Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Colin Pykett

Members
  • Posts

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Colin Pykett

  1. Another aspect which has, fortunately, changed is the practice of hitting the choristers. I encountered this (not as the victim but as the organist) in the 1960s. And what has this got to do with '5 manuals'? Merely that the perpetrator had recently been a Cambridge organ scholar at the time and so was used to large instruments. As far as I know he is still alive. CEP
  2. As Contrabombarde said in #49, Emerson Richards took pains to educate himself as to the importance of properly designed chorus work. For example, he wrote of a Schnitger organ at Stade near Steinkirchen: "Full organ fills the rather large church with a flood of pure tone - no rumble or muddiness. Bach ... came out with an entirely new meaning. A precise, bell-like tone, rich in harmonics, but characterized by a lightness and transparency, gave an interest to the music never achieved by the romantic organ to which we are accustomed. There is plenty of power; the Mixtures are responsible for that; but it is a different kind of power. After becoming accustomed to it one never has the same interest in chorus reeds as instruments of power" He wrote this in the late 1940s if my recall is correct (i.e. without diving into a pile of journals to check), but I don't know when he actually heard this or similar instruments. Perhaps it was after he had designed his magnum opus at Atlantic City. CEP
  3. For what it's worth, I find very large organs somewhat embarrassing but only when it's their size alone which is the subject of conversation. Large instruments in themselves do not bother me because it's a simple fact that they are necessary for large buildings, and prior to about 1930 a large pipe organ was the only practical way to fill such spaces with sound before the arrival of electronics and loudspeakers of reasonable power and sound quality. Interestingly, the 7 manual affair at Boardwalk Hall, Atlantic City, was built exactly on that historical cusp and to that extent it was arguably a white elephant even before it uttered its first squeak. Alternatives would have included a distributed sound system which could have reproduced gramophone/phonograph records (they too had recently become much better with the introduction of electrical recording) and live performances by musicians and singers picked up by microphones, and such systems were probably installed as well, either at the same time or shortly afterwards. It would be interesting to know the relative proportion of time that the two systems - the electronic PA system and the huge organ - were used. (It is also of interest that the arrival of radio and consumer audio electronics around this time, both offering alternative and wider means of entertainment, was largely responsible for the sudden decline in popularity of pipe organs in the residences of the wealthy). But as I said above, my embarrassment arises when it is nothing but the sizes of these large instruments which monopolises the dialogue on a basis of "mine is bigger than yours". No other musicians vie with each other in this way because the sizes of their instruments, such as violins and bassoons, are determined purely by physics. So I wonder what they think when organists and organ builders continually try to outdo each other purely on the basis of number of pipes, stops, keyboards and the like. Well, the question is rhetorical because I know perfectly well what they think because some have told me - it merely reduces still further any regard they might have held for the organ as a musical instrument in the first place - hence the embarrassment. Sometimes I don't think we do ourselves any favours by focusing so often on size, when it's musicality which matters more. CEP
  4. I'm interested in the description "mocked up". What does this mean? Almost any non-functional but physically-playable five manual console would have been expensive, extravagant even, for something which did not actually produce a sound (if that is what is meant here). Today it would cost several tens of thousands of pounds if it used high quality sprung keys and motorised engraved drawstops which could be operated by means of a combination system, and in real terms the cost would not have been much different in Christopher Dearnley's day. That does not mean he did not have such a console of course. In his day there were no such things as touch screens and cheap (and nasty) commercial MIDI keyboards at around £150 each, which today would bring down the cost dramatically. Having spent so much on a decent console it wouldn't have cost much more in relative terms to install electronics so that it would at least have made some sort of sound At the other end of the scale (no pun intended), it could have consisted merely of a cheap plywood shell with some old keyboards and large photographs of the stop jambs! Either way, why go to the bother when he only lived around the corner from the real thing? Even when the cathedral was in use for other purposes, he could have popped into the organ loft to do some dummy (silent) practice. So it would indeed be interesting to resolve this question, because it somehow does not quite stack up in my simple mind. CEP
  5. With tongue firmly in cheek, may I very naughtily point out that our host's website says the RAH organ has five manuals! (see http://www.mander-organs.com/portfolio/ . Scroll down to "The Grand Organ, Royal Albert Hall, London") This might be an old version, but at the time of writing the link was live and the page was indeed on the web! If I were our host, I'd say something like "there always has to be one, doesn't there ... ", and quite probably not as politely as that. Pace. CEP
