Colin Pykett

The move was mentioned here: http://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/New-director-of-music-for-Newark-Parish-Churc CEP

The popular view of the church, insofar as it can be summarised succinctly, is less black and white and rather more complicated than could be described as 'moribund', I think. If one expands the remit beyond organised religion to encompass spirituality in all its forms, the picture is quite different, indeed encouraging to those to whom it matters. Large numbers of people are known to have experienced some form of spiritual experience to the extent they have never forgotten it and whose lives have been changed by it. The work of the Religious Experience Research Centre at Lampeter, founded by the late Sir Alister Hardy (a famous biologist who once taught Richard Dawkins) is fascinating, as was the man himself, and among other things they have documented many thousands of written records and interviews with people who have had such experiences. See: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/library/alister-hardy-religious-experience-research-centre/ Reverting to the church, it certainly does have its problems now that it (at least the Anglican church) is less well connected with the rest of the Establishment as it once was. However I have the highest regard for some of those called to its ministry and I applaud their courage and the real and valuable work they do, often in deprived areas which would be lost without them. Reverting even more narrowly to organs and church music, I can only agree with the sentiment that the future has to lie increasingly outside the church if there is to be a future at all. The concert platform and recordings have to be the way to go. CEP

Now I will comment, having gained a flavour of what others think. I lost interest in it over 35 years ago when an OB recording for SoP was announced in the local paper of the area I was living in at the time. It concerned a church on the borders of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and the article (which was actually nothing but a BBC ad) was soliciting attendees. However it stipulated that they had to be members of some choral society, choir, or had other 'qualifications' which permitted them to enter the building for the august occasion. Mere worshippers were excluded. So much for the 'churchy' aspect. What is more relevant to the purpose of this forum is what the future role of the organ will be in the limited sense of how often it will continue to appear, and in the more general sense of its diminishing role in church quite independent of religious 'shows' of the SoP variety. CEP

The BBC has announced a rehash of Songs of Praise. I won't comment, but instead will simply point you to the link on their website today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30070899 If the link rots or doesn't work for other reasons, the article is entitled "Songs of Praise to change format as part of relaunch" which might help in searching the BBC site. I am sure forum members are eminently capable of forming their own views, and some might even be moved to post them. CEP

I think James Bradley's post (#7) resolves my uncertainty whether the list in my version of the book (the 2nd edition) was for it or for the first edition. On the basis of James's post it seems each edition probably had its own subscribers. Interesting. (With tongue in cheek, might it also mean that the 'missing' organ builders in the 2nd edition such as Willis, Hill, etc, thought it wasn't worth buying that time round?!). Thanks James. CEP

Going off-topic a bit (a failing of mine), my copy of Hopkins & Rimbault is the 2nd edition of 1870, presented to me as a birthday present by my dear wife a few years ago. VERY difficult to get hold of and thus greatly treasured! I 'm not sure whether the list of subscribers refers to this or the first edition of 1855. Anyway, some of the luminaries mentioned in it are: ORGAN BUILDERS Bryceson Bros Conacher & co J W Goundry Gray & Davison W Johnson (Wednesbury) T C Lewis Nicholson & Son (Walsall) G Staniland (Wallingford) (No mention of Walker, Willis, Hill, ... ?) ORGANISTS Lots of these, including: W T Best L G Hayne (Eton College and inventor of 'Hayne's tubs') In fact, too many to mention any more. MISCELLANEOUS Various Deans & Chapters including Canterbury and Chester Quite a few academics identified by their title of 'Professor' So, all in all, quite a historical snapshot in itself quite independent of the rest of the book. CEP Incidentally, my book is inscribed as the property of a son of an important Manchester mill owner and dated 1871.

