Colin Pykett

I'm aware that the organ at King's London has been in Mander's workshops this year, but little seems to have been said about it so far. Although there is some information on the Mander website there is little detail as to what has been done. The NPOR entry is not up to date, and as an aside it's also difficult to find - why does one have to search for an address in Middlesex for an organ which is actually bang in the middle of the Strand? (!) Anyway, for this reason as much as anything else, here's the link: http://www.npor.org.uk/NPORView.html?RI=N06609 I have a personal interest in this instrument, having had its Willis III incarnation placed at my disposal in the mid-20th century thanks to the kindness of the late E H Warrell (and it was kind of him, considering that I was reading physics not music and there was always a queue of far better qualified musicians and theologs waiting for a practice slot). I'm also aware that one or two other forum members here have similar connections to the old thing. So is there a write-up about this recent work somewhere that I've missed, or does anyone know of plans to publish one? While on the subject, I came across what must rank as one of the weirdest problems ever when trying to make a recording of the instrument back then. It had what is now an old fashioned electromechanical action between console and pipes, as did every other electric action instrument in those days (i.e. all relays, no electronics). Although the recording engineers were using state of the art gear such as gorgeous Revox tape decks, every time you pressed a piston an audible click or crackle appeared on the tape. This was due to the sparks generated at the piston relay contacts of course, and despite all attempts it proved impossible to eradicate (we decided that the signals were probably entering the mains supply - the organ used a transformer/rectifier rather than a dynamo - and thence getting into the microphone preamps). So the attempt was a costly waste of time and had to be abandoned. CEP

I have some fellow feeling for Martin's plea. I believe there are, or were, well over 1000 members of the forum, many of whom joined up at the outset and are leading lights in the organ world. I gleaned this info some while back before its format changed recently, but now information on the membership seems to have been suppressed though maybe I'm no longer looking in the right place. But even when you browse back over many years it seems to have been a case of the same few who have striven to keep things going, leavened by the odd one dropping out now and again and the odd new one replacing them. Unfortunately, seldom do the afore-mentioned luminaries appear though, which strikes me as not only a pity but rather odd - why bother to sign up to an open forum if the only intention was to lurk? I'm not sure I quite go along with Martin having singled out a particular contributor though, as if to put the burden squarely on her/his shoulders! Like Martin and probably others, I've sometimes posted just to give people something to read, which is admittedly not the best motivation for bursting into print. There are doubtless several reasons why people aren't attracted to the forum, and I suggest one might be that it's an excessively clunky piece of software by today's standards I'm afraid. As just one example, having typed the first few sentences of this post I then looked briefly at some other pages, only to find when I got back here that everything had vanished without trace and I had to start again from scratch. That sort of thing is highly irritating to put it mildly, and I just can't be doing with it in this day and age. Other issues relate to the 'quote' facility, which often just seems to please itself as to what it actually does, and the silliness that you can't delete a message when you make a mess of it. It all rather reminds me of MS-DOS days. I also wonder whether the day of the traditional forum is drawing to a close anyway in today's social media era. I could suggest a topic or two - here's one for starters: not long ago I was reading the highly entertaining posts about the RCO which appeared between 2006-2008 or so. They were kicked off by a complaint about the annual subs and whether it represented value for money. Now that it has almost doubled, have things changed for the better, folks? I'll keep my powder dry for now on this one ... CEP

No, they are too soft. If you hit them with a hammer they deform permanently rather than springing back and throwing the hammer off, as does steel, bellmetal (bronze), etc. Therefore they don't 'ring' when struck either, at least to the same extent and in the same way. It's to do with the Q-factor of a mechanical oscillator, but let's not go there unless you really wanted to ... CEP

So Quentin's post confirms that "silver tongue" might not be too wide of the mark, and Tony's introduces an interesting idea about trademarks which hadn't occurred to me. His suggestion of a possible confusion between Celeste and Celesta is also quite plausible. It seems that Robert Hope-Jones rather than Wurlitzer themselves probably came up with it. He was using it in some of his instruments in the few years before he died after he had joined Wurlitzer and was running its pipe organ division under his own name. This being so, I would put money on it that the name was actually invented by his brother, the Revd Kenyon Hope-Jones. He had had the benefit of a classical education and was the source (or maybe one should say the importer) of many other then-novel stop names such as Tibia, Phoneuma, Kinura, Diapason Phonon, etc. But what an ugly word Chrysoglott is to my mind, suggesting little of the intended ethereal beauty of something meant to be celestial! Surely whoever it was could have come up with something more appropriate? Many thanks to all for helping to dispel my ignorance. CEP