  6. The news today is that there has been a major fire which has destroyed the roof of All Saints church at Fleet, near Farnborough in Hampshire. There is (was?) a substantial two manual organ there, originally by Forster and Andrews and subsequently modified by F H Browne. The news report says "the main structure and brickwork remain intact", but in view of the total devastation of the roof as pictured in the report, one wonders whether the organ will have survived the presumed smoke and water damage. CEP
  7. Whence my remarks in #13. If we aren't careful, this topic could impact negatively on the forum. CEP
  8. To my mind, the opening sentence of this thread is its oddest aspect. Why did the interested party ask a respected member of the forum to post on his/her behalf rather than join the forum and make the point him/herself? My question is rhetorical, as I am not naive. I would suggest moderators might like to take a look here. And if they so decide, I would be quite content for this post to be deleted, having made my point. CEP
  9. Thank you, Vox Humana, for your very interesting post (#44) explaining the background to the 'tourist' leaflet available about the organ at Carisbrooke Castle which I wrote about in a post prior to yours. I apologise if my remarks about its author, whose identity was unknown to me at the time of writing, might have caused offence, as none was intended. And on another subject: A good question. I'm always open to correction from those who know better, but I consider it wasteful. In my view there's little justification for a mixture to start at the bottom of the compass by duplicating pitches which exist elsewhere. If there is a 12th and a 15th as separate stops, I would start a quint mixture at 19, 22 and so on. This gives more scope for it to break sensibly across the compass before coming to rest at the top few notes with, say, an 8.12.15 composition (which any mixture more or less has to do to prevent the pipes getting too small and to prevent it going beyond the range of audibility of many listeners). CEP
  10. Re Carisbrooke Castle, I last visited there in 1999 and brought away a leaflet about the organ. It consists of three closely typed pages, but with no indication of authorship or date. How completely useless that is for those seeking reliable source material. However it bears little resemblance to the Goetze and Gwynn report of 1993, though it might have drawn on it, or vice versa. A quick reading just now suggests that it does not amplify on the uncertainties surrounding dates and possible maker(s). It merely concludes that " ... we have not only a musical treasure but a cosmopolitan enigma". Nevertheless there is a lot of stuff in there, and if anyone would like a copy I might be able to do a scan (if I can persaude my scanner to work) which I can send privately. Please PM me if you are interested. CEP
  11. Colin Harvey's post (#29) was indeed helpful. It explained why a separate 5 1/3 quint makes no sense in an 8 foot chorus, as some of us have pointed out recently. Such stops (and 5 1/3' mixture ranks) are of course found from time to time, not only in British organs but in Continental Europe, but that does not help to validate their presence when there is no 16 foot chorus. The so-called 'Bach organ' at Arnstadt is one example. Colin's other post about 'pointless' 2 foot pedal stops (#30) reminded me of the 2' Sifflote on the pedal organ at St George's, Dunster (HN&B 1962). It's extended from the 16' flue. I've never quite worked that one out, though presumably there's either some logic behind it (which I'd be interested to hear about), or maybe someone just insisted on it at the time. It wouldn't be the first time ... CEP
  12. I've just acquired a fairly recent (recorded 2012, issued 2013) CD of S S Wesley's choral works which I hadn't seen reviewed. That probably means I've missed it, as I'd be surprised if it hadn't evoked a mention somewhere in the organ literature. Anyway, it's CHAN 10751 and it is still readily available e.g. from Amazon. Its full title is "Ascribe unto the Lord - sacred choral works by Samuel Sebastian Wesley", performed by Andrew Nethsingha and the St John's Cambridge choir with John Challenger at the organ. Many of the usual SSW goodies are included which you can find below: https://www.chandos.net/Details06.asp?CNumber=CHAN%2010751 Note that the contents includes two Psalms sung to Samuel (not S S) Wesley's chants (the web page above is in error here), S S's 'Larghetto in F# minor' for organ and the hymn 'O Thou who camest from above' sung to his 'Hereford' (words by Charles Wesley). All told, a highly satisfactory immersion in the extended Wesley family's output if you like that sort of thing. The singers seem rather close-mic'd to be natural at times because one would seldom be sitting that close to them in practice, but the advantage is that you can hear what they are singing in terms of the words, which do not get lost in the acoustic. The organ comes over splendidly - just perfect - and it's a pity there's no mention of it in the sleeve notes. Chandos used 24-bit/96 kHz recording, not that unusual, in fact it would have been surprising if they had not, but they include a rather facile and therefore amusing summary of the technical reasons for it in the sleeve notes which I won't go into here. I guess they include this with all their CDs. Rather surprising as a sales pitch though I thought, considering virtually any bog-standard digital recorder retailing at under £100 offers this. In common with most audio pundits, they also fail to say what happened to the sound when it was degraded to the CD standard of 16-bit/44.1 kHz! It's even worse when mp3 format is used, a download option which they offer on their website. I'm glad to have this CD and thought it might be of interest to others. CEP
  13. "I am looking for suggestions for where a good wash of string tone would be effective" (Martin Cooke, #22) "Charmaine" by Rapee/Pollack. Retro theatre-organ style transcription of Mantovani's (string) orchestral arrangement. Lush strings essential. Good swell box highly desirable. Or for something more 'respectable', the 3rd movement of Elgar's organ sonata in G - 2nd section in F#. Marked ppp, so again a good swell box is indicated. It almost cries out to be played on a string chorus with celeste, and when available that's what I use. I played it at Salisbury using the Solo strings with sub and supers (oh no, not those again ... ). CEP
