Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

SlowOrg

Members
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SlowOrg

  1. I believe Contrabombarde was asking about the photo of the 4 manual console at the end of the article in the National Churches’ Trust Annual Review, which obviously isn’t Holy Trinity Clapham. I don’t know about the organ pictured in The Times, though. EDIT: I was just watching the latest BiS video, where Richard McVeigh said that The Times photo was taken in York. Comparing that photo with this one … … that actually appears to be the case. (Unfortunately, there are almost no photos of the old screen console from York on the internet.)
  2. I’d say it’s the RAH organ …
  3. No, it’s the first one – "Hallelujah", has been restored. [Score (first page)] The whole suite was recorded by Marilyn Keiser and is available on Spotify (along with other organ pieces by Dan Locklair).
  4. Is there any other way to order the book than from the York Minster’s shop (which, at this time, doesn’t ship to the EU)? I’d be very much interested in purchasing a copy.
  5. Thank you for the replies. I had completely forgotten about Stanford’s note at the beginnig of the Fantasia and Toccata score. It just seemed so strange the first time I saw it, knowing how, at least on larger instruments, Choir is usually the I. manual. Or would this have been different on the instruments that Stanford knew and used? Unfortunately, the stop lists from St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, and Trinity College Chapel, Cambridge, which can be found as part of the introduction of the Stanford Organ Album, give no clear indication of this. (On a side note, I am astonished that NPOR also doesn’t include any information regarding the division/manual question.) It may well be that the Choir was/is considered "least" important, but then again, I have never seen an organ with a Choir to Swell coupler (would be glad to learn of one, though) …
  6. I received my copy of the new Stanford Organ Album a couple of weeks ago. Considering myself quite a fan of Stanford’s (organ) music, I was very much looking forward to it being published and was somewhat surprised as to how many times its release has been postponed by the OUP (apparently all the scholarly research and the making of the arrangements must have taken somewhat longer than anticipated). In the past I already downloaded Stanford’s organ music from IMSLP and bought copies of his most interesting works, however, there were still some blanks to be filled. I wasn’t sure what the selection of music for the OUP album was going to be, so I was really happy to find some of my favourite little gems in here, plus the Te Deum-Fantasia, Op. 116/1, which I hadn’t been able to get a hold of before. For my part, I have known and played – apart from the Fantasia, of course – all of the included original organ compositions, but I must admit I don’t see myself playing many of the arrangements. I took the time to look up most of the originals (sheet music and recordings), and the arrangements, as well made as they might be, really don’t appeal to me very much. I find individual pieces either much more convincing in their original form as piano or vocal music, or simply just not interesting enough to begin with. I was very glad to find critical notes with a list of questionable spots, misprints or other things that had been corrected according to the autograph. There is, however, one place that remains somewhat unclear: in the Prelude on Tallis’s Canon (Op. 88 No. 6), bar 43, beat 1, there is a printed natural sign in front of the g in the RH, with g flat in the preceding bar as well as on beat 3 in the LH of the same bar. The Breitkopf & Härtel edition, available on IMSLP, has nothing in this place, but Daniel Cook (Vol. 1 of The Complete Organ Works, Priory) quite clearly plays a g flat which, at least to my ears, does make more sense. One other thing that bothers me with this new album, but also with some of the older editions of Stanford’s organ music, is to have inconsistent manual markings in the individual pieces. We find the usual Gt./Ch./Sw. in the original works, but I, II and III in the arrangements. I’ve also observed the same thing in the Stainer & Bell edition of the Opera 101 & 105. Which divisions do those Roman numbers actually indicate? Don’t most British three-manual organs have Choir as I, Great as II and Swell as III? Yet it seems that in the aforementioned cases “I” actually indicates Great (?). And what are II and III then? Could someone shed some light on this, please? Although this new OUP album turned out to be, at least for me, only partially new and useful, I very much recommend it to anyone.
  7. I’ve been using both on my Yamaha Clavinova and on a Viscount at school, so I’m pretty sure that they would work all rigth, as long as one is able to connect their MIDI keyboard to a computer. M
  8. There are also cheaper, similar options which I would consider, especially if I didn't have a proper organ console. First there is Organteq, but of course one shouldn't forget about GrandOrgue which is totally free! I would probably try one of these first. M
  9. There was a live broadcast from the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg yesterday evening with Wayne Marshall giving a splendid performance on the Klais organ. The concert is still available on Elbphilharmonie’s YouTube channel:
  10. The CD is also available for streaming on Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube. M
  11. Dedication of the new Rieger-organ will be broadcast live on Austrian TV tomorrow at 9 AM (the video should then be available for another 7 days in the ORF-TVthek). M
  12. Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid I was led astray by some internet misinformation and the rather convincing sound ... Didn't think this would happen with an "ordinary" digital organ ...
