Pierre Lauwers

I indeed had Bridlington in mind, but also the Ypres cathedral organ and the Stahlhuths in eastern Belgium and the Luxembourg (Dudelange). But the process was interrupted by the WWI; it was no longer possible for a german builder to import french and english reeds (like Stahlhuth did it!). Afterwards the Néo-classique -also a synthesis of differing epochs, no more countries- reigned supreme. So my idea is to carry the process to its logical conclusion (there are many examples of such projects on my Forum). In "repertoire" terms, such things -if successfull- would provide an organ for Dupré, Howells and Reger (and their contemporaries). Now how to have so differing things working togheter ? There are excellent examples from the 18th century in central Germany; it is incredible to hear, in Angermünde, how Joachim Wagner could unite french Trompettes, Cornets and Tierces with a traditionnal german Principal chorus; you can draw whatever you want -and I mean it: for example, add the Tierce décomposée of the second Manual to the Principal chorus up to Mixture, or add the Cornet to the Scharff on the Manual I- all works. There are things to be learned there, even for post-romantic organs, besides the remaining Anneessens, Stahlhuts, Kerkhoffs etc of course. I forgot to mention Dalstein & Haerpfer in Lorraine, France, along with alsacians builders like the Rinckenbachs, who realized acomplished french-german synthese organs. Pierre

Now one can imagine all sort of synthesis. One of my favorite would be from british, german and french post-romantic organs, something rather normal for a belgian; Anneessens went somewhere along that way, and Stahlhuth a bit further. Big, tick metal Diapasons with german soft stops and free reeds, british chorus reeds and Tuba and some french Trompettes and Clairons for the final "Bamm". Pierre

The nearest organ to the french "néo-classique" definition I heard in Situ in England was St-Alban's (I went there in the 1970's). And it was -I hope it still is- a good organ. I am slightly doubtfull with the "buffet", make- it- sound- as- you- like, ecclectic concept. If an organ needs to be ecclectic, I would rather prefer to revisit Holtkamp or Victor Gonzalez, who ended up with a personnal style. And of course "ecclectic" can mean several things; the baroque organ in Thuringia and Saxony -the ones Bach played- were actually ecclectic organs which mixed traditional german, italian and french traits -and even stops!-. The post-romantic U.S. organs like Skinner's also were ecclectic in that they were the fruit of several traditions, re-interpreted to get something new from them. And maybe THAT is the point: to render a synthesis interesting and a work of art, its aim should maybe not to add the bits and the repertoires mechanically, but to create something new. Pierre

The "Néo-classique" organ emerged in 1925 from a reaction against the neo-baroque one, which appeared 1921 (the Oscar Walcker organ in Freiberg University, "vaguely inspired by an abstract from Praetorius book" (O. Walcker). The aim was to obtain a "compromise between romantic and baroque"; actually, the result was just another form of the post-romantic organ, the next stage after Emil Rupp's "alsacian Reform". So Neo-baroque and néo-classique co-existed practically from day one. The differencies are: The Neo-classique organ always has a Swell manual, with one kind or other of celeste and reed chorus. The voicing has nothing in common with baroque or neo-baroque organs, and differs from the romantic one as well. It is a sui Generis style. Here is an example with Beauvais cathedral: The Neo-baroque organ is a sui Generis creation as well, though it was pretended it was a copy of "the true ancient organ". This was as mandatory an ideology as Mao-tse Tung's little red book, to the point carreers were destroyed during the 70's and 80's simply to have discussed this point. The Neo-baroque organ has never a Swell, or, sometimes, an expressive Brustwerk, but this was soon despised as a scandal. This should be particularly laughed at in Britain since baroque british organs actually had Swells since 1712! (And Spain well before that). It is shrilly voiced, with no soft stop whatsoever (even a Gedackt is loud). Today those instruments are going out of fashion and are already endangered, and we are, once more, at risk to destroy the good ones along with the less good ones... Here is an example of a (good!) neo-baroque organ: Not the same world as the Gonzalez also. While surfing on Youtube to illustrate this post I found another interesting video, featuring another good Néo-classique organ (a Gonzalez restored by Bernard Dargassies, a french builder who understands this style and respects it; he restored a Delmotte organ in Belgium, Charleroi, with excellent results), and which demonstrates quite well the tonal features of such an organ: ....So you have a dynamic range, while the Mixtures do not really top a chorus, but, rather, imparts the color of a french "Plein-jeu" to any combination behind them, be it a simple Bourdon or the tutti, they always stand apart. They are no structural stops, but colors. This is a post-romantic trait actually; E-M Skinner already did the same, as well as Donald Harrison later. One cannot write about the Néo-classique organ without evoking Walter Holtkamp Senior, its best representative in the U.S. Here is a video featuring his Syracuse organ from 1950: This is first-class organ-building! (Please note, though, the comments below! it is today "de bon goût" to criticize such organs, which are at risk to end in local Severn Rivers...) The "caseless" designs originated with the Klais company already 1930, with the Kristuskoning Kerk, Antwerps,( whose Specifications I gave here earlier as a "teasing" for a new project...) and are another typical feature of this organ style, inspired from the Bauhaus. Pierre

