John Robinson
-
Posts
1,060 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John Robinson
-
-
6 hours ago, David Drinkell said:
Peter Williams referred (unfairly!) to Weingarten as a baroque cinema organ (or words to that effect).
I'm sure that's not too inaccurate; it does have several percussions, anyway, and an excellent Vox Humana.
-
20 hours ago, carrick said:
You need some rock solid regulators for that. Compton regulators behave themselves and can pull it off well, provided you don't use celestes or any tibias. Wurlitzers need a bit more care, as the regulators usually want bounce. I don't believe for one second that anyone can say they aren't a fan of theatre organs, it just takes for you to find the style of playing that you enjoy. That's the beauty of it!
At the risk of displaying my ignorance, what's a regulator? Can't you just turn off the tremulants?
-
7 hours ago, carrick said:
Wobulation devices are there to be used, though, I will admit it takes a few minutes to get used to them after being used to hearing the straight sound.
'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.
-
19 minutes ago, David Drinkell said:
Amen! But I doubt whether it would have cost two million even if a top firm like Harrisons' or our hosts did it.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Barry Oakley said:
Bairstow was equally minded to express his disappointment after the Willis organ in Sheffield City Hall failed to come up to expectations after the completion of the hall.
A man who was not reserved in speaking his mind, so I believe!
-
13 hours ago, Choir Man said:
Today Google are celebrating Bach's birthday with a doodle that can harmonise a 2 bar melody inputted by the user. Google have (cleverly) used a machine learning programme that has had over 300 pieces of Bach's music fed into to it. So the software will harmonise your melody in the style of Bach. Of course Bach would have harmonised the same melody in many different ways and there is a button that will re-harmonise your melody if you don't like the first harmonisation. You can access the doodle here:
This is best done using Chrome browser, although other browsers may be supported. Have a go and see what you think.
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!
-
40 minutes ago, Rowland Wateridge said:
OK, briefly back to York. I was interested to see the “Pedal divide”, and among other innovations
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. 😲
-
45 minutes ago, Colin Pykett said:
Seeing that this thread has already been comprehensively hijacked, I'll mention that Francis Monkman (who is a founder member of the Curved Air and Sky bands) is also an accomplished and professionally-trained organist and harpsichordist. He is also known for his personal research and detailed knowledge of Thuringian classical organs, on many of which he has has recorded several CDs. My only regret is that so few of them seem to be publicly available (and I've told him so!).
CEP
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!
-
2 hours ago, Tony Newnham said:
Talking of playing more than one organ of more than one type, how about this. I guess the "theatre organ" is a digital though:-
Every Blessing
Tony
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).
-
1 hour ago, MusoMusing said:
I wouldn't want to hi-jack the thread, but the Salford organ wasn't remote. It was just enclosed in a concrete sarcophagus inside the cathedral; the sound picked up my microphones, amplified and sent to loudspeakers. It was a very peculiar arrangement.
MM.Can I assume that the sarcophagus was present to prevent extraneous sounds (audience?) being picked up by the microphones?
-
56 minutes ago, Contrabombarde said:
Interesting vision for a concert hall though I'm not sure I'd want to be sitting on the floor in the stalls section during a performance!
What's the point of having a mechanical action organ with second electric console on the stage? Why not save some money and design challenges and have the one electric action console? I've seen and played a number of large concert hall (and church) organs with dual consoles but in every case I've only ever experienced (as in, played myself or seen used in a performance) the electric action moveable console, which to my mind begs the question why go to all the trouble of having a mechanical action organ and console that you never actually use? Wouldn't a detached electric action console be a lot simpler to build, maintain and afford?
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!
-
12 hours ago, Colin Pykett said:
Another recent, excellent and similarly eminently readable PhD dissertation is that by Richard Dunster-Sigtermans:
https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/7217/1/Dunster-Sigtermans17PhD_Redacted.pdf
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.
-
13 hours ago, Colin Pykett said:
Using these principles, a modern well-designed mechanical action is likely to be significantly better from a playing point of view than many which were made in the baroque era. Organ builders then didn't really understand these things, but the difference between them and us is that they had the excellent excuse that none of the physics had then been worked out.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Which two builders? 😉
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
2 hours ago, robertsharpe said:
John, I am glad the explanations are helpful.
The new Solo box will actually have its (horizontal) shutters to the north as it will be at console level. The previous box had shutters to the south (facing into the organ) and in the roof. The north shutters allow the sound to reflect from the tower pier to both the east and west. You are quite right about the case which gave the impression of squatting on the screen before but will appear to rise up much more elegantly from it. You are right that the Bombarde will not be included because it does not fit within the parameters of remaining true to the aesthetic of the earlier musical concept, and its previous location will be fully visible in the reconstructed instrument.
I am glad to hear of your thoughts about the Trombas and Father Willis tubas. The reconstructed organ will have provision for transferring them to both the Choir (as before) and also the Solo, for additionally versatility.
The Swell box will be new, as with all the main mechanism. Its shutters actually opened to the south and will continue to do so, with an additional shutter front to the west brought into action by means of a drawstop within the combination couplers group. The south shutters create that characteristic "York full swell" effect so well-known on the many recordings which surges from the organ in a controlled manner which is so effective in choral accompaniment. The additional western louvres will enable a more direct sound to travel west when required.
We shall certainly be planning both audio and video recordings and look forward to making them! You (and other board members) would be most welcome to visit in due course both to see and hear, and (diary permitting) play the restored organ.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.
-
12 minutes ago, AJJ said:
One small query. What will be the effect of the Choir ‘Octaves Alone’ please?
Thanks
A
Yes, that puzzled me too.
Recitals
in General discussion
Posted
Many thanks.