  14. Hope-Jones, whose novel form of electric action enabled a plethora of couplers to be provided economically for the first time, scattered subs and supers liberally over all his stop lists. In his larger organs he sometimes only applied the suboctaves to the light wind stops and the supers to the heavy winded ones. He did this at Worcester cathedral (1896) on the great organ for example. On this organ there were subs and supers to all four manual divisions, as well as to the inter-divisional couplers. Another interesting feature on this instrument was that three of the four keyboards were fitted with second touch, which actuated the unison inter-divisional couplers only. Therefore to get unison coupling one had to press the keys harder. (This feature could be enabled or disabled for certain of the couplers by means of a double touch stop key). Returning to the topic title, whether any of these stops or features were "pointless" is a matter of individual armchair judgement - it's a pity one cannot form an opinion today by trying them out for real. CEP
  15. VERY Hope-Jonesy! So yes, we do, occasionally! There's one on his instruments at St Mary's, Pilton, Devon (1898) and St Dyfnog's, Llanrhaeadr (1899) for example. (If looking it up on NPOR, make sure to ignore the subsequent excrescences at Pilton - though fortunately the great octave wasn't removed). And how useful they are on the few occasions one comes across them. I've never understood why, in this country, the swell often has its sub and supers (and unison offs) when the other divisions often do not. But then, I'm only a mere physicist ... Seriously though, if there is a musical reason, I'd be interested to learn of it. CEP
  16. Thank you for this firstrees. I hadn't intended to put you to so much trouble! As it's so long ago I do not recall the acoustic at all, but (as you didn't say otherwise) you confirmed that an attractive little instrument built over a century ago is still alive and well. It would be good to see your photos though, but like you I find doing things like that on most forums is quite difficult. (On this one, I think one can only attach pictures by having them somewhere else - such as a cloud drive - and inserting a link in the text. But I might be wrong). CEP
  17. It depends partly on what else there is, as it's probably not a question that can be answered in isolation. For example, a 5 1/3 quint makes sense if there is a 16 foot stop there already because the quint is the 3rd harmonic of the 16 foot. But if there isn't a 16 foot, the quint no longer coincides with a harmonic of anything else - it sticks out on its own, and it doesn't provide much of an approximation to a (synthetic) 16 foot either by adding it to an 8 foot. It then becomes an extreme example of what so irritated Berlioz about mixtures and mutations - that they distort the harmony by adding a continuous sequence of consecutive fifths. And with a 5 1/3 quint against the unisons it is indeed a fifth, not 'diluted' as in most other mixtures and mutations in the form of a twelfth, nineteenth, etc, which blend anyway with the corresponding harmonics already present from other stops. This blending cannot occur with a 5 1/3 quint without a 16 foot. Organists seem to be able to get used to this type of sound, but some other musicians do not. Another example concerns how many unison (8 foot) stops make sense on a single division. Of course, if the money is there you can put in what you like, but otherwise it pays to apply more logic to the situation. If there is already a dulciana and a gamba, for instance, would one go further and add a salicional as well? I mentioned the little 'Bach organ' at Arnstadt yesterday in the context of the discussion about quints. Besides having the dreaded 5 1/3 quint on the Oberwerk, there is also the following range of unison stops: Principal, Viol di Gamba, Gemshorn, Quintadena, Grob Gedackt and Trompet. That's a pretty complete line up for a small two manual organ and one could do a lot of colour-mixing just within this unison palette alone. (This also begs the question of how Bach might have registered on this organ, but that's a discussion way beyond my fully-acknowledged limitations). So the question here is - what else could or should have been added? On this instrument it could be argued that one would be entering the realm of diminishing returns and the additions might well be judged to be of limited value or even useless. Whereas if there were fewer stops to start with, then that would not necessarily be so. But putting all this to one side and answering the exam question as set, what about an Erzahler for the sake of argument? CEP
  18. I used to have ready access to such a stop, but it rather mystifies me. In theory, of course, it produces resultant beats with an 8 foot stop whose beat frequencies are at 16 foot pitch. However there is no actual acoustic energy at the beat frequency (as with any resultant), so all one hears are the two generating tones together with a sort of growl which develops towards the lowest notes. It's an interesting sound, but that's about all I can say. It was found in some late 17th and 18th century German organs, such as that at Arnstadt by Wender. There are some recordings of this instrument which (to my ears) bear out what I said above. In fact, the presence of this stop was one reason which caused me to simulate the Arnstadt organ digitally, though I won't say more here on a pipe organ forum other than to remark that it confirmed the impressions noted above. CEP (Subsequent edit: David's post (#8) appeared unbeknown to me whilst I was writing mine. It's mildly interesting that we both used the adjectival phrase "sort of growl" quite independently).
