Pierre Lauwers

Reger's music just becomes a jumble of sound on a typical Walcker, with those enormously powerful basses and restrained trebles. This is precisely why I am concerned about such experimentations! Sorry, this is not true. A german romantic organ is still, while of course orchestral, a polyphonic organ. If the basses are too strong, the fault lies with the registration. Why do you think there are often five flue 16' on the Pedal? Precisely in order to have one suited to each situation... The first big Walckers had two Pedalboards. Later, a device called "Automatisches Pedal" permitted to dispose of that (with pneumatic action). The aim was to help avoiding overwhelming basses. Maybe some organists would be better inspired relying on such devices even today. You can even play Bach on a Walcker. Of course, for the very same reasons, I'd prefer to try Naumburg in the first place. And yes, Reger's music is polyphonic. Like the organs his music was written for. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Here we are in front of something very interesting. By "almost", do you mean with an equal temperament the tierces need to be quite softened? In a Walcker mixture, for instance, the tierce is made of Spitzflöte pipes and is about half the power of the nearerst quint (a 2 2/3' in relation to a 1 3/5'). In a Van Peteghem Sesquialtera you will never find any softening of this kind, all ranks from the 8' to the top of the mixtures are about the same power. Indeed, there were absolutely never tuned to an equal temperament, even those who were buit about 1860. (Of course I do not think of the one as the "right", the other as the "wrong"! both styles are excellent and need to be preserved). Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

The closest "Reger organ" I know is 9 km from my house, but it needs restoration, the second is in Essen-Werden, but there are some problems with the free-reed clarinet voicing. It's easier to find CDs from Riga, tough I do have one from Essen-Werden. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Dear Mr Muso, Well, I certainly explained some things wrong; the only organ style I know without any Seventeenth in Diapason choruses is the french. Even today, it is quite difficult to have the french accept something like that. The german as well as the flemish organ usually allow to have tierces or not in the chorus. (Terz-Zimbel, Hörnlei, Sesquialtera) With the romantic organ this choice dissepears, there the tierce rank seems to have undertaken a somewhat different role. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Yes: me, the main culprit! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Yes!!! And there you have exactly the right choruses and mixtures. As for the registrations in Bach, we know actually very little. I believe both the "change stops and manual at every corner" manner and the neo-baroque "play that straight with mixtures from the first to the last note on the same manual" are exagerated.

Fact is, there are very few Walckers and Sauers left! If this was not the case, I would have no objections Reger to be played on something else. We know of an organ Reger did contribute to the disposition (Odeon München 1906). We have here in Namur a 1907 reduced version of this organ. According to Gerhard Walcker, Reger never played a tracker organ in his life. As to the Passau organ, apologies, the mixtures that obtain there today I do not like (at all) in the romantic music. But Messiaen sounds really great there. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

For me, the idea that one can play Reger on a baroque organ is extremely annoying, because it reduces the emergency to rehabilitate and restore a sufficient number of german romantic organs. If we wait 20 years more, it will be too late. If we had say 100 such organs rescued and secured today, I'd have of course no objection against whatever one would like to try. But to believe one repertoire can be transposed on another organ without loss of "Substanz" to the point this organ can be "replaced" that way is dangerous. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

That's fine! About choruse's integrity, I find just that as well in a Van Peteghem, where the Seventheenth is just as loud as the 8', as in a Walcker or Link organ, where that very same Seventheenth is 15 times softer as the 8'. But for some people a "proper chorus" is from Diapasons only; not enough, it must be "this and that" Diapasons. Every 25 years or so, the "this and that" changes. And the scrap yard thickens, while our historic heritage becomes thinner. In the same vein, maybe we could imagine H-J's church organs will one day be relaxed from the accusation of being "failures". Like theatre-cinema organs are rehabilitated now-deservedly-. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Well, at least there are some people in the english-speaking world ready to do that.... Mind you, I personally don't like Diaphones and cinema organs; but this does not matter at all. The quality of H-J's voicing I have had more than enough testimonies of. In an area of western England I'd better forget. A cinema organ isn't about choruses. It's another instrument; but who will dare tell what a "proper chorus" is? I still do not know! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

There are interesting things about Buchholz in this page, but it is in german: http://www.hog-kronstadt.de/orgel.html