This puts me in mind of Hopkins and Rimbault's Victorian treatise ('The Organ - its History and Construction') which also was published wholly or in part by public subscription. A list of subscribers is appended which makes interesting reading today, and some contemporary organ builders were among them. It would be a nice touch if this might be done with the volume under discussion here. CEP

When one finally sees the detached electric console in the video it confirms that the piece could not have been played on Brandenstein's original organ (mechanical action, wind raised by human muscle power), even if Wagner had been around then and someone had done the transcription. I wonder what the original organ sounded like. CEP

I also applaud this. Not only are the taste and professional quality of the video delights in themselves, but it is always wonderful when players of this stature not only allow their performances to be heard but also seen - and free of charge too. One learns so much. And then there's the instrument ... Thank you Ms Page and biggestelk. CEP

Not quite as old but arguably in a similar vein is Robert Hope-Jones's personal scrapbook which recently came to light and is currently being examined and archived by the Lancastrian Theatre Organ Trust. See: http://www.ltot.org.uk/HJs%20own%20scrapbook.pdf CEP

I am most grateful for Simon's response and interest (Simon - I'll be replying personally shortly - thank you). As to the piece itself, it is one of those which has the power to move me as much as any. For reasons which are unimportant here, I once stayed at a military establishment where it was played outside every evening by a sole bugler, the sun behind him (weather permitting), an experience which I still carry with me and shall never forget. Like Simon, I found it extraordinarily difficult to track down, and in fact never succeeded. So I was delighted many years ago to find a member of a local organists' association during an organ crawl (events not regarded highly by some members of this forum!) had transcribed it much as Simon describes. He kindly sent a copy of his manuscript to me and I have used it many times since. CEP

The 'Sunset' bugle call might be considered, following Capt Green's arrangement for military band. I realise it is not contemporaneous with the first world war, having been composed somewhat later (I think) in the early 1930s, but it is used widely by the UK's armed forces bands on a range of occasions commemorating various conflicts. Unsurprisingly, given its title, it is particularly effective in the evening in my opinion, and it does not need to be played loudly. In fact it can sound very beautiful with the opening solo played quietly on an enclosed and 'distant' reed. If you use it, be aware that congregations might stand, following the lead of any military people who may be present. So do not be disconcerted by this! CEP

David Drinkell's post (#58) reminded me of a similar occasion at my own father's funeral, also at a crematorium. The organist played (well) number III of Stanford's Six Preludes & Postludes, 2nd set, op 105 (the Lento in G). We had not asked for anything specific despite one of my brothers and me both being organists, but it fitted the occasion exactly and I couldn't have chosen better myself. There are other suitable numbers in that set also. CEP

Friedrich, the issue is whether one can consciously perceive (i.e. actually hear) difference tones, regardless of what Levitin or anyone else might say about ear/brain function. I cannot hear them under normal listening conditions and nobody I have ever met can either - even when I take them into a church or my studio and experiment on them! I have only come across one person who claims he can hear them under normal listening conditions, and that was only on the basis of an email so I was not able to confirm it personally. I do not know him otherwise. Can you hear them? If so, what does music sound like to you? It must sound very different to how I perceive it, because you will hear (say) tenor C when you play middle C and the G above it simultaneously. CEP

That's interesting John, especially the introduction of sub-harmonics of unison (8') pitch. Although used in earlier times, they were found increasingly frequently in the 19th century when organ builders suddenly decided they 'understood' the then-burgeoning science of acoustics (see #4 above). But they make no acoustical sense unless they are used with the respective ground tone (16' or 32' as the case may be) because only then can they reinforce the natural harmonics of the ground tone. Even someone of the stature of Cavaille-Coll fell into this trap (and he was pretty well clued up scientifically for his day), thus making the designs of some of his mixtures rather bizarre and akin to those of Casson. My belief is that, clued up or no, they apparently believed that the beats which occur between a sub-harmonic such as 5 1/3' and an 8' ground tone would result in a 16' difference tone being heard even when there was no 16' ground tone. Even today this misunderstanding is widespread e.g. for resultant bass pedal stops as well as for mixtures and mutations. In fact there is a major difference between beats and difference tones in that there is no acoustic energy in the air at a beat frequency. Therefore no difference tone is presented to the ear. The conversion of energy from beats to audible difference tones requires significant non-linearity, and this can only occur in the ear and/or brain as it does not occur in the atmosphere. But in healthy ears the non-linearities are usually too small for us to hear difference tones unless the generating tones are unusually loud. See my article for more detail at: http://www.pykett.org.uk/resultantbass.htm CEP