That's definitely the best lead I've had to date. So, maybe it means "silver-tongued" or similar? Makes sense in a vague sort of way. Thanks David. CEP

Does anyone know why Wurlitzer used the word Chrysoglott for their percussion stop which was in fact a Celesta? They used an actual Celesta mechanism or something close to it. What on earth does it mean? I've asked this of my theatre organ friends and nobody seems to know (or care). I also once asked a linguist, who couldn't think of any roots in the old languages she knew. It's probably just me, but these things niggle me until I find the answer ... CEP

I feel that both sides of this interesting discussion are correct in one way or another. On the one hand I find there is almost no awareness of the organ on the part of the majority of the British public, who go about their daily business quite unaware of it. Like many members of this forum I imagine, if I happen to mention that my interests include the organ at (say) a social function, most people express genuine interest amounting to astonishment because it's something they have seldom if ever come across before. They gather round and are quite eager to hear all about it. So after such an exchange, were I to hypothetically rattle a collecting tin under their noses in aid of the local church instrument I bet most of them would be pleased to contribute. This suggests that perhaps part of the problem is in educating the public in the best and broadest sense, without wishing to be snooty and patronising about it. One of the problems bedevilling the British organ scene is that some of it is without doubt snooty, elitist and patronising. Although that (thankfully) small circle may well be able to get on fine as far as they themselves are concerned, I'm afraid they do the instrument no favours against the wider and more important backdrop of its longer term survival. Yet S_L's more positive view from afar is also a true and valuable reflection in that he is simply quoting facts which are unassailable. It's all to easy to get disheartened if we don't look at the issues from a wide enough perspective. It's certainly true that there is a lot of activity in the British organ world which people such as us are so familiar with that maybe we tend to disregard it for what it actually is. For instance, whenever I receive my (print) copy of Organists' Review the first thing that happens is that lots of well-produced advertising material drops out of it onto the table concerning upcoming events in the major cities, or even CDs containing tempting tasters about recently published music, organ and choral recordings or even the latest digital organ on offer. Whether we read or listen to such material or not is rather beside the point. The fact is that lots is going on all the time and we only have to look slightly below the surface to find it. CEP

Forgive me, but I assume this statement was made with tongue in cheek precisely to encourage the debate here (which of course would be a Good Thing), otherwise I can't see how the suggestion is any more practical than expecting local government to provide the funding! From what I know of organ builders' profit margins it would seem unlikely that they could reduce a tender from £1M to £10k ... It's only stating what everyone knows to say that good quality organ building is hugely expensive. I know of a tiny 2M/P instrument in a church with not many worshippers which was overhauled recently by a well-reputed firm costing some £120k. This was only possible because of lottery funding, without which I doubt it could have gone ahead. Just one story of many. CEP

It's a rather variable situation in my experience. I've never been backward in coming forward when it comes to knocking on doors to ask if I can try organs, but with a few exceptions the rule here (the UK) seems to be that the bigger and more important the instrument, the less likely you are to be granted access. There are some exceptions, with one cathedral in the southern counties being particularly welcoming especially to organists' associations. Some of the public schools are also on the sniffy side, and haven't even bothered to reply when I've contacted them. This is a bit rich considering they bask in charitable tax status, a condition of which is that they engage in outreach to the community or so I believe. Much the same applies to organs in stately homes. Even more rich is that these outfits seldom seem to bother about rattling tins under people's noses when it suits them to bolster their organ funds. They can't have it both ways. But is it really much different in other countries? I once asked (in my best French) if I could at least view the console at St Sulpice, but was told by a shocked verger that "non, non, c'est defendu". (Sorry, I can't seem to put the accents on today). I've had similar experiences in the Netherlands where I even got told off because my shoes were too noisy in St Laurence, Alkmaar! It wasn't as if the blinking organ was playing either. I endorse the sentiments of those who have written above, but was a bit shocked to read of S_L's impolite rebuff. CEP