1839, that's late compared to E-F Walcker and William Hill, who made already romantic organs in 1829; that there were one or two swellboxes is of course significant, but not as much as a toroughly develloped Abschwächungsprinzip, or romantic reeds, full compasses (Hill) etc. Cavaillé-Coll was actually late. 1841, that's not early. Moreover, St-Denis is still rather a transition organ (I do not mean an inferior one, of course!). This leaves us with the former question: where did William Hill find inspiration for his ideas? Did he know Abt Vogler? As to E-F Walcker, we are busy searching if the two men did know each other. Joachim Wagner is a quite interesting case, like Hildebrandt. It seems Wagner was the first to borrow stops from one manual to another. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

The distinction between manuals by their loudness, with the great (Manual I) supreme, then II, III, Fernwerk, each a bit softer, is typical for the german romantic organ. It was done for the first time at Pauluskirche Frankfurt (Walcker 1829). The other countries were inspired by this, but quite loosely. The french and british swell could be actually as powerfull as the great. Hans Gerd Klais explained me this, with a name: "Abschwächungsprinzip" ("Softening principle") as opposed to "Werkprinzip". German romantic organs in Belgium often had their "Swell" enriched with big-sized Trompettes, which took the place of gentle, free-reed Clarinettes. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

[=== ....and what about the famous romantic organ in Romania, which pre-dates them all? (Two swell boxes and reed choruses!) More info on request ;-) MM <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, you are welcome! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Actually, to the question "who took ober H-J's interests", you have of course Wurlitzer, where arised a genuine, interesting and worthwile instrument, the cinema organ. But as far as I know, Arthur Harrison was a contemporary of Wurlitzer. He employed, well, euh, at least *some* ideas from H-J (these reeds...) and at least one voicer from the same. To build genuine, individual and beautiful church organs. Well, enough with that or I shall get some missiles. A less bright chorus with Tierce and flat twenty-first? This can be the reverse as well, as the mixtures of Willis and Walcker show us (with 17th ranks). The matter gets complicated by the fact romantic mixtures pipes often have a greater harmonic developpment than older ones, so that a Willis 17-19-22 might appear far higher pitched as it is actually. Mr Bicknell explains this very well. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Such things are halas to be find in many a belgian church. There was not many money for organs between 1945 and 1960, but many expectations local, provincial builders tried to fulfill with the little means there was! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

While studying the practices of the (to me!) interesting late-romantic german builder Gebrüder Link, which had a workshop here in Jambes-Namur from 1897 to 1914, I was surprised their voicing practices relied heavily on nicking. Each stop was nicked quite differently (places where nicking was applied, deep or shallow, large or small etc etc) in order to get individuality and blend from each stop. This method gave astonishing results; A CD from the Link-organ of Mirepoix will testify for that about end of this year. Rather than saying "we need to go back to this holy truth", I prefer to think this shows simply there are many ways to Rome, maybe even as much good techniques as there are good voicers. It *seems* the nicking was introduced in France by John Abbey, while it was very probably already known in Germany. It *could* actually have been invented in Italy. Do we know if Samuel Green -apparently one of the inventors of the romantic voicing philosophy- already practised nicking? And William Hill later? "Classic revival" advisers had nicking suppressed wherever they could, with a seldom commitment. Is it still "forbidded" nowadays? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

....Or maybe you still have in Britain, besides a choral tradition that makes others jealous, a number of "modest" organs (not suited for Bach, etc, etc, etc!) that deserve to be treated like the gems they actually are. Quality and quantity are independant things. What really counts is maybe authenticity, not "repertoire"; the fashions come and go, quality remains! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Then, according to the long compass, we must see the bass Stopped Diapason as a kind of 16' Subbass if we were with german compasses. This organ seems to be rather ancient, from a time when keen "strings" did not exist yet. The question of stops choices is a matter of style, which does not matter at all when we deal with preservation; indeed, if today we wish, say, a full Diapason chorus to "lead the song", in the 19th century people wanted foundation stops for exactly that use, with their "noble and religious" tone. I have a letter copy here from the 1840's where a belgian builder told a dean "You need to have enough 8' to fill the church with them alone in order to accompany the singing with dignity". So you have several options: -Keep te organ as it is -Have the Keraulophon back -Ditto plus a Stopped Diapason treble The two last options imply of course to renounce to one or the two added stops. But anyway, from a conservative point of view, none of these options would be wrong. They would not render more difficult a torough reconstitution later if this becomed the aim. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Dear Mr Newnham, In such cases, you won't do anything "wrong" having the organ just "repaired" as it is. This way, no further alterations would be done, while the organ itself would be preserved for X-tents years farther. Second option: we have an original Keraulophon, a mysterious stop that seems to have originated in England, and arrived later on the continent, but under another form -and quite variable to say the least-. As far as I understand the disposition, we have two 8' (Dulciana and O. Diapason) that share a common bass (Stopped Diapason). If the Keraulophon was complete, that is, covered the complete compass, it would certainly be better to have it back in the organ; moreover, these original pipes would be better protected inside than outside the instrument. A second Stopped Diapason 8' would be unlikely in such an organ, or was it the treble only? Possible. Now wheter the 4' Flute or the 15th should go in order to place the Keraulophon back, this is a question an organ builder has to answer "in situ", according to the origin and quality of the pipes, and the acoustic requirements of that peculiar church. The original pitch can often be find, in that the alteration to the pipes can often be traced -save if the pipes have been sawn back of course, but even then this can be adressed-, but this could well be least priority. Leaving the pitch as it is if it's better suited to today's requirements would not harm, suffice to let the things as they are without, once more, adding "one step more away from the origin". About the wind pressure, any professional voicer can find the original back by trying several pipes from several stops on a voicing chest with different pressures. But here it is possible that the change was dictated by the modified pitch. Good luck, Pierre Lauwers.

