Vox Humana

Now that's something you can't do with a toaster, or with The-System-That-Must-Not-Be-Named. Ditto this piece, which I rather like, and which underlines the point S_L made yesterday about originality.

It's a rather lovely piece, whatever it is. My first thought was Delius, although it's nothing that I know. My second thought, given that the Launceston in question here is the one in Tasmania, not Cornwall, was to wonder whether it might be Edgar Bainton—but I'm not aware that he wrote any organ music and the style is probably a bit too chromatic for him. I suspect that this is an original organ piece and not an arrangement, although that's just a guess.

I agree. We all make mistakes and even the presenters of old time could make them, but it's the general sloppiness that bugs me. In the days when the BBC was a public service provider and a standard setter, high standards mattered. Now that the focus is on entertainment and ratings, they don't so much. We now have Radio 3 announcers who, without the slightest respect for the listening experience, think it cool to barge in before the last chord has died away, who talk over the music, who apparently think that we long to heard their voices, and who behave generally like DJs. It's awful. Sorry. End of rant.

Once upon a time, pretty much. These days, not so much. A presenter's personality is now more important than learning. What a contrast with the simple, factual; presentations of old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdNjQbtiGOA. That said, errors apart, I did think the presenter of this prom had a much better style than some.

First of all, how do you get them to listen to reason? A couple of days ago I was talking to the organist of a remote village church (congregation c.20) which has a II/P organ of 11 stops by Anon. It's a rather lovely thing, thanks to the golden touch of the late Bill Drake, although I'm quite sure this wouldn't stop some organists replacing it with a digital instrument, owing to its lack of a 'proper' Full Swell, Tuba, Open Wood, 32' reed, etc., etc. It sits at the back of the church, in the north-west corner, its rear against the side wall. Immediately to the left of the organ, a doorway is about to be drilled through the west wall, to provide access to a toilet to be built onto the outside of the church. A kitchen is also envisaged. Inevitably this wall is several feet thick, so a lot of dust will ensue. Are there plans to cover or dismantle the organ to protect it? No. Also, there is complete disregard for the organist's complaints about the disruption around him that will be caused by stampede of the desperate during his voluntaries. He is trying to insist that the organ is not only dismantled, but turned through 90 degrees to put some space between him and the melée. I wish him luck, but I'm wondering where the church will find the extra money.

Yes, the other two are Arietta and Elegy. All three are very attractive pieces. Melody is the easiest, but none of the three is difficult. If I recall correctly I ordered my copy through Musicroom. It was a reprint, but was stapled and of excellent quality.

So is this now a hybrid organ? If so, why on earth? The original III/P pipe organ sounded more than adequate to my ears. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7EaJ1TC9c

I find it quite distressing to watch the increasing desperation of the C of E thrashing about in its death throes. As a musician I cannot but deplore this latest strategy, which will not do organists and quality church music any favours at all. However, from the ever-diminishing clergy's point of view, tasked with promoting the Gospel and bringing people to Jesus, what are they to do in this increasingly secular and anti-religious world? There is plenty of evidence that professional quality church music is well regarded and valued, but that on its own will not sustain the church. Perhaps this isn't a suitable topic for discussion on this thread, or even on this forum, but it is something that will affect both the ability of organists and singers to function as church musicians and, as pointed out, the survival of the instruments we play.

I've no idea, but I thought the examples in the 1974 recording particularly tasteless. Sorry to be blunt, but IMO this sort of thing does nothing to enhance the words and nothing to enhance the music; it's just the organist saying, 'Hey! Look at me!' And I say this as one who is very much in favour of things like descants and colouring the mood of the words - but the accompaniment must never usurp the singing.

I think it's not so much the stop itself as a combination of the recording quality (a microphone in front of speakers maybe?) and the beats created by the discordant semitones. Tippett famously had in mind the Trompeta Real at St John's, Cambridge, of course.