Do be wary of the copyright problem when selecting your text won't you. Should your entry win the competition and be used publicly in any way, or be published, you or your school had best make sure that no rules will have been transgressed! John Betjeman as mentioned above is a case in point, though to be fair I've found his publishers (John Murray) to be helpful when I wanted to quote from his work on my website. Though even here, where no commercial considerations were involved and I only quoted a few lines, I had to seek their permission and also add an acknowledgement in the form prescribed by them, tell them when it had appeared, etc. The Bible is obviously safer in this regard, but it might be wise not to lift anything from a recent version and stick to one of the very old ones to be on the safe side. It's an utter minefield into which the unwary can wander quite innocently, and the penalties (which can take retrospective effect to cover the period of infringement) can be dire. I really am not overstating the case. I have also assumed you are referring to Christian sacred texts. However, if looking further afield to those of other religions, you might be well advised to take advice about how they regard people who do this. A huge amount of very beautiful prose exists of course which it might be tempting to use. Your school religious studies department might be able to help here. Nevertheless, very best wishes for your endeavours. CEP

Some discussion above mentions the 'aim' of the video. I think the problem here is that there wasn't one - by its own admission in the opening credit it consists merely of someone famous playing two instruments, and then it concludes with a lecture on 'economics' by someone rich. Er - so what? Where is the 'aim' in that? Therefore I think we may be crediting it with more meaning and importance than it deserves and therefore wasting our time. I shouldn't be surprised if at least some parties involved in making the thing are having a good laugh at our expense and wondering why we haven't got anything better to do. So maybe the whole thread ought to be deleted now that we've got it out of our systems? That's not my decision, though this is after all a pipes-only forum and one reason why at least some of us are members. Those with the inclination can sound off about electronics some place else. However, since the thread hasn't been deleted, it does lead onto another matter. The whole issue of pipes versus electronics is not really whether one is better than the other because in many respects it's a question scarcely worth the asking - the answer is obvious and the differences can be demonstrated to doubters objectively. What matters more is whether the cheaper digital option is good enough, and therefore by implication, more cost-effective. It is obvious that many purchasers think that digitals are good enough. As with John's wine analogy, it is why those who can't afford the Premier Grand Cru nevertheless get quite a lot of satisfaction from Waitrose own brand. If I were a pipe organ builder, I think it is this aspect which would cause me the most concern. CEP

Over the last 20 years or so I have done quite a bit of advising on organs, both pipe and digital, and some issues brought to mind by the video are: 1. The "pipe-organ-is-cheaper-over-the-long-run" type of argument does not cut the mustard at all with those who have to find a lot of money in the here and now. 2. Most PCC or organ committee members can't really tell the difference between pipe and digital sound as the video showed, and some don't care. This does not mean they are stupid, unmusical or cloth-eared. On the contrary, some committees include musically qualified members. Most I have met are nice people who just want to do their best for their church and neighbourhood community. They are on the whole enthusiastic, outward-looking and are fully aware that many well known professional organists (such as Professor Tracey - c.f. the video) have no problem identifying themselves with both types of organ. 3. Regardless of the type of organ they end up with, many churches today will only use it for a minority of services, perhaps four or five times a month plus weddings etc. The rest of the time they use worship bands, or even CDs played through the PA system. When there are one or two reasonable singers in the congregation, this can apparently work to the satisfaction of all. 4. Spending a lot of money on either type of organ is thought to be improper by some churches, especially inner city ones, who see the need to help the homeless and otherwise needy people who come to them. 5. The bureaucracy of the Faculty system (in the CofE) puts some PCCs off even embarking on the issue in the first place. They just let the old pipe organ sit there and rot. At the same time it is possible for them to import a digital on a "temporary" basis without having to seek any permissions provided the fabric of the building or the existing pipe organ is not modified. Presumably this is why the two instruments were able to sit side by side, figuratively speaking, in the church in the video. CEP

