mgp

David, Its good that you are willing to stand up and be counted; much of what you say makes sense but it seems rather one sided and defensive - I'm not sure why as you weren't part of the establishment that slept walk into the current situation. Most people here care enough about the RCO to be bothered to give an opinion rather than just quietly walk away. I spent nearly 30 years working with customer service organisations and they would (and should) pay handsomely for the honest opinions expressed here - both from members (approx 3000) and non-members (rough estimate of UK organists 20,000 - RCO figure) Harsh reality is that, rightly or wrongly, the RCO repositioned itself as a 'members services organisation' some years ago (remember all those snazzy articles, flyers, booklets, multipart brochures offering discounts etc) and then found itself increasing its annual charge by 50% and closing all its facilities within three months - and communicating all this by a post hoc postcard. I'm afraid I have used this as a text book example of 'what not to do' as a services organisation in major change. Since then the College has retreated further into its shell apart from regular trumpeting of 'great things in the future building' most of this reiterating (on lengthened timescales) previously promised benefits. This despite many urgings to get on the front foot, cut out the waffle and explain the benefits of what it is doing. I ran a £250 million/annum project from virtual offices so I have no problem with the concept - but it needs much clearer, more frequent and more 'member oriented' communication to win people over. However unfair, the College ends up seeming to take a rather old fashioned 'nanny knows best' stance in its communications and that's what is reflected here. Its not true but, clearly, it is a wide perception and therefore up to the college to change it rather than moan about its ungrateful members. Your final comment seems very close to the old joke 'life would be fine if it weren't for the customers.' As a teacher it is clear to me that the IAO/OR does provide much more in the way of support for adult amateur organists - and I don't blame Simon Williams for this - he's done wonders with a ridiculously small budget. The publication policy doesn't help; for example we are still awaiting a yearbook that will be towards a year out of data when it arrives. A personal issue is that for wahtever reason my FRCO (and those of everyone in January 2002) did not appear in either the yearbook or a quarterly magazine and no addendum was ever published. Trivial in the grand scheme of things but synptomatic of a lack of care/concern for the fee-paying membership. So I challange you to get the council to face up to the world it is now in - and to seriously engage with, deploy the talents of and harness the huge goodwill of the membership whilst it is still there. Of course you can reject all this, but since you mention it I did stand a couple of years ago. I got a very nice letter telling me I hadn't been successful but that the college were very keen to use my skills; since then nothing - not even the courtesy of a statement of votes cast - and I did gently ask for it a couple of times. If that's how the college, for whatever reason, treats its 'friends and supporters' .... Martin Penny MA MCIM FRCO

It was certainly doing the rounds in Oxford in the early 70's - perhaps coined by the choristers?

The RCO did set one up about five years ago and then canned it without explanation (despite several nags to the then Chief executive). As far as I recall everyone treated the site and host with respect just as we do our generous host, Mr Mander. On the RCO location front I was given to understand that the postal address is a front for a redirection service (as are the phone numbers) and the material goes to the home of an RCO employee - which is where (s)he works from.

Good story. I was given a variant : "What on the menu?" "S-S-S-S-S-Syd-in-E"

Ian, Encourage you son to play with the side (inside edge) of the sole rather than with a flat foot, the two feet being angled inward with the outer edges approx 2 cm off the ground. This will work for any pedalboard and any size of foot. I've even done this in hiking boots!!!

I completely agree and would be interested to learn more about these experiments. I have found (the hard way) that the 'best' (as in gives me the truth however unpalatable) practice instuments I have access to are a (very) temperamental (in both senses) clavichord and my small house organ (again with a very unforgiving action). With one's head more or less 'inside' the instrument the effect of careful/careless fingering/footing is immediately audible - both attack and release. That said I find it essential to take all this preparation to a more 'colourful' instrument for registrational/organ mangement purposes and I would want an electronic Cavaille-Coll/English romantic instrument of the sort we are discussing if I wasn't so lucky as to have a late Father Willis to play - which also forcibly reminds me of the time it takes big (real) pipes to speak properly....

