pwhodges

Thank you; you put that nicely. Not even a principle, I'd say, but a fact. I moderate on a (very different) board; and when I took over the role, getting this fact over was the key to establishing control of a place that had got rather wild. Paul

The parallel, but differently laid out passage at bar 274 has the ornament in both the corresponding parts (and in the part that becomes the pedal later in two following bars). Paul

I am just mystified at the idea that the only measure of worth of something is its immediate popularity. Are you saying that something that was popular, and therefore (I suppose) worthwhile, in the past becomes less worthwhile if something else eclipses its popularity? This would be a triumph of short-term thinking worthy of a typical government! Paul

"Hope This Is Of Interest"? Paul

What tripe. Why does any film or TV or radio show that wants to place a scene in a church or a religious context put organ music in the background? Precisely because the public can recognise it, of course (though sadly they may be reinforcing an association with churches that is regrettable for the organs which are elsewhere). Some of the public might not be able to name the instrument - but tell the difference they most certainly can. Paul

It can happen in any recording, even ones of a single live performance. Typically, one performance will be taken as the basis, and small parts of one or more alternatives will be put in where they are considered an improvement. If there is only one performance, sometimes an identical passage may be repeated (e.g. to remove a loud audience noise), or a tiny part may simply be removed (to take out a short but audible noise). It is important that the editor and producer do not lose sight of the whole performance when making changes that are individually trivial, because it is not that hard to destroy the flow; the critic Paul Griffiths used so say that he could detect edits because the performance sounded as if it was about to fall apart - and then didn't! Paul

Especially a two-hour Orthodox liturgy... Paul

It is available. Paul

The "Options" button to the right at the top of the post area allows you to select from three layout options. Paul

That's why I said not-so-close reading. I demanded (against advice) the insert to be in between my monitor specs and my reading specs - this way they are not quite right for either, but equally they will pass muster for both in extremis. This has worked for me better than I dared hope. But maybe my eyes still have just a little more adaptability than yours... Paul

My life has been transformed by my first pair of bi-focals - set for distance and not-so-close reading. So I always have a workable pair of specs on. For computer monitors et al, I now just leave an appropriate pair on the desk (one at work, one at home), so I hardly ever have to carry extra specs (middle-distance specs for use in art galleries or museums being the main exception). Paul

Organs come up on eBay from time to time, so sadly this is not surprising. Digital organs have a rather poor reliability record compared with pipe organs, in my experience. This forum is run by a pipe organ builder, and so you will find that discussing this subject, other than in passing, is generally not welcome here Paul

Who were the additional choristers in fancy dress? Paul

Is inaccuracy of this edition thought to be a problem? I have just performed it (singing, not playing), and only became aware of one very obvious misprint in the soprano part. The poor reproduction of double sharps in particular can give the appearance of misprints in some places, I suppose. Oh, and there are a couple of (obvious) typos in the recent resetting of the words (only). Paul

Sounds like a tribute to Virgil Fox... Paul

I hate those repeated chords with a chiff! To my mind a romantic diapason, even a fairly big one, works well - no chiff, a prompt bass for the chords, and a strong treble to bring out the melody above the accompaniment. I take it faster than most people (than anyone else I've ever heard, actually) to avoid a trudging feel to the repeated chords and to let the melody flow. Paul

Indeed, he is credited on the disk as registrant. Paul

Or the recordings, even. A couple of friends of mine, when students in the 1960s, made two simultaneous stereo recordings of a concert using different microphone techniques (one single-point, the other multimiked). When they asked other students to comment on the two recordings, they always commented that they liked one better than the other. When asked why, they mostly said that they preferred the performance - partly, I suppose, because they were not conversant with the niceties of recording techniques. However, since then I have always been very wary of accepting the conclusions of any reviews of recordings! Paul

The OED and Chambers agree on only admitting hard g, following its German origin; but I too have heard both, and probably uttered both, with a tendency towards j. Paul

The rules have varied at different times. I use Lilypond for music setting ('cos it's free, and 'cos I'm a nerd), which has presets for a wide range of different rule sets. Paul

It is absolutely a requirement in this case; accidentals never affect a note in a different octave! (Except in the key signature, of course; though you can find old manuscripts in which accidentals are repeated within the signature as well.) In music written in distinct parts on one stave, accidentals are also repeated if the note is in different parts (this may vary with engraving style in some circumstances). Paul

As the moderator of another message board, I know how difficult such decisions can be. However, I am sad that the moderators here do not hold to the principle of avoiding censorship. Paul's message responding to Nicholson's rebuttal of his earlier statements not only asked for further clarification (not unreasonable, I guess, though forcefully expressed), but also clearly apologised first for any actual misinformation he had passed on. To leave the accusation visible but remove the apology (even if partial) is bad practice in my book. Paul

Some people use this: http://www.musicreader.net/. There's a thread about it here. Paul

From the website: Paul

So I started looking in Peter Williams's "The European Organ". The first full specification he gives in the chapter on France is at Gisors in 1580 (by a Flemish builder), and has a Positif of 8, 4, 2, 1 1/3, II, 8. The next full spec given is a 1630 organ in Marseille, which has a Positiv of 8, 4, 1 1/3, III. However, no later specifications given follow this pattern. Lists of suggested registrations quoted from around the same period include such "neo-baroqueries" as 8 + 2 2/3 + 1, and 16 + 2 + 1 1/3, 16 + 8 + 4 + 1 1/3, and even 16 + 1 1/3! I guess this shows how important it is to be precise about the period when being precise about the specifications. Paul