  13. This is the sound of the actual cathedral organ, as stated in the description under the video, and Nicholas Freestone is playing the 3-manual remote console (also seen here). The Viscount organ has a completely different look.
  14. Tuning-slots, usually placed at one diameter of the pipe from its top, are also one of the main characterstics of the 19th century French organ building (Cavaillé-Coll). Here is an excerpt from the Laukhuff catalogue with the relevant terminology:
  15. How about some wonderful technical drawings of Cavillé-Coll organs? French digital library “Gallica” has a couple of those: Dessins de mécanismes d'orgues Plans du grand orgue de Saint-Sulpice Coupes de claviers Orgues de tous modèles (these aren’t exactly technical drawings, but are nonetheless interesting to explore). M
  16. You can listen to Latry's RAH concert here. The music starts at 3:39.
  17. https://www.facebook.com/OrguesCattiaux/
  18. The second piece is "Lei Rei" (Marche de Tourenne) by the French composer Edouard Marcel Victor Rouher (1857–1940). It is a part of his collection of 450 Noëls and the score is available on IMSLP: https://imslp.org/wiki/450_Noëls_(Rouher%2C_Edouard_Marcel_Victor) (either pp. 38–40 in Vol. 1 or pp. 4–6 in the "10 Pièces"). It seems like a lot of fun to play. 😄 M
  19. Dupre’s arrangement of the Sinfonia can be found in Vol. 12 of Dupre’s now rather infamous edition of Bach’s complete organ works: Oeuvres Complètes pour Orgue de J. S. Bach, annotés et doigtées par Marcel Dupré, Volume XII.
  20. When I finally decided to buy myself new copies of OUP’s Wedding Music and Ceremonial Music for Organ – the ones I had were stolen from the organ loft several years ago ? – I also noticed that a new Book of Funeral and Memorial Music for Organ would be released soon. So I ordered this as well and received my copy a couple of weeks ago. The first thing I noticed after unpacking the album was that it was much thinner than both OBWM and OBCM (and that the back of my copy was damaged). The collection contains 28 pieces, arranged alphabetically by composer, with 12 original works and 16 arrangements (OBWM: 30 – 5/25; OBCM: 32 – 14/18). As an organist I understand that there are certain well known works that might appeal to the general public when played on the organ, however, I wonder whether arrangements of lesser-known pieces (or those that do not seem to be all that appropriate for a certain occasion) are really necessary, especially as the repertoire of original organ works has more than enough to offer. Selection of music for an album intended primarily for funeral and memorial services (or any other occasion, for that matter) is, obviously, always influenced by one’s musical knowledge and preferences. There will always be a piece of music that one finds more (or less) suitable, however, at least a couple of choices in this new album seem a bit odd, at least in my opinion. (Bach’s Chorale Prelude on Nun danket alle Gott? Why not Vor deinen Thron tret’ ich, also from the 18 Chorale Preludes?) But I really don’t want to start a discussion about this. As the editor points out “there is much overlap between music used at funerals and weddings” so the OBWM is suggested as a “companion volume”. Why then include the same arrangement of Bach/Gounod’s Ave Maria which can already be found in the OBWM? The inclusion of R. Gower’s arrangement of Elgar’s Nimrod also seems unnecessary since this same arrangement is included in the OBCM. Apart from questions concerning the selection of pieces there are also some other things that need to be mentioned. First there is the issue of manual indications: I = Gt., II = Sw., III = Ch. What the editor suggests has nothing to do with the majority of neither British nor continental organs. Wouldn’t it be much simpler and clear to just use abbreviations instead of numerals? It is also somewhat inconsistent to have manual (and registration) indications for some pieces and none for others. What I find most problematic about this new album is a number of notation errors (or weaknesses, if you will). I wasn’t able to play all of the pieces so far but I’ve already found a couple of errors, some of them more and some less obvious. Let me point out the ones I happened to notice: – Elgar, Nimrod, b. 13, 2nd beat: F instead of G in the soprano; – Fauré, Pavane, bb. 6–8 and bb. 27–30: second voice a third under the soprano missing (although this could also be a deliberate choice of the arranger); – Mendelssohn, O rest in the Lord, b. 16, 3rd beat: natural sign (for F) instead of a sharp (for F♯) in the melody; bb. 15–16: suddenly there are two voices on the 4th beat in the solo melody which should in fact be in the accompaniment; – Stölzel, Bist du bei mir, b. 1: octave parallels between soprano and tenor; – Vierne, Berceuse, b. 15, 2ndbeat: D instead of B in the bass. I wonder if these are the only ones. I wanted to draw attention to this since I hadn’t noticed so many errors in other OUP’s publications that I’ve been using. In spite of my criticism, I find the collection to be quite useful. I will not be playing all of the pieces, at least not for funeral and memorial services, though (obviously, this applies to most other collections of this kind). I would be interested to hear some other impressions. Anyone else who already has this?
  21. The setting of the Mass is by the College’s DoM Neil Cox. One can listen to the service here …
  22. Strangely, although the link appears to be correct, it won’t take you to the specification of the Hill instrument. M
  23. Inaugural Organ Recital, featuring Bernard Foccroulle, Philippe Lefébvre, Olivier Latry and Wayne Marshall, was held yesterday on the new Rieger organ in the Philharmonie de Paris. There is a video of the event available for viewing until August: http://live.philharmoniedeparis.fr/concert/1046894/grandes-orgues-olivier-latry-philippe-lefebvre-bernard.html The whole thing lasted almost 3 hours, but one should take the time to listen to all four performers – it's worth it! M
×
×
  • Create New...