Actually, pop music has changed dramatically over the last half century or so, mainly owing to changes in music technology. In the 1960s there was no music technology as such available to producers and recording companies beyond microphones and analogue tape - performers had to learn to play instruments reasonably well, to do it in real time, and to read music to some extent. Edits could only be made by physically cutting and splicing the tape, thus performers who couldn't get it right first or second time rapidly fell out of favour with the recording barons. Even for the 'backing' tracks, recordings had to be made using skilled session musicians playing 'proper' instruments because there were no synthesisers beyond those with the most rudimentary capabilities, and digital music was unknown. There were a few exceptions, such as the purely electronic music used for Dr Who and the like, and such noises sometimes appeared as part of pop music numbers, but this was the exception rather than the rule. Today, as everybody knows, this scenario has undergone a polarity reversal. Almost every pop music track is largely or fully synthetic, consisting of digitally-contrived sounds using digital synths, editing is trivially easy (a typical CD, either pop or classical, can contain upwards of 1000 edits), thus for these reasons pop 'musicians' do not require the same level of skill any longer. Therefore, if pop music ever required a basic level of skill and training on the part of its executants, that has almost vanished today. Perhaps this has contributed to Paul Morley's disenchantment. Maybe he can only find the satisfaction he used to derive from early pop music in 'classical' music nowadays, because that has not changed in the the same way. It still requires enormous skill on the part of the performers just as it always did, even if they are called upon to play garbage (which some 'classical' composers did indeed churn out). CEP

One aspect which is sometimes lost sight of is that most 'classical' recordings only exist because they are, in effect, bankrolled by the pop music industry. They are hugely expensive to produce (imagine the cost of an orchestra and possibly soloists and chorus for several days' worth of takes when recording an opera or something like The Dream of Gerontius) plus the engineers' time, but they sell in far lower quantities than to the pop market. Thus the major record companies would not exist were it not for pop, and so they would not be able to make 'classical' recordings. I realise there are a few specialist recording companies to whom this does not apply, as they service a niche market such as smaller-scale organ and some choral recordings. But I haven't so far noticed them selling orchestral recordings of the sort alluded to above - unless I've blinked and missed it. So should we start to like pop? Or simply be thankful that it's there to subsidise our more specialist listening habits? In reply to Morwenna's question, yes, I have seen Morley's article. When reading it, I got the impression that, like so many others, he's simply getting older and his values have changed. Other examples include the late Malcolm Muggeridge, a pretty militant agnostic if not atheist for much of his life, yet he converted to Christianity as he matured. I saw his debate with a Christian prelate in St Clement Danes church while he still adhered to agnosticism, and it was so fiery that I'm afraid I never took him very seriously after he suddenly switched. I suppose others might conclude that a late conversion, Saul-like, is better than none. Others are ministers/priests who lose their faith in mid-career, which is tragic to behold. Some of the things Justin Welby has said recently about his own doubts and fears have made me wonder whether this is happening to him, in which case he's arguably in the wrong job. Or the reverse - those who embrace a career in the church later in life after doing other things. So I'm not sure Morley is saying much more than that he, also, has had some sort of 'conversion' in later years. It's a common phenomenon. CEP

Forgive this late contribution to the thread, but I don't know whether MM is still interested in Compton reminiscences. However I've just come across some which concern Leslie Bourn's doings post-retirement. He joined the Electronic Organ Constructors' Society (EOCS), which still flourishes, and took part in a meeting in Leicester at which he gave a talk and demonstrated an Electrone. This was in 1967. The talk was summarised in the Society's magazine number 28 of October 1967. He described how he first got into the business as a youngster with several interesting anecdotes, including that he met a clergyman quite by chance in the street who happened to be Robert Hope-Jones's brother Kenyon. (He was the classics scholar who dreamed up the fanciful stop names used by H-J such as Phoneuma, etc). When his interests led him to apply for a job at Compton's, he was introduced to John who said (re developing an electronic instrument) "do what you like but it mustn't cost too much". He was then shown a cupboard which was to be his 'research department'. Subsequently in retirement he became Chairman or President of the EOCS. He was developing a fully electronic transistorised instrument at that time, having said something like "it's about time I started understanding these transistor thingys". I trust the Board's owner will not mind this post on electronic organs, as it is intended only to augment the body of information about the Compton company. I might be able to flesh this stuff out if MM wishes, though it could be time-consuming to trawl through the magazines. CEP

