sjf1967

Yes, I had a marvellous time. I particularly remember Sunday mornings - DH would bring coffee and I would bring doughnuts. A nice way to pass Mattins. The interesting thing about DH is that he never ever told me (or indeed any other of his assistants) how to do anything - he just let me get on with it and one absorbed by osmosis. A nice feeling to be trusted - and because he was away so often I got plenty of chances to do some big stuff with the choir. Stephen D at Ch Ch was also excellent to work for. DH and SD are top people, in their different ways.

Not a Maestro really....which reminds me of a nice story about Lady Solti, which may or may not be apocryphal.... The Soltis' daughter was arriving at her Oxford college with a whole pile of luggage, and Lady S parked where she should not have. The porters came out to remonstrate, and she launched into an aria about how ridiculous it was that she had nowhere to park, and that in any case she hadn't been able to fit all the luggage in the back of the car. 'My daughter's harp is coming with the Maestro' she explained. Porter 1 to Porter 2 - 'Blimey Eric, I didn't know you could get a harp in the back of a Maestro'. End of digression.

Bach-Vivaldi is rather a special case - lots of recomposition which results in a new piece in many cases (as do his own transcriptions of himself, if you see what I mean). Walther's transcriptions of concerti are more to the point here, and they shed no light on anything at all except that his choice of original was rather less discerning. I personally wouldn't want to hear Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven ...too many tremolos and general thrashing about which are no substitute for the original scoring. Trying to recreate a sustaining medium in terms of a non sustaining one is a Bad Idea. L's transcription of the Liebestod is similarly ill advised - Busoni at least had a serious aesthetic behind his transcriptions. On a specific point - I wonder how successfully anyone could transcribe Beethoven 9 for another medium. The point of it was that it broke the mould of symphonic writing - apart from anything else, with no text the whole point of the last movement is lost. Is the pianist supposed to sing along? Can't comment on the Finnissy, but I expect they really do offer a new slant on the original, which I doubt is the purpose of most transcriptions. They are most interesting, I think, when the new medium can add things to the original, rather than having to leave most of it out, which is why transcriptions of Mahler never work really well. I wonder if we are rather losing sight of the whole point of transcriptions, which as everyone here knows was to make the work available to a public which would probably have little chance of hearing the original in its 'real' form. It's fascinating how the whole idea, which was only ever supposed to be a substitute for something more satisfactory, has taken on a kind of artistic authenticity of its own, at the expense of the organ's own repertoire which outside particular enthusiasms even people who love the instrument seem to look down on. We don't see many pianists playing the duet transcriptions of the Brahms symphonies (made by the man himself) - why should that be? There isn't a thread on steinway-pianos.com complaining about all the difficult late Beethoven that Alfred Brendel insists on playing, and hoping that he'll start programming a couple of Joplin rags for variety and to pull the punters in....why is that? Are piano punters more discerning than organ ones, or is that their standard repertoire is just better? I wish I knew...

Absolutely.

Michael - I think the problem with organ transcriptions of so much orchestral repertoire is that they inevitably have to leave out subtleties of scoring and texture which for many listeners make the music come alive. If people want to hear organ transcriptions to admire the immense skill of the performer, that's one thing; but if what you really want to hear is Beethoven 5 I don't think you DO have to hear a transcription to know that it's not your cup of tea. How can an organ trumpet stop emulate the playing of eg Hakan Hardenberger in the Haydn concerto? TH is by implication getting singled out rather unfairly here, but I think this goes for all sorts of people's attempts to steal major orchestral repertoire for the organ. One or two items in a programme can be excellent - viz John Scott at the RAH - but a whole programme is bit much, maybe. Balance, as you so rightly say, is the key. PS - I'm with you all the way on that Mozart piece....

I really don't think it's a question of anyone being Londoncentric, Brian. I'm reluctant to talk about particular players, because that's unfair and very invidious, but we have started talking about a particular performer so it's hard not to. Let me say straight away that I am in no doubt that Thomas Heywood is a player of extraordinary skill; but if someone nails their colours so firmly to the mast of a particular approach to programme content and performing image (look at the CD covers!), that will inevitably have implications for the kind of engagement that comes their way. That is no criticism whatever of their playing or their musicianship, it's a hard commercial and marketing fact. There are only a very few venues in the UK - RFH, RAH, Symphony Hall, Bridgewater Hall, and perhaps also the W Abbey and St Paul's Celebrity Series - where there is still (just) an expectation on the part of the presenters (and even audiences) that recital players will present some serious and even demanding original repertoire along with more comforting material. Thomas Heywood's recorded output is entirely of orchestral transcriptions, which I have no doubt he plays phenomenally well; he may well do a dazzling job of 'real' repertoire too, but has for what I am sure are sound and thoughtful reasons decided not to programme or record much of it that, as far as I can see. Good for him - he knows what niche he wants to play in, markets himself very cleverly, and I am certain that he plays in that niche brilliantly and with consummate skill and finesse. I hope to hear all that for myself soon. But if venues like the RAH, say, or the RFH, decide that it's not an approach to concert programming that they want to pursue, and that they want to programme more 'indigenously' in their solo recitals, you can't really blame them - why should they programme an organ transcription of, say, Beethoven 9 for organ solo, in which most of the things which make the music interesting (like the choir...) will inevitably be lost in transcription, when audiences can hear the real thing the following evening played by the LSO under Haitink?

