Dulciana

The example you quote is clearly an ugly, poor construction. A healthy disregard for the "rule" does not imply that infinitives should be purposefully split at every opportunity. The most important "rule" in any language is to construct clear sentences which convey the meaning succinctly and with clarity; creative writing is a different case, but not what we are talking about here. If to achieve that clarity one has to transgress the odd "rule" here and there, then I think that is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, in 1907 (before you were schooled, David), the Fowler brothers commented (in The King's English) that "the 'split' infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer." The fact that the split infinitive "rule" has pervaded for generations does not in itself imply a sound basis. Grammarians have argued over this "rule" (and others) ever since its conception. The majority of what most of us know has been taught to us by others, and, in the main, we have absorbed it uncritically. Hence superstitions and downright untruths propagate through generations. A fact becomes a fact through repetition. You would be surprised/disturbed/saddened to learn of the tenuous nature of many facts that you hold dear (as would we all).

"I love that saying, whoever wrote it, that says, "Rules were made for the obedience of fools, and for the guidance of wise men." Douglas Bader. "The split infinitive is another case in point, and it seems now (to the regret of many) to be tolerated if not encouraged everywhere, even in academia. Thank you, James T Kirk!" In fact, the split infinitive rule is nothing more than an outmoded superstition. In Latin the infinitive is one word, and so it was once thought that the English two word infinitive should not be interrupted. This is a rather tenuous basis for a rule, and, thankfully, the prejudice seems to be dying out. Attempts to avoid splitting the infinitive often result in clumsy sentence constructions, in which the carefully un-split infinitive is so conspicuous as to draw undue attention to itself. The Douglas Bader quotation above should be borne in mind here. Anyway, enough of that; I should go boldly back to work.

Particularly galling for us amateurs who put in hard work to get something up to scratch for "before" and "after". I don't play for that many services, but even in my limited experience you rarely get the bulk of the congregation to show a little respect to those who do want to listen, even if they don't want to listen themselves. The only time I had the majority stay for an outgoing voluntary was for Lefébure-Wély. Still, it's good practice if nothing else. Funny thing is, though, they'll sit and won't move until the outgoing voluntary starts, as if it's their signal to start talking loudly/departing. They'd complain bitterly if there was no voluntary.

"Firstly I should apologise for, on other threads, suggesting that organists should not overlook you in accompanying bright 2fts on small organs and that you should not be neglected in being called to provide foundation to the beat frequencies of annoying noisy ranks of close harmonics. As one of the latter, I'm with you and understand where you are coming from: together perhaps we can excite the ears." The pseudonym Dulciana, alas, has no special significance, except that I had to pick some sort of pseudonym when joining the board, and seeing that others had used stop names, I just selected the first untaken one that came into my head. In fact, when ordering my Wyvern recently, I had the dulciana replaced with a salicional! Incidentally, I'm delighted to hear that Health and Safety has not yet killed school chemistry. Great days.

"So without disrespect to the performers we know and love from abroad, so much the better if we see a new generation of showmen of the stature of these great men arising from within England to continue championing the pipe organ." The word "showmen" bothers me as I don't know exactly what you mean by it. Do we not desire musicians first and foremost? "That is a terrible generalisation which possibly needs qualification: a month ago after an excellent performance a super organist with only a small audience*, bowed embarrassedly with little panache doing little to engage with the appreciation of his audience. Regularly hundreds miss his fantastic performances. Fearful of criticism, he won't let people listen to recordings of his performances either. They are lost, and no performances are used to build any enthusiasm for the next." Then, by implication, his "excellent performance" alone was insufficient? What else do you expect the man to do? "With that performance in mind which is not untypical of many, the spreading of truckloads of enthusiasm, for which I apologise for having much too much, is really a vital ingredient. It is that which has distinguished the performers whose names are familiar to us from foreign cultures undulled by the greyness of UK Health and Safety, and enabled them to engage." I fail to see how Health and Safety legislation has negatively impacted on the enthusiasm displayed at UK organ recitals. "It is my personal opinion that for the organ and its repertoire to be better appreciated in England, miracles are needed. If one believes in miracles, one will live a miracle and, indeed, we can even make them happen. In the context of the above, were my original text to be restored, it might be understood: I'd hoped as always that it might also inspire." Is spottedmetal really a pseudonym for Arthur Nobile?

I absolutely love this. Great fun. I like the bit at about 2 minutes where he manages to find a free hand to remove his glasses!

