Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

John Robinson

Members
  • Posts

    1,057
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Robinson

  1. 'Wobulation'! Brilliant! I have to say that I am no fan of theatre organs, at least when played like that. To be honest, I can't say I have ever heard one played without such 'wobulators', but I'd imagine that they could emulate traditional church and concert hall pipe organs if the player wanted to do so.
  2. I agree. However, I'm sure that there is 'restoration' and 'restoration'. There must be many levels of restoration, depending on such things as levels of damage (if any), replacements (if needed) of pipes, action or structure, etc., and even possible extension.
  3. A man who was not reserved in speaking his mind, so I believe!
  4. Isn't that great? How useful that would have been if it had been available fifty years ago when we were 'ordered' to harmonise a tune at school!
  5. I understand that 'Pedal divide' is becoming a more popular addition to organs. I can understand its value: one now has the option of four different voices at once - both hands and both feet. Five, if you include 'thumbing down'! I once saw an alien musician on 'Star Trek TNG' who had six arms. Just think what such an organist could do. 😲
  6. Hahaha! Yes, but that's what happens on a discussion forum. Actually, I started the thread and eagerly look forward to further discussion about the York rebuild, but if people want to talk about other matters that's OK by me!
  7. You should have seen Keith Emerson performing: one man surrounded by several separate keyboards! He also played a church (or rather concert hall) organ for some performances and was a very competent musician regardless of his style of music (which I, incidentally, enjoyed).
  8. Can I assume that the sarcophagus was present to prevent extraneous sounds (audience?) being picked up by the microphones?
  9. Good point. I have in mind the organ in the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, which fits the bill. I, too, have only ever seen the electric console in use. Some organists maintain that the use of a mechanical action console gives them the opportunity to 'feel' the pallets which, I suppose, must be true. But how important is this, I wonder? Obviously, mechanical actions are to be found in early historical instruments, but are they necessary or even desirable in modern instruments? As I'm not an organist, I'm not in a position to know!
  10. Thank you very much for that. I have copied the link as it is far too long for me to read now, but I look forward to giving it my full attention when I have time.
  11. Perhaps the development and existence of modern materials (eg, very thin wood or plastic(?) for trackers) is an additional advantage for modern builders compared to their earlier predecessors.
  12. Certainly, Klais seems to have built many organs and continues to do so today. I'm not too sure about Rieger, but that's a distinct possibility.
  13. Some interesting pictures here: http://www.harrisonorgans.com/gallery/york-minster/# showing work being done on restoring some of the front pipes which, I think, date from 1831.
  14. An interesting question about the reeds, John Furse. I'm sure Robert will enlighten us. As for the Voce Umana, I assume it was given that name as the Italian stop of the same name is a principal in tone (rather than string). Not that the English stop here would have quite the same sound as Italian principals, they being on very low pressure for one thing. The Voce Umana was a detuned (flat, I think) open diapason and worked as such when drawn with the Violin Diapason (as was).
  15. That's appalling. What possible advantage did the criminal think he'd gain by doing so much damage? Had that been in the UK, he'd have received one of those 'suspended sentence' things that seem to be so popular these days.
  16. Thank you, Robert. The changes to the two Swell open diapasons is a little more complicated than I thought! However, your explanation clarifies matters completely. The end result of the 'Violin Diapasons' bringing on BOTH stops makes a great deal of sense, but was not clear in Harrisons' list. So many display pipes being restored to speech is, I think, very welcome and will also, presumably, have the benefit of creating a little more room inside the case!
  17. I've been in Vienna for several days, so have lost touch with discussions on this subject. However, I'm catching up and am pleased to see that there are a number of people who continue to find the developments of this organ particularly interesting. Incidentally, I saw that the long out-of-use west-end organ (of about 120 stops) in the Stephansdom is presently being restored to use at a cost of 1 million Euros. I did notice that all of the visible pipes had been removed, and the console is being displayed on the church floor, presumably to help elicit financial support from visitors. What a good idea! With regard to the discussion of the acoustics of the Minster due to its large size and the position of the organ, I think there is also another factor that should be considered when comparing it to other buildings, and that is the wooden vaulting which, compared to a stone vaulting, I suspect would tend to absorb higher frequencies. I remember reading somewhere about the excellent acoustics of King's College, Cambridge and also that it could be compared in size to the chancel of York Minster, the difference being that the King's chapel has a stone vaulting. I'm sure that the composition and voicing of the York organ would have taken that into account, of course. I do have another question that I hope Robert might find time to answer, and that is regarding the Swell 8' diapasons which, on the face of it, might be thought to have simply been renamed. However, looking at the source of each, the existing Violin Diapason was added by Walkers in around 1904 and the Diapason Celeste by Hill in the mid-19th century (but later de-tuned to produce a celeste effect when used with the Violin Diapason). The new arrangement will comprise a Hill Open Diapason and a Violin Diapason, stated to comprise two ranks, being a mixture of Hill and Walker pipes. What I don't quite understand is where the necessary additional pipes will come from. Yet another question if I may (sorry!) is whether Harrisons have determined yet whether some of the existing display pipes, presumably existing since the 1830s Elliot and Hill build, can be restored to speech. May I also join others in thanking Robert for the very kind offer of arranging for a guest visit for board members to see and hear the rebuilt organ. I personally would be very pleased to attend if possible and, when the arrangements become definite, would be grateful if I too could email you to confirm my request. I assume that your contact details will be provided.