  19. Schoenstein's tonal director, Jack Bethards, wrote a long and detailed article ("A Brief for the Symphonic Organ") about this type of instrument, and devoted attention to "enclosure" and "dynamic control" which described the Schoenstein system of double expression at some length. The article was in BIOS Journal volume 26, 2002. There is also a condensed description of the system on the firm's website at: http://www.schoenstein.com/double-expression.html CEP
  20. I wouldn't want to insist that electronics must never be used in pipe organ control systems. That would be to adopt a head-in-the-clouds and unworldly position. As innate implied above, electronics can do things which can't be done in any other way. But one then has to accept that the electronics will need replacing in a timescale shorter than that of the more traditional parts of the instrument. And when it does need replacing, the costs are significant. As long ago as 2000, the cost of the electronics for the rebuild at All Saints, Margaret Street ran to c. £20K. So this needs to be factored into the medium to long term cost forecasts of keeping an electronically-controlled pipe organ running. Failure to do this can lead to some very nasty surprises for churches or other owners - and they occur catastrophically and unpredictably, as happened at St Peter's, Nottingham when their electronic transmission failed during an important service, rendering the organ silent for a long time while they were deciding what to do. For an up-to-date and expert view of the issues, see John Norman's piece about the new organ in the Elgar Concert Hall at Birmingham University in the June 2015 issue of Organists' Review. He pulled no punches about its stop control and combination system (or lack of it - it only has a forwards and backwards stepper). That organ does have electronic stop control despite the baroque-ised appearance of its stop jambs, yet the capability of electronics to provide the full and flexible combination system which most players expect has not been provided. It's a bit like having a TV with an inbuilt remote control capability sold without a remote control. So the moral is, use electronic control in pipe organs if you wish, but make sure you are educated about its shortcomings as well as its benefits, particularly as regards lifetime and replacement costs. CEP
  21. Electronic components found in consumer equipment (termed, unsurprisingly, 'consumer electronics') are not intended to have lifetimes comparable to that of the pipes and action work of a mechanical action organ, in which lifetimes of at least several decades are usual and expected. Electronic components used in safety-critical equipment, aerospace or military systems have longer lifetimes, but they are much more expensive. So are the modules constructed from them, which have to be assembled in clean rooms and minutely tested to the most exacting standards. Therefore digital organs, and the electronic modules used in some pipe organs, are built to consumer electronics standards for obvious reasons. If this were not so, digital organs would be more expensive than pipe organs! RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) is an EU directive which took effect in 2006 covering things like safety and disposal issues, though there was also some study of its effect on life-cycle. Undoubtedly it has affected reliability and thus life-cycle, though whether for better or worse depends partly on whom you speak to and what their vested interests are. Like most (all?) EU legislation, it groans under its burden of bureaucracy. In this respect it is similar to the ISO 9000 quality management system, which has been described as one which produces absolute rubbish to a uniformly high standard. (I speak with some experience, as I was responsible for implementing this system - successfully I might add - for my former hi-tech electronics and software employer and I still bear the scars). But RoHS is actually irrelevant here, because the long-term effects of a system only implemented 9 years ago cannot, by definition, be assessed for organ applications until several more decades have passed. bam in #52 has given some examples where failures have occurred in both digital and electronically-controlled pipe organs, and the longevity figures he gave are entirely compatible with what one would expect. It is not realistic to expect consumer electronics to last beyond 15 - 20 years, and even this is often not achieved (see bam's Quainton church example). I can't understand why traditional electromechanical components such as ladder switches (used for couplers and deriving stops from unit chests) are not used more widely, especially in small organs such as this one. They too go wrong of course, but the point is that almost anyone (and often the organist) can solve the problem by cleaning the offending relay contact(s) with a squirt of IPA (isopropyl alcohol, not beer) or similar contact cleaner. In view of this, and the potential damage to the organ builder's reputation, why use electronics as the default option? Ladder switches and other electromechanical components are still widely available, and they certainly were when this instrument was last updated. In a previous post some while ago I gave a link to an article on my website in which I described the failure modes of electronic components in detail, but I'll not repeat it here. Otherwise forum members will get fed up with constantly being directed to my reams of purple prose (and I wouldn't blame them ... ). But as I said above, it was written from a standpoint of professional involvement with the subject over many years. CEP