Not totally, but there's very little. That's why they mostly record their CDs elsewhere, e.g. the superb set of Eton Choirbook discs recorded in Merton College Chapel and Howard Goodall's Invictus, recorded in St John the Evangelist, Oxford. The old organ can be heard in this broadcast evensong from 1976: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7iAmKgeyJM The sound quality isn't great, but it's enough to give a good impression and the organ sounds very well. The whole service is well worth hearing (although passing notes between the quarters of psalms should be a capital offence). The Tuba (I assume) can be heard in the Tippett Canticles here: https://youtu.be/DSwj1MvXPAE?t=1106

I played the old H&H at Christ Church a few times. I didn't enjoy the old console much, but I've handled worse and the instrument certainly sounded perfectly adequate. I am sure some would consider it superior to what is there now. The acoustic there doesn't do organs or choirs any favours.

Thanks. There hardly looks to be the depth to accommodate four ranks. Must be pretty tight in there.

Is there actually anything behind that row of display pipes? I'm wondering whether they speak or are just for show.

Should such faults happen after forking out large sums? Certainly not. Is it usual? I can't say, but it must be very much more common than it should be. Speaking for myself, there are major, national firms who I would trust to do a proper, even Rolls-Royce, job. Then there are firms who are very reliable on the mechanical front, but who I would never ask to add extra stops because they lack the artistry. (I know of jobs where secondhand ranks have just been pulled off the factory shelf and plonked onto the soundboard without any attempt at revoicing them to blend with the existing pipework, with ghastly, inartistic results.) And then there are the notorious cowboys who one should never touch with a disinfected bargepole under any circumstances. I could cite two jobs that were done so appallingly that the firms really should have been taken to court. In one case I actually recommended this, but the church declined because they thought it would be bad for their image. At another church an organist friend and I had advised very strongly against using the firm in question, but of course the priest knew better and so proceeded to waste £20,000, just to end up with an organ in the same, sorry state as before, albeit with one of the manuals needlessly electrified. One problem is that churches these days are hard up. Another possible problem, at least where I live, is that organ building is a dwindling profession, so that existing firms can barely cope with the tuning rounds they have, let alone rebuilds. Nevertheless, a customer does have a right to expect a competent job.

I'm sure she was. Heaven knows I've nothing against educating people, but, if you are going to do that, don't you have a moral duty to present accurate, reliable information?

Totally agree about the Poulenc. A wonderful performance – and it was so good to have the organ featured on the first night. My music teacher at school didn't like the Poulenc, despite being an organist. He found it too bitty. That never worried me: I've always loved it. But what on earth was Katie Derham on about it requiring 'such a level of virtuosity'? For heaven's sake, it's completely straightforward! For difficulty it doesn't even begin to compare with the great piano concertos. I don't know why the BBC insists on parading inane presenters who talk down to us. The Beeb should have put the commentating in the hands of Anna Lapwood. Now there's someone who knows how to do a professional job without patronising, as she showed on BBC Young Musician.

Ah yes, of course. I should have remembered that. Thank you. I did read something, somewhere, though mentioning a date of c.1500. Maybe it's just the word 'stop' that makes it's first appearance around then. Or maybe I'm just completely confused! 🙂

Tangential query: When do we get the first mention of stops? So far as I know, it's as late as c.1500.

The discovery is not that new, apparently. https://jeremymontagu.co.uk/Bethlehem organ J L-D.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3zPGz7gVRVWazI12dYlcMqRE3rrOqLCY9nJfgD7zwUELkQDc9oDFjShdY

https://aleteia.org/2021/07/24/reconstructing-a-12th-century-pipe-organ-discovered-in-the-holy-land/?fbclid=IwAR203wjhaOKBT_TykcFvZ2VhXcLm6ggOx4syk96oXumdEac4M9F_biINU8E

The trouble is that incumbent organists always seem to be adamant that the alterations they want are 'needed', irrespective of what others think. A case in point is the two-manual Father Willis I mentioned above. I could mention other cases, as I am sure we all could.