  18. I have just dug out a booklet which I must have had stashed away for over twenty years (I have a policy of never throwing things away, much to my wife's despair): 'The Organs of York Minster' by various authors/contributors. ISBN 0 9521539 7 1. I'm not sure whether this publication is still obtainable, but I do think it has some very interesting and informative content which might appeal to others with the same interest as myself. I found it interesting to compare the 1931 Harrison scheme (p21 et seq) with the new proposals as discussed on this site. Pushing my luck even further I hope that after the present rebuild is completed, either a new chapter might be added to future reprints or perhaps a completely new booklet be written along the same lines - complete with photographs of course!
  19. Yet more fascinating and illuminating information. Thank you Robert. "In 2012, we reinstated the 7 1/4 inches pressure for this flue chorus after 52 years, and the results (only affecting the 4’, 2’ and III) were spectacular. The cut-ups had not been altered in 1960 and the pipes seemed happy once again to be speaking at the place they had originally been designed for." I had no idea about this. 7 1/4" for flues is not too far short of that in Liverpool Cathedral, and that is for the highest pressure double-languid pipes. That surely makes a difference already, and when the new Open Diapason I and the two quint mixtures are added on the same pressure the revised Great organ must become even more commanding. Such higher pressures generally would hopefully result in the organ being far more effective down the nave - when necessary, of course. Another interesting improvement, now explained, is the facility for making the Tuba Mirabilis available on one manual whilst the two enclosed tubas are on another and, by further coupling, on yet others. I suppose that octave and sub-octave couplers for the TM would be going just a little too far! Talking of which, the sound of these two tubas and, of course, the whole of the enclosed Solo must be much clearer after its relocation to the lower case. I often wondered just how effective the existing louvres must be, facing directly into the side of the main case only inches away. I assume that the louvres on the top of the box (with reflector boards) must increase the sound output much more effectively. Sorry to harp on at you, Robert, but I'd be grateful if you could answer yet one more question! Will the newly extended Ophicleide unit be restored to the much higher wind pressure as existed when Edward Bairstow first asked for their installation to balance the Tuba Mirabilis? (I remember that Francis Jackson asked for the bottom octave of the Sackbut to be moved to the south transept because it was too loud! ) The 32' Ophicleide will surely be at least as loud if the whole unit is on 25" pressure and would surely become one of the most powerful of its kind in the country. Not that I personally would be at all upset by that!
  20. Again, my thanks for this additional information. The more I read about this rebuild, the more I begin to understand the good sense and foresight in the forthcoming changes. I recall a statement by Francis Jackson (though despite much searching I am unable to locate the source) in which, talking about the 1960 changes under his watch, he describes feeling the loss of some of the voices that were disposed of at that time, but assures the reader that if the decisions made are well thought-out the results are usually found to be beneficial. I'm sure that that will prove to be the case after the 2020 rebuild. I can certainly see the good sense in this relocation of the Solo, for both auditory and visual reasons, and can understand how the Bombarde may not fit in well with the planned changes to the organ. There is also the Tuba Mirabilis, of course, which I think may be worked on to restore the brighter sound that was, apparently, present prior to 1960. Not wishing to push my luck, or anyone's for that matter, I have been re-reading several earlier threads made on this forum about the York organ, and recall that I and others have referred to suggestions that an additional nave organ, as was present in the nineteenth century, would the the ideal solution for supporting large nave congregations. Perhaps a further half million pounds or so would suffice and I promise that, should I ever win the Lottery, I'd be happy to donate the same! I look forward to the proposed audio and video recordings and I am very grateful for the invitation to visit the new organ, though the possibility of playing it would embarrass me as, unfortunately, I do not possess the necessary skills apart from struggling through some very simple pieces (rather badly) on the piano. A very kind offer, though.