I know; I was sort of making a point (badly). The two performers seem pretty similar to me. However, what do people think of this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pATsnf9Ie5s ?

Which one?

Could anyone recommend any particular recordings of Franck?

Dodgy translation, that's what. Best to read the page in German.

The term "vulgar fraction" simply means common fraction; in other words a numerator over a denominator (neither zero). However, the term vulgar is sometimes (wrongly) reserved for improper fractions (ones in which the numerator is greater than the denominator). I don't see what's wrong with calling mutations mutations. Vulgar fractions should be reserved for the mathematical context.

I think this is an interesting topic. I'm glad I'm not alone in finding much of Mozart's music trite and nauseatingly syrupy. Much of the preceding discussion simply revolves around taste whose formation in an individual is a complex business. It is true, though, that many organists do insist on being organists first and musicians second, which is rather disappointing given the vast organ repertoire available. I derive much pleasure from playing the organ, but can't really recall too many really moving musical experiences at organ recitals; I certainly have been vastly impressed with a particular peformer, piece or instrument, or indeed all three simultaneoulsy, but those rare revelatory and moving musical experiences have all occurred at orchestral concerts. As for my own sinful confessions, well I do happen to like L-W from time to time. I do have rather a soft spot for Dvorak (sorry couldn't work out how to insert special characters; anyway, you know who I'm talking about) and consider him vastly underrated. Again, though, that's probably just a matter of taste based on nothing objective.

Likely to be an essential tremor, especially if he's always had it. This would typically get worse on movements, which is what you are describing. Does not sound at all like Parkinson's.

10-9: Musing over 'authentic' Bach organs and registration based on (sometimes accurate) paper specifications of instruments never actually heard by those doing the musing.

Lovely piece. I imagine this is readily available, after all I found both books of the 24 pieces in free style in my local music shop. It can also be found online: http://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Vierne%2C_Louis (assuming this does not infringe any copyright laws).

I somehow missed this interesting thread which has now been inactive for a few months. However, it is also interesting to note that Lewis's original key touch settings remain on his organ in Kelvingrove, Glasgow. Details of these in the following information. http://www.glasgowmuseums.com/assets/fileS...ove%20Organ.pdf

It seems rather a contradiction for a website to be simultaneously "avant garde" and "anonymous".

Try ebay; I think there's one on there this now.

From the website: "Just how much of a saving is well illustrated at St. Cuthbert's. The theatre organ has about 1000 pipes arranged in 10 extended ranks. The church organ, which has slightly fewer speaking stops, needs 99 ranks and 5430 pipes!" Forgive me for being ignorant, but this is a digital instrument, right? In which case, why talk about ranks and pipes?

The Wyvern Koralia does indeed look excellent value for money. What about the pedalboards on the Koralia and Toccata models - are they "standard" size, if there is such a thing? Do you generally find the consoles of these comfortable?

Thank you all for your helpful comments so far. Nice website, Paul. I know what you mean about the disappointment of transferring from a more luxurious home organ back to less well resourced church instruments, but I would imagine that that would be more than made up for by the presence of pipes.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that a digital instrument at home will be the preferred way of securing regular practice (ie every day, ideally). I am lucky enough to have unrestricted access to a "real" instrument, which I shall (of course) continue to use, but with the best will in the world it is difficult to get there as regularly as I would like to. I have not had the opportunity to play all that many digital instruments, and I'm not aware of any showrooms in my immediate vicinity where I could try out any instruments. I don't desire a lavish five manual cathedral reproduction; I would be quite happy with a modest 2 (maybe 3) manual affair, with the emphasis on quality rather than quantity. However, in a nod to ever so slight self-indulgence, I would prefer a French romantic specification, since this is the music I particularly enjoy, and as I'm paying and it is my hobby, I think I deserve a little self-indulgence. However, the instrument should be capable of allowing decent practice of a range of styles. I have done some internet research and generally have a 'feel' at, least in theory, of what the relevant companies are offering. I'm sure many of you have such instruments at home, so any first-hand advice or recommendations you have would be gratefully received. I don't want to ignite any (further) pipe vs digital debates. (My teacher is of no real help here as he has never had such an instrument and his only advice is to get a small 3 to 4 stop pipe organ. Well, as I'm not made of money and my (soon to be) wife would relish the prospect of headphones being used, this is not an option.) I hope this topic is not entirely outwith the remit of this forum.

The auto-correction features can be switched off.

Can anyone tell me where one could acquire a copy of said book?

Would the octave not be 8 ft, etc?