Dulciana

The choir division is enclosed so I assume there must be a separate chest. There is no obvious other difference between the note concerned and its neighbours. I don't know much about the coupler mechanism, but as the fault doesn't occur on the swell when coupled to great wouldn't this give some clue as to the likely cause?

Was wondering whether any of the knowledgable contributors on this board could give me an idea as to the likely cause of a cipher. The organ on which I practise (and will be playing next Sunday) suddenly developed one during the service on Sunday which, despite optimistic prediction from the regular organist, has not resolved by itself. It's a 2 manual tubular pneumatic action instrument with an enclosed choir division playable from the great manual. The cipher is on middle G on the great, and is also affecting the choir stops. However, swell stops coupled to great are not affected. The church was a little over-zealously heated that day so I wonder whether that could be related. It seems to me that the problem must be within the console. Hopefully the tuner will come and have a look this week (but he does suffer from inertia), but I suppose I may have to resign myself to accompanying Sunday's service on the swell. Any thoughts?

Good point. Thanks.

Forgive my ignorance, but what do you see as the use for the choir octave to pedal coupler in this particular scheme?

Now I admit to knowing nothing of this organ apart from what I have read on various websites and on this forum. Therefore, I am prepared to be shot down in flames. However, as far as I understand it, it appears impossible to "restore" this organ, given subsequent alterations, damage, and a vast quantity of missing pipes. In fact, a significant proportion of what is currently there is not original. In essence, I guess I'm saying is there any point? It does seem an awful lot of money to restore something which can't be restored. There do seem to be people very attached to the idea, but that's all it is - an idea which cannot practically be realised. The argument then becomes does this building require an organ at all? If not, then scrap the thing. Surely that is the most sensible way forward. It reminds me of that episode of "Only Fools and Horses" in which Trigger proudly claims to have used the same brush for roadsweeping for 20 years, adding "this old broom's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time".

How can a decade own a method? Surely in this case '1950s' is merely being used as an adjective to describe the method. There is no possessive case here, so no apostrophe required.

It's a fantastic cartoon, and this is one of my earliest memories of classical music. The Liszt Hungarian rhapsody used in this cartoon (no 2 in C sharp minor I think) you could almost think had been written for it! Interesting that this should arise in a thread about interpretation. This music has been interpreted brilliantly by the animators. But is it what Liszt intended when he wrote it?.....

Tom and Jerry never had anything to do with Walt Disney, as far as I know.

I'm not sure I agree with you MM. The hallmark of narcissism, surely, is the individual who rather uses others as a mirror, ie uses others to reflect back an image of themselves which they desire. Importantly, if they fail to get this, those other people cease to be of importance to them. I'm sure this is the very definition of celebrity, so your example of Elton John probably fits this. However, I'm not sure this is the case with Virgil Fox. If it is, it's not a particularly positive thing. And I still think his homosexuality is irrelevant to this. After all, he was hardly the first and it's not exactly that out of the ordinary.

MM, what does homosexual narcissism have to do with this? In fact, what is homosexual narcissism, come to think of it? Is it different from heterosexual narcissism? And how does it contribute to the debate on the musical style/virtues of Virgil Fox?

Not if it is at the expense of the music itself.

Is there anything written by him on this subject? It would be interesting to learn more about what he has to say. (assuming what is written down is what was intended...)

I think it is not unreasonable to assume that what the composer wrote is what the composer intended - after all, if you can't then this whole discussion, and in fact the whole study of musical performance is entirely superfulous. Of course organs and acoustics and a whole range of other variables differ, but surely then it is even more important to base one's performance on the thing that is constant, ie the written notes.

Absolutely right. However, changing the notes, or even the rhythm surely automatically makes it impossible to achieve the composer's intentions. The notes, or rather symbols indicating pitch and duration of sound, are the tools supplied by the composer with which to create this performance. Assuming one cannot ask the composer directly (most of the time), then this is probably all one has to go on (along with other things such as tempi, dynamic markings, registration etc....though these are all prone to editorial whims/fashions). There are plenty of ways in which one can "interpret" and apply one's individual character to the performance whilst at the same time playing the intended notes. In fact, tinkering with the written notes is probably one of the easiest ways in which to "individualise" a performance. However, one does both the composer and the listener a disservice by doing so.

