[Gloucester rebuild]

2 hours ago, contraviolone said:

Very interesting, thanks for that.

Talking of 'ancient' pipework, I do hope the two manual diapasons from the 17th Century will be preserved and used again? They were demonstrated by Jonathan Hope in his youtube video of the organ, and they sounded fine to me. At the other end of the timescale (so to speak), I would also hope the recent additions to the organ will also be reused. In particular the 32' reed which I believe you adjusted James for improved effect after its initial installation? The pedal mutations were also a very useful addition, given the lack of a 32' flue in the instrument.

Talking of which, I do remember one aspect of the rebuild of 1971 that probably reveals another aspect of RDs aversion to the Anglican choral tradition. This was the removal of the 32' flue which was an octave extension of the 16' flue. It was located in the upper galleries, and even though tucked away was apparently quite effective. There was astonishment when these pipes were removed, and consternation from several quarters. One argument for their retention was the dramatic use of this 32' flue in the more sombre episodes of the Anglican chant. When this was mentioned to RD, he simply said "why would anyone want to do that!" Probably sums up the entire ethos of the 1971 rebuild.

Certainly the destruction of the 12 32' Double Open Wood pipes was unforgivable. The organ builders, and John Sanders wanted to keep them, but RD not only insisted on their removal, but that they were sawn up outside the cathedral. Rumour has it that the foreman of H, N&B used the wood to have new window frames for his house, but perhaps this is an apocryphal tale.... Nevertheless that act was shameful. 

I really can't give details of the new instrument, sorry. 

[Gloucester rebuild]

15 hours ago, Martin Cooke said:

And you can see exactly why our friends at Nicholsons are sticking to this policy when you read all the bickering about the new Pershore Abbey instrument that scarcely anyone has heard a sound from yet, on the FB BPO site. 

Thank you, Martin, and for your kind words in your previous post. There are a multitude of reasons we are not releasing details, but the way Pershore, and other instruments, are received simply by the unveiling of a specification leaves us with no option (particularly with Gloucester which must be the most controversial of organs ever built) but to keep the specification under wraps, not just until the organ is opened, but well after that. We would like people to go and see and hear it with an open mind, have fun at guessing what we have done (there may be a competition to see who can come closest) and judge the organ on its sound, not on a list of stop names. 

[Gloucester rebuild]

17 hours ago, Philip J Wells said:

I would be interested to know whether refurbishing the case pipes means they will still be able to be played in the new organ or will become dummies again. 

Some, but not all of the case pipes, will continue to be used in the new instrument. The decorations were beautifully preserved by Anna Plowden in 1971 however the rest of the pipes (i.e the back and tuners) were not. They are in extremely poor condition, and very sadly Ralph Downes had the east front pipe mouths cut up (as in the cut ups were increased) an act of incredible and totally unnecessary vandalism. Had they tested the pipes first they would have known that they had to be on a lower pressure than he had set.  He set the wind pressures for the whole organ, before any pipes had been made, or the front pipes had been tested! I can't imagine this sort of thing happening these days. 

The reason Willis chose not to use them was because they wouldn't speak on the higher pressures his organ was on. He used greater pressures than was usual for him as he was aware of the space limitations of the ancient case and was worried his organ would not be loud enough. 

We will restore the backs and tuners of the pipes that are going to be speaking. We can't add back the material RD had removed sadly, but the pipes will have a solidity and will be correctly stayed up, something they had neither of previously. Some of the pipes were screwed directly into the back of the organ case, if you can believe that!! 

[Gloucester rebuild]

14 hours ago, James Atherton said:

I think it is fair to say they are all better for organ repertoire than for accompanying a choir. 

Interestingly Christchurch have installed an organ that IS suitable for accompanying the choir, and Trinity had, for a time, a digital organ for the same purpose

[Gloucester rebuild]

2 hours ago, sbarber49 said:

How does Gloucester compare to Christchurch, Oxford, and Trinity, Cambridge as an accompanying instrument? I haven't played either of these but didn't find Gloucester too difficult. I also found it a wonderful organ for organ music.

 

I think it is fair to say they are all better for organ repertoire than for accompanying a choir. 

[Gloucester rebuild]

21 minutes ago, contraviolone said:

Hi James,

Thanks for your posts, which certainly clarify the position.