  21. Thank you, Robert, and I'm grateful for your provision of additional information not available in the Harrison's statement. It may be evident to some that I have had an almost inordinate interest in the York Minster organ for many years, at least since as a young lad in the 1960s when my school music teacher, Keith Rhodes, played us a recording of the very impressive Tuba Mirabilis. To quote you, "The H&H document also says, 'the layout will be conservatively revised, allowing the waisted lower part of the case once again to be visible.'  This involves moving the Solo swell box (which was between 1903 and 2018 hidden, along with the 1993 Bombarde, by the grey curtain to the north of the organ) into the lower part of the main case." This, which now clarified, sounds an excellent idea which was not apparent from what I had read before. Not only would it permit a more direct sound from the Solo but also, presumably, would include the provision of louvres facing west and east. I think the whole case would look more attractive too; taller and rather less 'square'. I assume that the Bombarde would not be included, though. Your helpful explanation also answers my questions regarding the siting of the new 32' Ophicleide (and extensions) and the new Open Wood 16'. It also clarifies the Harrison's statement that the 8' extension will be from the new Open Wood I rather than the existing Open Wood II, unless I have misread it, of course*. "The Trombas, on 15 inches wind, were more in the nature of Father Willis tubas in tone (evidenced from several recordings) and as such provided solo tuba effects on both sides of the screen." This too, explains a lot. I was aware that the erstwhile Trombas on the Great were originally on a higher pressure (15"), but had no idea of their tone as I had never actually heard them! If they can be voiced to sound like Father Willis tubas, I think that would be an excellent move. Not that I have any dislike of other builders' tubas, but I have always particularly liked the Willis tubas at St Paul's which are atop the Great Organ and, I think, are also on 15" of wind pressure. As you have said you'd be happy to answer other questions, if I may, could I ask whether the (new?) Swell box will also benefit from both east- and west-facing louvres, thus providing a more direct sound? All things considered, these changes are encouraging and would seem to improve the general sound of the organ. I intend, one day after the work is completed, to visit the Minster to see and hear the organ for myself. Hopefully, there will also be some new recordings - video as well as sound - if not asking too much. Perhaps Priory might be persuaded to create a new video recording of the revised organ, similar to the one I already possess! Once again, my sincere thanks for your very helpful and interesting explanations. (* Yes, I did! Sorry.)
  22. For those interested, Harrison & Harrison have now published their intended specification for the organ at York Minster following their current alterations: http://www.harrisonorgans.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/York-Minster-Specification-Final-Version-AS.pdf They have stated that they would like to restore the organ to how it sounded after their earlier work in 1931, hoping to make the organ more powerful, yet more coherent in sound. There is, of course, a situation at present where the organ is rather lacking in power when heard from the nave. Personally, guessing from the specification supplied, I see both gains and losses. I find a comparison of the above scheme with reference to the present situation (provided in NPOR) to be very interesting. Taking each department individually, I see the GREAT organ is acquiring a new, more powerful Open Diapason 1 8' which I assume would be similar to that which was removed and installed in the PEDAL organ in 1960. The instrument will now have four 8' diapasons. The division will also have a new Harmonics mixture including both a tierce and a seventh, and an additional 4' trumpet. However, whilst clearly gaining power, the GREAT will be losing several 'colour' stops: 2' and 1 1/3' flutes, sesquialtera, cornet and cymbal which, I think, is a shame. The consequence will be an overall reduction of two stops in that division, and I cannot see why at least a couple of the above lost voices couldn't be retained. Space, I assume. Apart from a few name changes, the SWELL remains pretty much the same although pipes of the Violin Diapason and Diapason Celeste appear to have been rearranged yet their pipes, presumably, all retained. Similarly, the CHOIR is little changed apart from a small alteration to the composition of the Mixture. The SOLO. too, seems to have had very little change other than some names. The Chimney Flute is replaced by a Harmonic Flute and a 2' Harmonic Piccolo added. One thing that puzzles me, though, is the apparent removal of the very loud Bombarde 8', which provides a powerful east-facing reed comparable to the even louder Tuba Mirabilis 8' facing west. Why? If Harrisons' intention was to increase the overall power of the organ, why remove this stop and, presumably, leave just an empty space? The PEDAL organ sees some noticeable enhancement of power. An additional Open Wood 16', presumably louder than the existing one, has appeared though I'm not sure exactly where it is going to be located. There is also a new 8' extension of the existing 16' Open Wood. Unfortunately, the 4' and 2' flutes seem to have disappeared, though. The Mixture, too, will be rearranged to include a tierce. Along with similar changes to GREAT mixtures, this suggests that Harrisons have a preference for tierce mixtures over the existing predominantly quint mixtures. Personally, I feel that there is an advantage to having both for variety. The PEDAL reeds also appear to be bolstered by extending the existing 16' and 8' Ophicleide unit to both 32' and 4'. This would certainly increase the power of the PEDAL organ, though I'm not sure whether or not it is intended to make the Ophicleides louder than the existing, already imposing, Sackbut/Trombone extension which, at present, is on a higher pressure (8 1/2") than the Ophicleides (6"). I welcome the additions, though that would also see the removal of the existing 4' Shawm. I'd be interested to know where the new 32' Ophicleide extension might be located too. To the north, to balance the Sackbut extension on the south? Overall, the organ will see a reduction of the total stop numbers from 84 to 82. Apologies for the lengthy post, but I'd be very interested to hear the views of other members of this forum, especially as these proposed changes raise as many questions as answers!
  23. Yes, I also use Character Map, although there are a large number of 'pages' to search through in order to find exactly what you want. I have changed settings in MS Word so that the button to the left of the number 1 button (I don't know what it's called!) can type ö by pressing it alone, ü by using shift and the (unnamed) button, and ä by using Alt Gr along with the button. Very useful and time-saving if you use the characters regularly. Of course, other alternative characters are just as easy to set up using word options/proofing/auto correct/replace text as you type. I suppose you could set up as many characters you want in this way, providing that you have a suitable number of keys that you don't regularly use. Yes it sounds a little complicated, but it isn't really!
×
×
  • Create New...