The first organ I ever set my mitts on was a humble II/P parish church Father Willis, still in original condition. It was, of course, of Rolls Royce quality, but, being buried in a brick organ chamber in a sizeable and very lofty church with a dead acoustic, it was barely adequate for the job, especially the small Swell, which was largely ineffective when the congregation was singing. Inevitably a later organist had it rebuilt in the '70s, much to my regret. I have to say that the firm (Deane's) did a very good and musically artistic job (and left the Great mostly untouched), but it's hardly a Father Willis any more. One of the wonderfully chameleon characteristics of the Windsor organ was that full organ could sound either English or French as you wished, depending on which stops you used. The Swell reeds, the Solo Orchestral Clarion and the Pedal Trombone had French shallots, although tonally the Swell reeds were more English Channel than either pure French or English. So, for Whitlock, say, your full organ would consist of full Great and Swell, but the moment you added the Solo Trumpets the sound would take on a distinctly French flavour. Coventry was almost a twin of Windsor, specification-wise, the main differences being (1) that its Solo division is another chorus, rather than Windsor's more traditional selection of solo voices and (2) it doesn't have a Chair Organ. Apart from that it was (IMO) probably the better organ in that the whole thing was newly constructed and therefore had a tonal integrity that Windsor lacked in one or two places owing to the use of second-hand material. Playing it felt rather different, due to the detached console, but, from what I remember (from a fleeting acquaintance) the sound was quite similar, even down to the Solo Trumpets. I'm not at all up to date with Coventry, but, so far as I know, it is still largely untouched, except that the Solo trumpets have been revoiced.

For all that there is a growing opinion that organs should be left alone, it takes only one person to compromise, or destroy, one on the grounds that certain things need 'improving'. No organ is safe. I'm no better than anyone else. There is not one organ that I have known intimately, which I would not have 'improved' in some little way, had the money and opportunity been available, even if it were only replacing a stop with a similar one of better quality. How many organs do we now have on which it is possible to hear Stanley and Boyce voluntaries exactly as the composers heard them? - i.e. organs that have had no alterations or reconstructions whatsoever. Not many, I think. It's not only Britain. The late Prof Peter Williams, always one for challenging assumptions and making people think, once wrote that he could not be entirely sure how an Arp Schnitger organ originally sounded. No doubt someone will have mentioned Cappel, to which I have no doubt that Williams pointed out that it was not voiced for the church that now houses it. Perhaps he was splitting hairs, but, along the same lines, all the organs at which Bach presided have been lost. How sad is that? The reconstruction at Arnstadt is precisely that; it is not the organ that Bach played. The neo-Baroque movement of the '50s and '60s is now seriously out of favour - to put it mildly. I am tempted to suggest that this is because it was espoused primarily by certain leading players of the time who prized clarity of texture and genuine, idiomatic organ music above vague, stodgy effect. A good benchmark was the end of the Adagio of BWV 564: you could judge how musical an organ was by how clearly you could hear the semiquavers just before the final chord. The iconic, eclectic instruments of that era are gradually disappearing. Buckfast Abbey has gone, replaced by an instrument generally considered to be inferior, and St George's Windsor, possibly the most eclectic of them all, has been significantly compromised, with its French elements removed. We still have Gloucester, St Alban's, Coventry and Brompton Oratory (only the latter unaltered), but for how much longer? And where does the RFH fit into this picture? Some of these organs are idiosyncratic, to say the least, but they are part of our musical heritage and, as such, ought to be preserved. Today orchestral arrangements and the old 'town hall' style of entertainment is in fashion. This is also part of our musical heritage, but that is no excuse for forcing every instrument to confirm.

I am sure you did not intend to make it sound as though it is the bishop's fault. It is at least good to know that this issue has been aired. The PUSS's dead-bat answers to the various questions posed really just demonstrated what little understanding the government has of this issue and how little it cares. What has the government got against amateur singers? So far as I can ascertain, their decision is based on slender evidence consisting of that well-known incident in the USA at the start of the pandemic, where an unmasked choir taking no precautions caused an outbreak of infections, bolstered by a couple of other studies, one of them in Australia. Anything more?