You are welcome! I think here we are to the point; we need to recognize there are contradictions between differing interests , and we shall not manage this situation with simple "suffice to do this and that" would-be "solutions". A path could lay here: Does the "heritage" need to be a museum, a dead thing? Or can it be used as a living thing? How? I know of an example near here (Gerpinnes, near Charleroi), where a 17th century organ has been recently restored with its original 17th century pipes. The organ-builder could reconstitute the original temperament by removing the alterations that had been made to the pipes, and which were visible. So the organ has now a mesotonic temperament, not the ideal one -so it was deemed- for the accompaniment of the choir (this church has one!). After contemptating the purchase of an electronic organ, the church was advised by a friend of mine there were true pipe organs available for not that many money. They bought a used six-stops positive organ that took place not far from the altar in the nave. Now there are two happy organists that attend every service there, alternating solo and accompanimental organs. This is just an example, one could think of many other possible combinations. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Dear Mr Newnham, My aim was certainly not to hurt, and I want to apologize for that. I realize we see that matter from very different points of view. I am just a collector of facts, numbers, names and dates,nothing else, besides a deep interest for the organ and its music. Fact, is, a vast majority of these instruments obtains in churches -this is even more the case in continental Europe-; I agree in such places the worship has to have the very first priority, no doubt nor discussion. The question is to know if we must understand art as a kind of prayer or not; to my view, but maybe this is a sin, musicians like Standford, Howells, Wesley(father and son), Tournemire (etc not to forget Bach) and the builders of a vast majority of the organs we see in churches today did all what they did as an act of Faith. Have they been "right or wrong" is another debate I won't enter into. So now we sit down on a huge heritage that our ancestors passed to us. If "to like" things like that is a "personnal taste", this means other musics,other instruments, whose roots are elsewhere (I don't mean from a geographic point of view only of course) should be considered pieces of Art and as well suited to worship. There is then no "hierarchy", no dedicate place for each "cultural product" that obtains on earth. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Dare I say the english "traditionnal" church music is extremely highly regarded my side of the Channel? Would we have something like that! go on the french forum to read the guys talking about absolute nightmares (so-) called "modern church songs" like Akepsimas and the like. There are some islands (Taïze, etc) in this ocean of "pop-music". Maybe it's better to have children accustomed to good music (from 4 years old not more) than to try to run behind bad tastes. If we place Drums and guitars and Standford at the same level, we have a problem! And maybe discussing about details of organ's styles ( Would a Voix céleste better suit a Pink Floyd's lover taste than a Tierce) could really end up with guitars everywhere while we should still be discussing about the matter. And we should protect historic organs at the same time. Well, a big job! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Dear Reverend, Of course this is another debate. I understand the churches want to "go towards the people the way they are", not the reverse. This was tried in the belgian RC church in the seventies, and ended up as a disaster. For the organ, but for the church too. The young people finished by preffering the dancings, while the senior people stayed at home since long. Now the churches are emptier than ever. Be sure I never pass before an english church without enter! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Cavaillé-Coll's organ were considered obsolete sometimes up to 1980, while his less-well known contemporaries, the belgian romantic builders and even some germans are respected since a rather short time indeed. In France and Belgium today, the "worse period", the "nadir" of organ-building is the "neo-classic" one, for instance the Gonzalez (France) or secondary builders like Delmotte (Belgium), which were intended as "large-repertoire" organs, and one does not need to be a prophet to guess "who's next", so automatically, predictably does the History run. This is the reason I believe we'd pursue three aims together: -Create something new -Protect and promote what we like from the past -But simultaneously, respect and protect what we don't like (Which is systematically what our parents liked) Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.