Without wishing to come across as being a bit 'difficult', the replacement of the organ (with the exception of the cases and the facade pipes) is effectively a brand new organ. As Choir Man has pointed out, this does appear to be at odds with the published statements from Gloucester Cathedral. 

Personally, having sung with the instrument, I never found it a problem with regard to instrumental support in the Quire. I'm sure the new instrument will be better for this, but I'm not really convinced that scrapping virtually the entire instrument to achieve this aim is justified. I actually liked the Gloucester organ, but I'm well aware that there are many who didn't like it at all.

Anyway, good luck with the rebuild. Gloucester does have a superb acoustic, so that's always a good start for any major organ project!

 

Thank you. I am aware there are very strong feelings for and against the old instrument. In many ways I loved it, but I also had grave reservations about it. 

For context, I was a Lay Clerk there for 6 years and lived with it every day. There were severe limitations in what it could do accompanying the Choir as much of it was so aggressive in its voicing that it dominated the singers. We couldn't use the Choir organ, for instance, as the transient 'chiff' was too distracting. Those stops that could be used became quite dull to the ears, there wasn't enough choice in the gentle stops to make it an inspiring instrument to be accompanied by. The reeds had to be used sparingly and the Great was overwhelming so couldn't be used above the 4' Octave. 

I was responsible for looking after the instrument for 17 years until it stopped working (and it literally just stopped)

The cathedral were quite clear that they wanted a new instrument that would be better suited for its main roles, and we were 'on the same page' with all that, bearing in mind my own personal experiences with the old one. 

The wording for the press release was purposely vague until we had finalised everything that was actually going to happen. It did give a hint to the details (refurbish and renew is what we are doing. Refurbishment of the case and case pipes with the rest renewed) 

I have always been honest about my own feelings about the previous instrument, I don't see any point in not being. Not everyone agrees with me, and there have been some rather heated debates over the past years with regards to it. I come from the position of wanting the organ to be an ideal instrument for accompanying the Choir and the daily liturgy, along with supporting large congratulations in hymnody. This doesn't mean we intended to 'throe the baby out with the bathwater'. There were some good ideas in 1971, but they were flawed. We have learnt much and we anticipate the new instrument will be able to much of what the last one could, but also do everything it couldn't do that well. Fine words.... Let's see how it all turns out! 

Best wishes

 

James 

[Gloucester rebuild]

12 minutes ago, Choir Man said:

The author of the comments on facebook about the Gloucester instrument is vociferous about his dislike of the instrument. He also goes on to comment that "The specification is being kept under wraps until well after the organ has been commissioned and had its opening recital series. We want people to hear it before seeing what we are going to do."

It feels strange that the head voicer at Nicholson's would be commenting in this way and leaves me wondering if this is the official Nicholson's position or if indeed the facebook account really belongs to the Nicholson's employee of the same name.

The organ project page on Gloucester cathedral's website describes the project as "We are proud to have one of the most significant instruments in any cathedral accompanying daily worship. It is time for a sensitive refurbishment of our much-loved organ to ensure its future at the heart of our musical life."

Nicholson's website describes the project as "We are pleased to have been commissioned to refurbish and renew the famous organ of Gloucester Cathedral."

Neither of the official sources make any reference to scrapping the old instrument and replacing the instrument with a wholly new and different instrument. For my money I'd be inclined to believe the official sources rather than unregulated social media.

 

This is indeed our official position. We are refurbishing the ancient case and case pipes and renewing the rest. The organ will be completed in time for the 2026 Three Choirs Festival. 

 

[Gloucester rebuild]

12 hours ago, contraviolone said:

Case pipes are 17th Century. Ralph Downes brought them back into use in the rebuild 1971. It may be a joke but it is not a funny one.

Hi Contra Violone. 

There is no joke implied or intended. The previous organ was beset with technical issues almost from its inception in 1971. Only 28 years after it was installed we had to remove the organ to replace all the magnets and attend to the soundboards, some of which were from the old Willis instrument. 

From a tonal perspective the organ was extremely exciting for recital work, but for accompanying the cathedral choir and supporting a congregation (both of these things are what the organ is supposed to do primarily) it wasn't ideal. 

The new instrument (note new instrument, not a rebuild) has been designed to put accompanying the liturgy first. We have decided that it would be preferable for the organ to be heard before any details of the specification is revealed, which it will be in due course. 

The historic case and it's casepipes will be thoroughly restored.

I hope you come to hear the new organ with an open mind and enjoy what you hear when you do.  

Regards

James