The beat frequency between a tierce rank (3 1/5') on the pedals at bottom C and tenor E on the manuals would be 1.3 Hz. The beat frequencies get higher as you go higher up the compass and soon become very rough on the ear with a tierce/17th rank. How about the Septieme (4 4/7') at one time on the pedal organ at Notre Dame? (I haven't checked whether it's still there). This is the 7th harmonic (flat 21st interval) relative to 32 foot pitch. It would produce a beat frequency of 9 Hz between bottom C on the pedals and bottom B at unison pitch on the manuals. Because the flat 21st is so flat, it actually lies much closer to A#, with which there would be a beat of 2 Hz. Apparently Vierne said it gave the pedal organ "the richness of a muster of double basses". All these figures relate to an organ tuned to A = 440 Hz in Equal Temperament. It's the organ builders whom I take my hat off to. How the deuce do they ever tune the things (i.e. mixtures and mutations of any type and pitch) and remain sane? I've watched them at work and have wondered whether they suffer from more rapid age-related hearing loss than the general population who aren't exposed to (say) a five rank mixture shrieking away at close quarters? I'm not being disrespectful - it must be a real issue for them. CEP

In theory the problem arises with all instruments. However it is writ large with mixtures because they are so loud. Mixtures were invented to make the organ loud at a time when wind pressures, and therefore the power of unison stops, were perforce so low. The perception of subjective loudness which mixtures endow is to some extent an aural illusion because the ear/brain assigns greater loudness to a sound whose acoustic power is spread over a large part of the audio spectrum, compared to a sound of the same power which is concentrated in fewer frequencies. The amplitude of the beats which occur between mixtures and corresponding notes of the tempered scale is related to the power of the frequencies which generate those beats, therefore they tend to be more noticeable with mixtures (and mutations) because of their relatively high amplitudes. In practice the beat frequencies are fairly low between the perfectly tuned quint ranks in a mixture and the corresponding tempered notes elsewhere in the compass of the stops which are drawn with them. The deviation is only 1.97 cents (100 cents equals one semitone) with ET. Thus the beat rate between the 3rd natural harmonic of A440 and top E on an 8 foot stop - a twelfth above A - which should ideally speak the same note, is 3 beats in 2 seconds. If anything, this tends to add richness and 'shimmer' to a quint mixture rather than an impression of dissonance. With tierce mixtures containing 17th ranks and harmonics mixtures containing 21st ranks as well, the beats are very much faster and (to my ears) intolerable with ET. They are better with the 'best' keys in certain unequal temperaments, but by definition, they will be even worse than with ET in the 'poorer' keys in those temperaments. It can be argued that mixtures are ultimately irrational, they defy logic, in that they are an attempt to tune an organ to two temperaments at once - the perfect intervals of the natural harmonic series which are also reflected in the mixture, with the temperament to which the other stops are tuned. No, the chords don't sound conspicuously out of tune because a quintadena is effectively a 2 rank quint mixture, and with quint ranks the beat rates are tolerably slow and not particularly dissonant, as explained above. Also the amplitude of the quint in a quintadena, although subjectively obvious, is nevertheless lower than that of the fundamental (usually). It is certainly much lower than that of an average separate 12th mutation stop, unless its power had been deliberately attenuated by an unusually large amount. Because of the low power of the quint, any beats generated will also be of lower amplitudes than if a separate quint rank was in use. I like quintadenas very much myself, and if it's of any interest I did an analysis of how Hope-Jones might have viewed them as an ersatz mixture-substitute. See: http://www.pykett.org.uk/hjquintadenas.htm But in the end people have different views, and it boils down to horses for courses. I don't think one can be too prescriptive. CEP

There are two issues here - 'limbering-up exercises' and aches and pains due to playing. I can't say anything about the former but the latter are always made worse if the organ in question does not conform fairly closely to standard console dimensions. I have designed, and in some cases made, various consoles myself so the following comments are supported by some experience. Two measurements are particularly critical - the height of the bench above middle D on the pedals, and the amount by which the pedals are recessed with respect to the manuals. This latter measurement varies depending on how many keyboards there are, and if it isn't correct, you can (for example) find yourself tipping forward while playing on the top manual. Counteracting this can result in excessive demands on one's musculature, with the result one can get aches and pains particularly in the back. If it's any help, there is a sketch containing the most important console measurements at Figure 3 of the following article on my website: http://www.pykett.org.uk/simple-console-virtual-pipe-organ.htm CEP

