Jump to content
Mander Organs

John Robinson

Members
  • Content Count

    801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About John Robinson

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/08/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    A missionary from Yorkshire to the primitive people of Lancashire
  • Interests
    Organ design

Recent Profile Visitors

10,630 profile views
  1. Yes, I found the 32' Sackbut to be an impressive sound. I understand that Francis Jackson thought it was too loud, so had it moved to the south transept. Harrisons, I believe, will move it back to behind the 32' Open Wood and will also add a 32' Ophicleide which, I assume, will be even louder! I look forward to hearing that and, I expect, other impressive sounds!
  2. Skilfully dragging this thread back to its original intent(!), I suspect that the advent of the RFH organ may have influenced Francis Jackson (of whom I have the greatest respect) to have the York Minster organ altered (by Walkers in around 1960) to be more akin to the neo-Baroque sound. This, of course, is presently being restored by Harrisons to revert to the sort of instrument they worked on in around 1917 and 1930. To misquote Francis Jackson, the York organ changes 'chameleon-like' to suit the differing tastes of the time.
  3. I don't doubt it, but I wonder whether that was anything to do with all the loud sounds (films, television, heavy traffic, aircraft, pop music, bingo callers!, etc.) to which we are all subjected these days.
  4. I have absolutely no evidence to support this, but in my opinion the answer is quite simple: education. I was lucky. My interest in the organ began (I think) at junior school at a Christmas church service, in which one of our own teachers played the organ. Presumably, the regular organist was unavailable. I was even more lucky at grammar school where our music master was the local cathedral organist, so we received more than our fair share of organ music. Unfortunately, I believe that most schools in those days did not take much interest in the organ and, moreover, I suspect there is even less today.
  5. I thought it sounded quite direct, to say the sounds were coming from the triforium, though I don't know where the microphone was placed.
  6. Yes, so I understand. Still, there's no reason they can't contribute if they want to. After all, the RC Church makes regular use of the cathedral... AND the organ!
  7. They seem as believable and trustworthy as our politicians! I suppose the Roman Catholic Church might chip in then? I'm sure they can afford it.
  8. If the device could be connected to the page turner via Bluetooth (or similar) the user wouldn't look ridiculous, assuming that the device can be enclosed in the mouth. Who knows, in the not-too-distant future we might see such connections being possible using electrical signals directly from the brain! Sorry. I'm getting silly now.
  9. If that turns out not to be possible, perhaps we should ask ourselves is there is any part of the organist's body not occupied in playing or registration changes. Before any untoward suggestions are considered, what crossed my mind was a small tube including a pressure sensor inserted in the organists mouth: blow to turn page; suck to turn back a page. No, I'm being serious!
  10. Just to add my four penn'orth, I do agree with the Larigot as I have always seen the Choir organ (in modern organs) as a 'colour' division to supplement the usual Great and Swell (and Solo, but in a different way). I'd go further, though, and add a Septime 1 1/7' as well, and even a 1'! I have to disagree with enclosing the Choir, though.
  11. Thanks Adrian. I can certainly appreciate that 'the Well' can be used for stand-alone services (and, incidentally, would have liked the projected nave bridge organ to have been built as originally intended). However, I still doubt its usefulness as an overflow area for large congregations. The very interesting book I have detailing the design and building of that great cathedral explains that that was the original intention for its addition as the building progressed. However, I feel that it would have been better made to be on the same level as the central space for the reasons I gave earlier. Just a personal opinion, but I feel that having its floor much lower than the central space produces a feeling of being isolated from the main body of the cathedral and, as I said, would restrict the vision of the occupants of the nave.
  12. Apologies for straying off-topic, but when I last attended a recital there the central space was fairly full but nowhere near to capacity, although I'm sure it is sometimes though. What I'd really like to know is how often the nave (beyond the bridge) is occupied, either for recitals or services. Certainly, there is capacity for enormous numbers if the whole building were to be used, nave and possibly chancel included, but I wonder whether the nave is really surplus to requirements in practice. Has anyone here had first-hand experience of the nave being occupied? As I understand it, the nave was designed to be at a lower level than the central space in order to afford a better perspective from there of the high altar. However, I suspect that if the central space is full, people sitting in the nave would see very little other than the backs of the audience in the central space.
  13. Yes, of course. Come to think of it, my visit was much later than the Willis era.
×
×
  • Create New...