Westminster Cathedral is stunning, but I'd put also in a vote for St Paul's in GB - a really vast range of colour, that amazing Willis Chancel Division, and the spatial element adds an extra dimension. West End and Dome additions are also splendid.

We'd like a few more VCs here really - especially to sing during the week, although weekends are mostly covered (I should say that part of my job is to play for said Mattins with hymns etc when necessary at weekends). We certainly don't feel they're a bother. Funnily enough we had a choir from the US booked in this year - St Paul's Norwalk - but they never turned up, despite a phone call in the week before. Maybe they're still waiting for their luggage. Eton Course has been this year too. But yes, everyone wants to sing in St Paul's and the Abbey.

It is nice, parsfan - but we always think of it as compensation for all those Sunday mornings (not to mention Xmas Day.....)

I'll do my best to hear him next week, Michael - we're on summer break still so there's a chance I could make it! I hope what I said does prove to be helpful - I have tried to give you accurate info.... I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question about the curatorship - perhaps someone else here does. Best wishes S

If I may jump in ahead of Alsa, michael, it's the Organ Curator of the hall who decides on invitations for these concerts, as far as I am aware - not the RAH authorities themselves, so there's not much point at all in approaching them. CDs are very rarely listened to. There are only ever going to be one or maybe two slots for recitals a year in this venue, and 2007 is already taken care of with Olivier Latry - I'd be astonished if thought hasn't also been given to 2008 and even 2009. My hunch would be that Thomas Heywood doesn't yet have enough of a profile in the UK for it to be likely that you would get very far with getting a concert for him - by all means have a go, but be prepared for polite refusal. You can probably imagine the number of approaches and recommendations landing in the Organ Curator's in-tray. Before anything else I think TH would need to play in the main evening series of a major London venue to get a higher profile. I would imagine that David Briggs, Wayne Marshall, Thomas Trotter and a few others (Naji Hakim, Daniel Roth maybe) will inevitably be near the top of the list for coming seasons at the RAH - by which time DGW, John Scott and SP et al will be up for reinvitation. However, if I may suggest a useful rule of thumb, from one who gets lots of approaches from people wanting to play - the effect of any representations you make will decrease in inverse proportion to the number of times you make them. Pester power in this context is rarely effective.

David Davies, my esteemed colleague here at Guildford, is a genius at this sort of liturgical improvising - as was Geoff Morgan. We've always been lucky for that sort of thing here.

Goldsmith, how very kind of you it is to say such nice things. I remember playing the Alain Trois Danses in the programme - one of my favourite works - and thinking that the organ was made for it. The softer reeds and flutes are stunning. Your choice of adjective for the 32' reed is entirely apt...

Couldn't agree more about Brahms, MM; but couldn't agree less about Beethoven (who did of course greatly admire the organ and those who played it). Chacun a son gout, and quite rightly so.

Is it really 'smug' to think that Beethoven is inherently great?

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment. He should have registered his domain name sooner..

Too much time on my hands this morning. Be sure to visit www.cameroncarpenter.com - you may be surprised by what you find.

extraordinary - but not everyone likes the style - ....http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/arts/music/12carp.html?ex=1310356800&en=01bf9c931f93a71a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Andrew - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000002...glance&n=229816 has titles and a few samples. Lizbie Browne the best known - also Rollicum Rorum.

It's not in the Britten worklist, Andrew. Not the Finzi song cycle - 'Earth Air Wind and Rain'?

couldn't agree more David - I think I was directing my comment more at the idea that a sort of 'anyone as long they're foreign' mindset lay behind the decision to award the contract outside the UK.

As far as I know the contract at Jesus Cambridge was awarded on the basis of solutions proposed to very particular engineering problems associated with the size and shape of the organ gallery - it might be going a bit far to extrapolate a general priniciple from this situation, I think.

yes - lovely organ, practised on it for two years as a postgrad. THe chapel is pretty cool too - fantastic Piper glass.

I'm going to stick up for the Beckerath at Clare and in its recent incarnation the Johnson at Catz.....but in general I think you're right that Oxford does rather better on theorgan front.

parsfan - I have a feeling that Jeremy Filsell may have done it for Guild, if it's still available. Richard - yes, that's the one. Pleased you liked it.