history, the artists or the various styles and so on; we just painted). The need to provide a common curriculum for all abilities has brought music to the same state - the lowest common denominator. I don't see why it needed to do so, but it has. So your average worship song is musically cr@p because basic enjoyment is sufficient and the heightened appreciation that comes from traditional musical training is not deemed relevant. The other factor in the equation is that the anglican church today is on a mission to make God relevant to today's society - to bring him down to our level instead of to raise us to his. I make no judgement about whether this is right or wrong; I merely note the trend. But I do consider that music is the loser. The best church music was written by people who were reaching for the highest ideals. This isn't a rant against popular music per se, it's about quality. John Rutter writes in a popular style and does so very deftly. I don't necessarily like his music (I sometimes find it too sentimental), but I admire it immensely.

I would agree that there's nothing quite like a Graham Kendrick chorus!

I was introduced to Brewer's Marche Héroïque by the organ scholar at Aachen Cathedral. Moreover, while not organ music, the youth choir there did a Christmas concert a couple of years ago that included Howells's three carol-anthems and the Magnificat from his Hereford service, no less - and I wonder how many British choirs sing that service. There are certainly people in that neck of the woods with a taste for British cathedral music.

I like this spec quite a lot. I guess we'd all make slight tweaks, but there are only two I feel strongly about: 1. I do think that to omit a Solo Orchestral Oboe is to omit an essential English tone colour; and 2. I've never really understood the need for two loud 16ft pedal reeds. I'd personally prefer a Trombone and a 16ft Fagotto since a more restrained pedal reed is often very useful and telling. If it can be extended to 8ft as well, so much the better.

I've been thinking I ought to get this and would be interested to hear members' opinions of it. Does it do the man justice?

I understand St Peter's has a reverberation time of 7 seconds. Given that lower frequencies take longer to decay than higher ones, are all those manual 32s going to allow us actually to hear any music?

I think he should be mounted. En chamade.

Since I don't know the instrument I may be out of turn, but over the years the Worcester organ has been widely criticised. In fact, until I read this thread I had not heard a good word about it (except for some eulogies when Hope-Jones first built it as reported in Stephen Bicknell's book). I don't claim to have had my ear very close to the ground on this, but I do get the impression that the instrument's supporters are in a minority. I've heard a few recordings of it now (I'd forgotten that I have an old LP of the choir) and I must say that, while much of it sounds OK, the essentially 8ft character of the instrument palls very quickly to my ears.

I know what you mean about the Crediton organ. I think it's a fine instrument of its type, but it is a bit opaque. But that's Trombas for you, isn' it? I hate the things personally; I can't see they have any musical advantage over brighter reeds of the Trumpet variety. The acoustics of the church don't help either. But, like I say, if you accept the organ on its own terms... well... I know far worse!(Incidentally, I see the organist has just had a Phoenix installed in his home with an identical spec. plus several additions.) I accept that Exeter is neither pukka Willis nor typical H&H. From what you say, H&H must have done a more radical job at Gloucester than at Exeter. I wonder what the original Gloucester Willis (as known to Howells) sounded like. More like Hereford, I would hope. Exeter is an very fine instrument with a wonderfully rich tone; it sounds best in the nave IMO. I really don't think it would be improved by more brilliant mixtures. In fact, I imagine they would ruin the instrument. I think even the current Sharp Mixture was a mistake. It's just not that sort of organ. Yes, it isn't loud enough for a nave congregation, but I don't think tinkering with a few stops here and there is the right way to go. IMO, the 2001 rebuild wasn't an unqualified success. As I think I've said elsewhere, the 32ft reed sounds like the results of an indigestible curry and the new Great Principal sticks out like a sore thumb. I can't see why the latter was necessary when there's a whole new Minstrel department for nave accompaniment. I guess this is a case where I have to swallow my pride about spreadeagling organs: the Minstrel Organ was clearly necessary and there really wasn't anywhere better to put it. On the subject of tinkering with Romantic Organs by adding/strengthening the upperwork, does anyone share my views about the Hereford Cathedral Willis? I've got Graham Barber's disc of the Howells Sonata & Six Pieces and both the organ and playing sound wonderful in every way - except for that horribly tinkly and percussive Great Mixture IV that H&H added in 1978. At least, I assume that's the culprit; I can't see what else it could be. It just doesn't sound part of the same instrument. I'm not saying that it's necessarily H&H's fault; in cases like this how do you know whether to blame the organists or the builders? I'm only guessing, but I bet the needs of congregational accompaniment were behind that addition too.

I thought that British Unda Maris stops were usually flute toned (?) I seem to recall a flute Unda Maris at Norwich Cathedral, but it was over 30 years ago that I played it, so my memory could be entirely up the spout. I certainly wouldn't know how it compares with American stops. I agree that Flutes Celestes are a most distinctive and useful colour. But not too mistuned, please: I prefer them with a somewhat slower undulation than your average Celeste. I suppose its rarity over here is down to the fact that little or nothing in the mainstream repertoire actually calls for it. Chicken and egg.

Spot on, Lee.

Or like a Macdonald's obesity problem, perhaps. I've said rather too much on this topic recently, but I was always a sucker for taking a dangling bait... American organs are certainly not under-powered. In my experience the voicing is usually rather more assertive, more "in your face", than your typical British Romantic organ. In the smaller churches I've never felt that the instrument's size is dictated by the acoustics of the building. I'm certain that ostentation is a driver with the very big instruments (none of which needs all the stops and departments it has): the Forrest Burdette console must surely be a classic case of oneupmanship (pity the instrument is mostly digital!) But bear in mind that we're talking about a country that has a much higher standard of living than ours (let's not get into the gulf between the "haves" and "have nots") and more disposable income. To have a 50- or 60-stop four-manual in an ordinary-sized church is just not the extravagance that it would be in England. The churches can afford it. And good luck to them, I say. John Wanamaker bought his organ from the St Louis fair and transported it back to Philly. When he installed it in his store he found it disappointingly underpowered and that's one reason, at least, why he set about enlarging it.

Sorry, Pierre, but the Worcester instrument doesn't have anything to do with SS Wesley's musical aesthetic. It belongs to an entirely different period and sound world. Wesley's aesthetic is represented by the organ he designed for St Giles, Camberwell. There's a stoplist and brief critique here.

The brouhaha over Gloucester happened in John Sanders' time (1971) when the Willis as rebuilt by Harrisons was transformed into the current HNB. As I recall, the angst at the time boiled down to "How dare they turn a fine Romantic cathedral organ into bubble-and-squeak". If the original organ was anything like Exeter Cathedral (also an ex-Willis H&H) the criticisms may have been valid. The old organ sounds features on the Priory reissue of Ryemuse recordings and it sounds quite decent, whereas the present organ seemed rather ungracious to me in this year's midnight mass. It sounds pretty good on Hurford's disc of Krebs chorales though.