The version I was told was the other way round. That is that Reinken was the adjudicator for the Jacobi, Hamburg job in 1720 and deliberately set a fugue subject modelled on 542. (If true Reinken, though still alive, would have been 97). Apparently JSB won but declined to pay the 'fee' (bribe) of about 1 years salary. One has to wonder how differently JSB's output would have turned out is he'd taken this playing/chamber concert job with a 'big' N German organ rather than the (fourth choice) Director Musices (and schoolmaster) at Leipzig.

Some years ago we were invited to sing 'Blest Pair of Sinners' - fitted well with the Vicar's standard 'already living together' sermon, whch began 'Well at least X and Y know what its like to wake up together' ....

Its on the new FRCO syllabus so maybe it will see more outings!

The organ version appears in Suite 2 published 1937, where it is dedicated to Dupre (as the following Toccata). I haven't been able to establish whether the organ or piano verion came first - do you have any further information? Thanks M

My copy was published in 1990 by G&M Brand; ditributed by R Smith & C Aylesbury 01296 682220

Bang on. In my observation most FR improvisers have been well 'over' or well 'under'. Those that succeed usually produce pieces of music that a are inventive and interesting to listen to (good ideas, textures and registrations that are derived from the given material) b Have a clear structure supported by changes in tempo, dynamic and distribution c have clear and characteristic rhythms d have a consistent and coherent key plan and harmonic rhythm e make effective use of the pedal As well as following Paul's excellent advice you should regularly record yourself, leave it a few days and then listen carefully (and honestly) with the marking criteria (p25 of current syllabus).

Good luck, many do succeed in time - there's even a prize (Richardson) if you can wait until you're at the point where 'broad mind and narrow hips change places' (ie over 40)!!

Well maybe or maybe not - the client may, perhaps, have been less than forthcoming in meeting some of his responsibilities (access, completion of building works, time and silence for voicing, revisions to power supplies, final option decisions, timely payments etc) and the builder seized on an opportunity to 'cut and run' on a 'no win' loss-making contract. I ran into similar issues in the IT world and it wasn't always that easy to sort out the rights and wrongs - much is remarkably clear in hindsight! I absolutely agree that usually the problem goes back to insufficient discussion of these issues at the beginning ('we'll work it out later') and hence a lack of clarity at contract time about who actaully has to do what by when, how difficulties are to be managed, definitions of 'finished' and 'accepted' (absolutely not the same thing!) and the respective roles (and limits) of client and supplier in determining and agreeing progress and the consequential financial implications (which is where the heat usually comes). Clearly an unscrupulous client could drags things out for months after the instrument is effectively in use and a builder could succumb to the temptation to move effort onto the next job after initial installation and well before final completion so both parties do need some protection. Serious disagreements usually boil down to a mismatch of expectations/assumptions that should have been agreed 'upfront', and a lack of understanding of the impact of cash flow changes (both ways). Colin hit the nail on the head in saying this is about trust and joint commitment - not things that fit that easily in a contract - but which are part of a real relationship, built on extensive discussions and a high degree of openness about what is/isn't on offer and a continuing dialogue during the project. Silence at any stage should be regarded as a major concern - there are bound to be problems; what matters is whether you work together to fix then or use them as an excuse to re-open old negotiations. The contract should set out a clear framework for the joint identification and management of this. One technique we used was a joint project risk register (looking at what could affect time, money, quality etc) - this was created pre contract and then reviewed fortightly during the project - we could all see what might hit us, when and what it might mean in time to discuss implications rationally and agree the trade offs - though we didn't allow for the impact of a major structural problem with the building .......... My first boss frequently reminded us trainees that contracts were things that you hoped never to refer to once they were signed since 'They tell you how to apportion blame if things fail - not how to fix it when it gets hard'. I do support the idea of a payment retention post delivery - provided a) it is agreed up front (and hence to some extent factored into the builder's cash flow) and not 'sprung' on them; it is big enough to matter; and c) there is an 'end point' - such as the 'Dedication and re-opening recital' or whatever - which should focus both party's minds (assuming they mind their reputations etc) on closing out positively.