There's a lot of good advice given above. However in some cases it's not easy just to get in touch in the first place. For instance, email addresses are not always given on websites, or you are merely presented with one of those awful tiny boxes in which to write your message on the 'contact' page. Incidentally, a tip when confronted with these is to first compose your message offline using the simplest of text editors (such as NotePad on Windows - definitely not a 'proper' word processor such as Word which will insert lots of hidden inline garbage within your text) and then simply copy and paste it into the text box of the website in question. However you may well find, as I and many others have, that your approach is ignored. This seems to arise more often the greater the size and importance of the outfit you have approached - on the whole the smaller churches seem to be more helpful and courteous than some of the larger ones such as cathedrals, stately homes and schools. (This tends to colour my attitude when they next rattle a tin in aid of their organ fund under my nose ... ). But don't lose heart if you don't always get a reply. Another suggestion is to join a local organists' association. They usually have a number of committee members who are well connected with the sort of people who can help you gain access to organs of all sorts - after all, if this were not so then they would be unable to organise the visits they do to cathedrals, town halls, etc. Once you get known through attending their meetings and 'organ crawls' they will probably be very helpful to you, and belonging to a respectable organisation like this can also assist your chances of success when approaching those who control access to organs (so do mention it). There are a lot of very nice people in organists' associations in my experience extending over many decades since I was at school myself (and by golly, that's a long time ago now - you're talking to a grandad here ...) So good luck. CEP

David, I should have thanked you before for relating this sad news. I spent a decade in Malvern and thus close to the music activities at Worcester. Had I still been there rather than a couple of hundred miles away I should certainly have been at the Three Choirs this year, and at this performance in particular. Colin

I've always thought it singular that we have to support the children, grandchildren (and possibly generations beyond that) of the originator of a copyright-able work through the royalties which continue to be paid to his/her estate after their death. I'd love to think that mine could benefit from such an arrangement. Obviously I took the wrong career path. I wonder if some organ builders might agree? Could one of our legal eagles say whether an organ could be copyrighted in any sense, such as the design and appearance of its casework or its sounds, the latter having relevance to today's widespread practice of 'sampling' pipe organs ? And if not, why not? CEP

A few more to occupy a wet Sunday in England (with apologies if they have already been mentioned): Fantasia & Fugue in C minor, C P E Bach (Wq 119/7). Several renditions available on youtube e.g: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1foNnTJ1G2A Prelude & Fugue in E flat, Saint-Saens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7GkrFoUtI Marche Triomphale, W G Alcock. Not on youtube as far as I can see, in fact it's probably not particularly well known, but the sheet music seems to be widely downloadable (and good luck with it is all I can say!). Very 'Imperial' in style, almost Elgarian. It's the final track of Daniel Cook's CD of Alcock's organ music played at Salisbury cathedral (PRCD 1008). CEP

The link below explains 50 of the commonest abbreviations used in texting and email messages, and those who posted above are just fitting amusing organ-related alternatives to them . But I'm no expert so hopefully this post won't be deemed patronising by those who are. http://www.smart-words.org/abbreviations/text.html (I think you have to be a teenager to be even in the running to be called expert on this sort of thing, though apparently they now consider what we are discussing here to be old hat. Anyone with any street cred at all (i.e. definitely not me) will own a phone which auto-corrects and auto-inserts the correct phrase or abbreviation, depending on how you set it up. Mine doesn't I hasten to add). The list does contain quite a good one which does not need to be forced into an 'organ' situation: PEBKAC - Problem exists between Keyboard and Chair !! CEP

IIRC - if I can remember the chant

Just out of interest, is the touch bad even when the organ is not in wind? If so, this implies it is the action itself which is mechanically defective. But if the touch becomes reasonable when the wind is switched off, this would suggest that the pallets are too large, a common problem in the days when they were simply made to cover the gaps between the soundboard bars (which result from how the pipes happen to be planted) rather than being designed aerodynamically for their function of wind delivery. It could also mean that the wind pressure is too high, perhaps having been increased after the instrument was built. Either way, the cost of doing much about it would be significant for a small congregation, as you said. CEP

I suppose it depends on exactly how much flamboyance you want, but I've always found Nieland's 'Marche Triomphale' attractive to listen to and to play, and it's not too difficult either (probably around grade 6 or 7 I should think). I first came across it while still at school, and it might benefit from a more frequent airing over here, unlike in the Netherlands where almost everyone seems to know it. CEP

When handsoff posted the message from which you quoted, I did not read it as implying that he "dismissed" anything, nor that he was not "discerning", and I am consequently a little surprised that you felt able to make these remarks about him. As far as I was concerned he was simply making a statement, either of fact as he saw it, or perhaps just expressing an opinion. Everyone is entitled to do this on this forum as far as I am aware. CEP

