John Robinson

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.)

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!

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!

Why couldn't they have removed the pipes (and the rest) before they started pulling the ceiling down?

Yes, very sad. The second organ LP I ever bought (back in the '60s) was Noel Rawsthorne playing at Liverpool Cathedral.

Good news. I had a good look at that forum (orgel-information) and found it very interesting. I have bookmarked it and intend to visit again. It is fortunate for me, as my German is very basic indeed, that Google Translate works very well with that site and I find it really quite easy to understand. I'd hesitate to post there, though, as if I tried to post in German (either by using Google Translate or stumbling along on my own!) I'd like as not be misunderstood. For now, anyway, I shall just 'lurk'!

I would certainly value more input from organ enthusiasts in Germany, and other countries, as my interest in organs extends beyond as well as within the UK.

Yes, I know. I'm being greedy. But how about some foreign organs for a change? Sorry, Priory! Edited: I'm afraid I added my text to Quentinbellamy's quote! Sorry.

And people wonder why so many young people have little more than grunts and swear words these days, and don't get me on to the subject of written English! Sorry. Off-topic.

Call me old fashioned, but I still think of counties as they were pre-1974. The 'traditional' counties. I believe the 'new county' boundaries were only put in place for political reasons!

You should have modulated up a couple of notes and made her struggle!

That's a damn sight more than I can do! I'm good at listening, though. 😀

I, too, have all 14 of the prior(sorry!) Priory DVDs. My trouble and strife keeps asking me what I want for Christmas, to which I can never think of any sensible reply (socks and handkerchieves now bursting out of my drawers) so this latest DVD has come as a godsend. As well as enjoying listening to the music, I have found these DVDs particularly interesting as a means of comparing several organs with regard to their tonal attributes and (as a non-organist) further enlightening myself as to the characteristics of different stops. This latter point is most easily accomplished by listening to the 'introduction to the organ' sections, in which some individual stops are demonstrated.

Me too. As I am neither an organist nor an organ builder (though I wish - too late now), I'm afraid I cannot speak with any authority on organ matters. I can, of course, ask questions and seek advice from more knowledgeable people on this forum. If it's of any help, I'll see what I can come up with!

I have noticed such things on other web sites, so may I suggest a way around the problem? I often type out a reply, particularly if it is to be fairly extensive, in Word. Then I am at liberty to jump about all over the place (with regard to exploring other web sites, etc.), and the genesis of my future post remains intact! It's just a simple matter of copying and pasting into the 'submit reply' box, or whatever.

Our loss is their gain! Seriously, though, I'm glad to hear of British organs finding homes in other European countries. After all, we have adopted sounds from Europe over many decades and it's nice to know that British sounds are finding favour over there too. Tubas seem to be in favour these days too.

Well, thank you - all three of you! ? I shall certainly send for a copy.

Thanks for that. I was about to send for a copy when I noticed on the web page it says it is in Dutch. Perhaps I have missed something, or is it possible to ask for a copy in English?

Whilst I would support that, I'm afraid we as a country are lacking in the continuing fervent interest in the organ as found in such places as Germany and the Netherlands. They seem to have new organs springing up all over the place! I don't know exactly why that should be, but that is the impression I get anyway.

Fortunately, not yet a universal attitude! Leeds Town Hall, for example.

I remember visiting Santa Engracia when we were there a few years ago. A very attractive organ but, when I asked the custodian (I think), I was told that it was not in playable condition. A shame.

That makes a lot of sense, but it is also a fact that many churches have only recently taken on the appellation of 'minster'.

Interestingly, it seems that an increasing number of churches are becoming 'minsters'! I don't suppose the new name implies any real practical difference to the building or the establishment, though I could be wrong.

An interesting point, I agree. Also, what interests me is the comparison of a pipe organ crescendo pedal with the crescendo pedal of an electronic organ. I know that the former (like a 'walze') brings on - or off - stops individually or perhaps in groups. I know little of electronic organs, but is it not the case that a crescendo pedal on that sort of instrument would simply act like a volume control knob? Of course, I realise I may be completely wrong, but I suspect that was the case with early electronics, like Hammonds for example. If so, the sound variation would be not the same. Just another observation, if I may. I haven't had time to listen to the comparison video as yet, but am sure I wouldn't be able to differentiate. However, I think that would be an unfair test! My laptop's speakers would be unable to reproduce every small nuance and, even with a top line computer and speakers, I suspect the same would be true. After all, if we are listening to speakers, we are listening to an electronic reproduction anyway!

? Sorry!