Its a transcription of/the basis of the Agnus Dei from the Messe Cum Jubilo apparently done in 1964. Its published by Durand (2001) and a very lovely piece. Thank you, Richard, for the scan of Chant Donne and also to Stephen for the info on publication the Pelleas transcription - do we know which publisher? I know of two organ transcriptions of the Trois Danses (Whitehead and Farrington) any hope of publication? (Durufle himself transcribed them for solo and duo piano). Lastly I gather some more Demessieux has found the light - a piece entitled nativite delatour demessiuex - anyone heard it/seen it?

Sounds very English, musical and 'restrained' to me - even the chamade. I look forward to the quieter tracks - hoping for a large degree of subtlety - something we seem to pass over in our comparisons.

Well found and the tune is "David" DCM by D.W.Dearle (1926). Reproduced by permission of the Church & School Hymnal

You are right, if it is manualiter harpsichord piece. I was responding to pncd's point that baroque pedalboards for harpsichords/Clavichords seem to have started at C - ?possibly because they were mostly aimed at home use for organists? - but there's not much discussion of compass in most references I can find. Walther's copy apparently has a pedal marking at bar 176 (low D at end of central section) (Williams 2003 edition p 167). I have played the more ornamented version in recital (inegale) and it works fine on a well regulated action - I am reminded that today we are more pre-occupied with 'which instrument' than most baroque composers/performers were. And, finally, to answer the original question I usually register the last section with as full a sound as is compatible with clarity - based on speed of action and the acoustic. If that means a few tinkly flutes then maybe this isn't the right piece to be playing.....

I love the effect of a breathing, live musical instrument. I hate the affect of a badly adjusted, poorly speaking unreliable machine. So I'm all for a good electronic over a bad pipe organ (and boy have I endured some in my time ...) I wholeheartedly support the efforts of anyone trying to make church music come alive ( all traditions). However. the digital future is likely to be one in which the machine 'corrects' our playing - just like Office 'corrects' our spelling and grammar - forcing us into an articulation, structure and style that is not our own - but is Microsoft approved. Can you imagine the fun when a committee (RCO??) defines the 'rules' for style lie/stylus phantasticus etc and to which composers they do/don't apply? Consider Schumann/Mendelssohn/early Franck for example. This means I have to support an analogue (human) future. And accept what Maurice F-G called 'churchmoniums'.

Cantate Domino is Psalm 98 and Deus Misereatur is Ps 67 so there are settings. cpdl (www.cpdl.org) kists several, but has none as paired 'setting's. There do seem to be rather more settings of the morning 'alternatives' (Benedictus and Benedicite) eg Stanford A/C, Sumsion Bb. Maybe most places either didn't bother with the alternatives or, like us have substitued Compline and/or Vespers for evensong in Lent/Advent. Is this others experience?

As I understand it, Stylus P refers to a specific performance style within the set of c16-17 German/Baroque styles known as Stage (as opposed to Churh or Chamber). ie it is essentially dramatic/flamboyant an non-metrical. Some years ago I was told, by an Italian Tutor, that SP was either 'free' or 'metrical'; this depended on whether the music was 'improvisatory' or 'imitative'. It seems to work when I try this, but...

For me the question is whether JSB was writing theoretically (for a 'French' organ) or practically (for a harpsichord). The complication is that a 'ravellement' usually offers BBBb and AAA and does not include BBB natural. So it would be easy (ish) for a player to retune a CC# stringg as a BBB and thereby play it as written on a harpsichord (or pedal clavichord) and rather hard for an organist match - after most pedals didn't have CCC#. Of course, if you agree with this you are heading for the irony that a piece explicity marked 'pro organ pleno' is one that JSB could only have played/heard on a harpsichord.

In addition yoou could try the 12 Choral Preludes on Gregorian Themes by J. Demessieux - not too long but very worth while one per season as a sort of 'mini Orgelbuchlein'. In my view they're much more interesting than Dupre's Tombeau de Titelouze and they're cheap!

I played there for a week in 2002 and much enjoyed it. I was told that the dryish acoustic was the result of the replacement of the nave (stone) vault with a plaster one (for weight reasons). Don't know if its true.