Thank you Bruce for telling us about this. I was very sad to read of it. I hope it will not be too long before his life and work is set against a fairer background and perspective than was sometimes the case during his lifetime. For reasons I've never quite been able to understand, he seemed to attract criticism that was sometimes so vicious that I should have thought it was actionable. Whatever else he might have done or not done, he kept the magic name alive during a period considerably less attractive for organ building in commercial terms than that which obtained in the halcyon days of his illustrious predecessors. If I had succeeded in putting a roof over the heads of so many families and keeping their children fed as he did, I should have been a happy man just for that reason alone. CEP

The same thought has already occurred to me. Could you perhaps get the advice you are seeking in a more direct manner from the music department at your school and/or a personal teacher? Of course, you might already be doing this, and it's not really my business anyway. There is obviously no harm, and potentially everything to gain, from augmenting it with material you get from the members here, but I would be a little worried if this forum was the only source of the help you are requesting. This concern which I have is the only reason for posting this. CEP

Re the above, I promised to let you know how this recital went. Everything I said was true - the chairs in the church had not been turned round, so we did indeed sit with our backs to the organ, and in addition the performer had his back to us. However, it was not the gloomy and badly-attended affair I had feared from past experience. Most importantly though, it was also true that I enjoyed it. There was an informality and freshness which could only have worked in favour of the organ as an instrument worthy of being heard. Prior to the recital, given by a player who entertained us with his anecdotes between the pieces as well as with his playing, the church was full of people milling about as part of a previous unconnected event, and lunch was still being served. Many of those taking it remained as the recital started, including a table occupied by an elderly grandmother, her daughter and a little toddler. His expression when the organ struck up was a sight to behold. His jaw dropped open and his little eyes ranged back and forth across the pipe display at the back of the gallery, before he got off his chair and started to dance down the aisle while Bach was being played. I always knew about the importance of dance in organ music but had never quite seen its impact like that before! The small-ish church was about half full, and it was not true to say that the audience was "exclusively white, elderly and middle class", a phrase used in an article in the recent Organists' Review . On the contrary, there were a good few younger people there, some of whom were quite liberally inked as well! (I hope these remarks will not cause offence as that is not my intention. If they do, please tell me and I will edit this post). The performance was, I think, relayed into the street outside via loudspeakers, resulting in a number of curious people coming in to find out what was going on. Some of them stayed to listen. So at least some organ recitals do seem to 'work'. This one definitely did, perhaps because the ('high') church seemed to have a vibrancy about it which I would judge was well matched to the demographic of its neighbourhood. All credit to those involved with it, who seemed to have hit on the right recipe. CEP

Would that you are correct. If only. I can't speak from personal experience of higher education today, and definitely not in music, but when I read physics back in the mists of time I was shocked at some of what I experienced, and still am. Much of the electronics we were stuffed with was based on valve circuits, would you believe, yet the transistor had been invented two decades previously and even I, as a schoolboy a few years before, was spending my pocket money building transistor circuits. The integrated circuit (developed largely to get men on the moon around that time) wasn't ever mentioned. Then there were lecturers who only turned up when they had to perform in front of us, and even then only if their train wasn't late. This is literally true - I could name names. One of them suddenly convened an extra lecture a couple of days before an exam because he had forgotten to tell us about a topic in a paper which he himself had set. Of course, we all then swotted it up madly and - lo and behold - the expected question duly appeared. And as for pastoral care of the students living away from home for the first time in a great metropolis, it didn't exist. You would have been laughed at for even expecting it. This was not some hole-in-the-corner outfit. It was a principal constituent college of London university, which is today a prestigious (if you believe what they say) Russell Group university in its own right. Like John, I do so hope that things are not now like that, but I have an awful feeling that they might be. Apparently there is increasing resentment among the student fraternity across UK higher education generally that what they are getting for their £9k a year is not value for money. If so, it's pretty disgraceful, and my own experiences dispose me to believe it. Like so many taxpayer-funded organisations, oversight of their activities remains feeble and too much of their income goes into the pockets of (mainly senior) staff who must have difficulty concealing their smirks while on their way to the bank. Although not directly related to organs, I have posted this deliberately because the original poster who kicked off this thread is apparently still at school, and s/he might find it of interest. CEP