  22. Another comparable organ by Norman & Beard is at St James's Shaftesbury. Again, a small 2M&P with TP action, dating in this case from 1906. There have been a couple of restorations by Osmond. However this organ has a most unattractive 'case', consisting of little more than tongued and grooved planks. The swell Horn was rather overbearing as I recall but smooth and well regulated. So, yet again apparently, here is more evidence of the worthiness of this firm's work of this vintage, at least as far as mechanical aspects go. It's no wonder our hosts still find it worthwhile to have developed their speciality in restoring pneumatic actions. CEP
  23. Recent threads have taken in some eastern towns (Colchester, Thaxted and other places), and for some reason they reminded me of an interesting little organ I played many years ago at St Nicholas with St Mary and St Thomas church further north in Blakeney, Norfolk. It was built by Norman and Beard around 1910 (Wikipedia) or 1913 (NPOR) using tubular pneumatic action from a neat detached 2M&P console to two cases facing north and south. I found it an attractive instrument, with its N&B speciality - the Coroboe on the swell - though I can't recall anything particularly striking about its tone to warrant such a name. Maybe a little louder and close-toned than an ordinary oboe, but that was all. Maybe that was all a Coroboe was supposed to be. The NPOR says it was "rebuilt" in 1983 by HN&B, implying a substantial intervention, but Wikipedia says that only "minor" work was done. The NPOR listing implies that it still retains its original stop list and pneumatic action. This is most gratifying (and unusual). How refreshing to find a worthy instrument that has apparently not been messed about with and, presumably, well maintained and sympathetically restored over a long period. If this is so, then this is yet another example of the longevity of a good quality pipe organ compared to their electronic counterparts (another topic we've been discussing recently). Can anyone confirm this history, and does it still merit my personal approval rating from long ago? I think I'm probably directing these questions to members such as David Drinkell and Firstrees in view of their detailed local knowledge! CEP
  24. I guess many forum members will have seen the article which has just appeared in the June 2015 edition of Organists' Review about the Lord Mayor's chapel organ in Bristol with wi-fi transmission which was the subject of this thread. This makes the material more accessible to a wider readership than the previous version which was only circulated within the IBO. For the benefit of readers who do not take OR, the article was written by Paul Hale though with quite a lot contributed by the builders (Clevedon Organs). Beyond the quotes below I won't comment further as people will no doubt make up their own minds about this interesting scheme. Among much else, the builders said: "Another unique feature is the remote diagnostics facility, whereby the organ can be connected vai the Internet to the Slovakian HQ for analysis should a fault arise. Indeed, it is possible to play the organ through the Internet ... " At the end of the article, Paul Hale asked: "So, will wireless remote-control for mobile consoles catch on and prove reliable?" CEP
  25. Another way to get a good quality pipe organ is to go for a second hand or redundant instrument. A reputable consultant, such as one who is a member of the Association of Independent Organ Advisers, will know of their availability and whereabouts. (Do not allow your CofE DAC organ adviser to act as your consultant, unless you specifically want this to happen. This is not their role, though some are rather too pushy in this regard. They are there to provide a hopefully educated and objective opinion to the DAC about what you want to do, not to advise you or your church). A church near me got such an instrument, fully reconditioned, for well under £15K about ten years ago, and this included all transportation costs plus an excellent opening recital by the adviser himself. Thus pipe versus electronic price comparisons cannot be done on the bare figures alone. Deeper investigation of the options is required if an optimum outcome is to be achieved. The essential breakthrough comes when one embraces a mindset which does not insist that the pipe organ must have a stop list comparable in size (and irrelevance) to that of the digital competition. A further factor which often comes into the equation is that there are few significant pipe organ rebuilds in which tonal changes do not play a role - pruning the price down to the minimum by just getting the thing working properly again seems to be rare! Also it is necessary to bear in mind that the prices of digital organs escalate as soon as one wants to customise a standard product. Thus the question of whether to go for pipes or electronics is not just a question of the relative costs. CEP
×
×
  • Create New...