Casson worked at the time when the subject of acoustics was burgeoning as a result of the combined work of people such as Fourier, Toepfer, von Helmholtz and Rayleigh. Among other things, it led to that late-Victorian zeitgeist in music, and particularly organ building, which seemed to say that 'science' was somehow 'better'. For example, a knowledgeable organ builder who was noddingly familiar with these topics could point to his pipe scales as being better than somebody else's because they were 'scientifically' devised. The same would have applied to mixtures. To my mind it was this which led to the contemporary fascination with 'harmonics'-type mixtures, because these contained more pitches of the natural harmonic series than did more conventional quint mixtures (octave and fifth sounding ranks only). Therefore, because they were nearer to 'Nature' as revealed by 'science', they were 'better' mixtures. The problematic, nay, unfortunate aspect of a harmonics-type mixture is that it must perforce include ranks such as the 17th and flat 21st (the 5th and 7th natural harmonics). Quint mixtures do not have these. When combined with equal temperament tuning (another 'scientific' and therefore 'better' idea, near-universal at the turn of the 19th century) there are hideous dissonances caused by the out-of-tune beats which occur when these additional ranks (tuned true to unison pitch) sound simultaneously with the other (ET) ranks of the organ. Consequently these ranks have to be scaled and regulated very carefully if the mixture which contains them is to be useable. I have no idea how Casson would have approached this problem, but their power would surely have needed to be significantly less than that of the other ranks. It is quite possible that the immediately-identifiable sound of an organ which employed such mixtures would have been deemed attractive at the time, even though today enthusiasm has since waned. Given the zeitgeist effect alluded to above, it could well have been little more than an Emperor's New Clothes type of issue. As to breaks, there are no established rules for any type of mixture. I have alluded previously on this forum to an excellent summary by Paul Hale in his editorial to Organists' Review of May 1996. To my mind that is as good as one can find anywhere as an introduction to the subject. CEP

I've never been able to find out much at the level of detail you are seeking. The main reason is that he didn't actually build much. Relf Clark wrote an article about Casson ('Thomas Casson: A Mere Introduction', JBIOS 26, 2002) in which he confirmed this. Quoting: "... Casson - though he appears to have sold a great many Positive Organs - built very few organs upon his system, and those he did build were mostly small and in little-known locations. Indeed, for all his Positive Organs, Casson is today an obscure figure ... " Nor does Clark in this essay speak much of Casson's output in terms of his organs, though he does describe his 'system' to some extent. But there is nothing relating to the detail you require regarding his mixtures, though one or two references are given. There is virtually nothing about him even in works by contemporary authors such as Hopkins & Rimbault and Audsley (he does not appear in the index of either, at least those of the editions I possess), though Elliston's 'Organs and Tuning' has a little. He just didn't seem to cut much ice in his day compared to, say, the phenomenally successful Hope-Jones (with whom relations could scarcely be called friendly - envy?). One problem might have been that Casson does not seem to have been a particularly nice man who did not endear himself to potential customers. Oftentimes Hope-Jones wasn't particularly nice either, but he did know when and how to switch on the charm. Even with well known organ builders it is often difficult to find more than the starting compositions of their mixtures, and issues such as relative power, scaling and breaks will all usually demand access to particular instruments unless one is exceptionally fortunate to find such detailed material documented somewhere. It is possible that you might glean something from the organ builders who gave Casson a kick-start into the craft when he retired from his banking day job, because he was of course an amateur. One was John Bellamy, so perhaps his ideas on mixture work influenced Casson's also. CEP

In the past I have emailed Stauff more than once with info which I thought might be of interest, in response to his requests on the main site. Never the slightest response, acknowledgement or thanks. Nor has the info surfaced on his site. One rapidly decides not to bother any more in these circumstances. Pity, because I was not only offering info which could have augmented his site, but which also pointed out some errors. I've just tried accessing the site and there was no problem. Thus unless Fiffaro is suffering from the problem I mentioned in #7, I can't think what is causing his continuing difficulties. And as for Stauff's personal website which Fiffaro mentioned in #8, I'm not sure that the following pages would be suitable for the students he mentioned: www.mewsic.com/ed/lit/index.html (and then click on the 'Midsummer Night's Dream' link at the bottom of the page). I have deliberately not inserted this an a directly-clickable link here for reasons which I trust will be obvious if you try to go there. I did and regretted it. CEP

And I'm one of them. Don't take my post too seriously, please! In any case, it's off-topic, a sin which I commit too often. CEP