This does highlight the interesting question of what constitutes "interpretation". Where is the line between interpreting and simply taking liberties? With no wish to dwell on the specific example presented here, surely adding bars goes beyond interpretation and into rewriting - I mean, if the composer had wished those bars to be there he would have written them. I, too, am against boring and thoughtless renditions, but surely there is a limit to what is "acceptable", and a limit to what can be "excused" on the basis of interpretation?

I know it's not related to the Virgil Fox thread (sorry MM), but whilst watching the linked clips came across several others from a young chap calling himself "Arky83mi". Just curious as to what others thought of his playing. In one of his comments, he says he is not having lessons. Despite this his playing seems fairly accomplished (and he always seems to be playing from memory).

I do agree with MM's comments regarding general societal "dumbing down". However, surely the main reason for poor attendance at organ recitals is more to do with the fact that the organ is so closely associated with the church, and church attendance continues to decline steadily. The organ, I imagine, is widely viewed as an instrument on which hymns are (badly) played, and I also imagine there is widespread ignorance as the enormous range of repertoire available. The place to increase its popularity is outside the church - there is a wide range of music to suit all tastes, and several suitable instruments outside of churches and cathedrals on which to play it. To what extent is this being done?

This is confusing, or perhaps I am just being stupid. I still can't entirely discern whether this is wood or metal, open or stopped. Or is it simply that different builders at different times have used the same name to denote entirely different stops?

My organ teacher, on the subject of shoes, rather pompously declared "you can pedal in army boots if you know how".

I agree with you. But the political correctness drive has led to a profusion of legislation in recent times, which, while I support the principles and believe them well intentioned, are all too often administered in a clumsy, thoughtless and ultimately self-defeating way. There is not a widespread availabilty of common sense, and certainly not imagination, amongst many of the people who end up having to apply such legislation. That is what I am getting at.

This aptly sums up the main problems associated with such legislation. I don't think anyone would object to the principles of this particular piece of legislation, but its literal, robotic and unthinking application will do nothing but cause problems. This is so often the way in our "pc" world today.

Precisely, pcnd and ajt. That's my underlying point, which is by using what you have in your congregation in terms of musical resources, the whole experience becomes more embracing and fulfilling for everyone concerned. In that way, yes, an individual congregation will develop its own style, if you will. When this situation is realised, debates about styles/quality of different music etc become much less important.

This has been an interesting debate on musical worship styles. Personally, I am not particularly fond of Graham Kendrick-style stuff, and don't think we should be tinkering with the words of Charles Wesley etc., but there's me - a stuffy traditionalist. That probably reflects the congregation in which I have grown up. Our congregation do not have a wealth of musicians, and so our worship is based around the organ and (mainly traditional) hymns, although the new hymnary has introduced more modern material, which we have been exploring over the past few weeks (whether it sounds best on the organ I'm not sure). Other congregations, however, do have musicians in their midst who would like to be part of the musical worship of their church. If that involves a different style, even if I don't particularly like it, I would not wish to criticise someone else's sincerely made musical offering (I suppose that would include those composing as well). Instead I would embrace it. I'm sure God doesn't care too much about the (perceived) musical integrity of such compositions and performances. In short, the musical worship of a congregation should reflect and make best use of the resources available therein, embracing those who wish to contribute. I see no point in trying to target a specific group, eg the "youth", which simply does not work - it is seen as patronising by them, and risks alienating others.

Don't think that would explain it. That wouldn't be a diatonic chord in any key.

Sure this is not a joke? I mean it almost sounds deliberate it's so bad. As soon as s/he sounds that first stupendously wrong chord, you would have thought that they'd immediately correct it. I mean it's an easy harmonic progression using diatonic chords (as written). Still, very funny nonetheless. Please, more of these! There must be countless wedding videos around with interesting "interpretations" of Widor V etc.