The "all purpose organ" is a myth, sometimes described as "no-purpose-at-all organ", and we should get rid of that aim should the organ live and continue to evolve. This said, the "Néo-classique" organ, if it did not satisfy its goal, is today the historical style with the biggest "repertoire"; Duruflé, Alain, Langlais, Messiaen, to name only four, are enough to justify those instruments. So, I understand them as belonging to a style of the past, suited to a dedicate "Repertoire" if we must absolutely think under such terms. Do we still need to build such organs ? I think that we should not, first because we experimented, in Belgium, that the belief "you can play all upon them" renders them invasive, to the point the others organs were rebuild after their standards ! The organ cannot live with only Messiaen organs. Today we should build after historic styles AND modern, experimental ones, in order to have both in any significant place. Pierre

Just a though: Why are there nobody from the United Kingdom busy, on the french forum, to promote the british organs and their builders ? An open, free market is never a one-way road ! Instead, we do this promotion ourselves, and anything new in the Portfolio of Mander and others is systematically forwarded and discussed on Organographia. And the interest is there, at least on behalf of the players. Any british organ (new or used) on the continent attracts crowds of them. Maybe YOU could help, ladies and gentlemen. Do it both ways, and things will run smoother. Pierre

An intact Arthur Harrison ? Go on, ladies and gentlemen, this is AA+++ rate ! I found this: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/har...ndharrisonorgan This was the belgian vote, Pierre

"and before I die, I want to try Howells at Alkmaar." (Quote) Joke aside, I would be interested with an experiment in St-Ouen first ! Pierre

One of the best Messian's interpret of our times. Pierre

It is interesting to note that the actions are viewed, not from the physical viewpoint -a complex instrument to be managed- but from the strict ideal of the player. No organ can have the "touch" of an harpsichord or a piano, save if you are content with only one 8' -an hungry Quintadena- pro manual, and light-wind rattling Regals (this last point is discutable, though, as reeds use little wind in volume), and a rather delicate action with modern materials. Such an organ would be a modern one, not at all suited for any existing "Repertoire" at all save the Renaissance one, for which one Manual and 5 stops are enough. If you really want very light actions, then we need to come back to what E-M Skinner wrote: the pneumatic and EP actions were an immense progress, as they for the first time broke the link between number of stops, wind-pressures and wind volumes, one side, and the weight and travel of the note on the other side ! The perpetual move does not exist. Pierre

Such *things* may be find in Belgium as well. There are churches -meant here as social groups- who fears, and hate, the culture; art in the church is a sin. When you hear sentences like "We do not need concerts", "Help the poors instead of caring for music", "we are only a little provincial church" the red warning light must flash: here we are. Pierre

"Could it be, that the real drawback of pneumatic and EP actions, are not so much to do with the speed of delivery, as with the spatial dispositions which they make possible? Perhaps that was the REAL lesson of the orgelbewebung!" (Quote) Interesting point ! Of course the pneumatic and EP actions allowed "nearly all" as wrong disposition of soundboards, crammed pipework etc. But the Orgelbewegung threw the baby with the bath water -as always-, imponing the "Werkprinzip" structure to all new organs, while this was already obsolete during Bach's time. I have even had to explain, about a Walcker organ in Belgium, that is was not "wrong" for the Swell to be placed behind the Great and not above it ! As a result we can find today organs that are supposed to render justice to the "romantic Repertoire", but lack depth to the point you believe you are sitting on the windchests, whatever you ear, up to a Vox humana, box closed. There are wrong dispositions, yes. But this does not mean Hinterwerks and Fernwerks are such... Pierre

Sorry, David; my formulation was not precise enough. I meant "difficult+backfalls". Pierre

YES!!!! And what kind of actions do you think J-S Bach had, ladies and Gentlemen ? The heavy one, with backfalls. (the Rückpositiv was already nearly gone, and the Hinterwerk already there....Not to mention the 4 or more 8' on the Hauptwerk) Pierre

So you know the difference between an historic action and a modern one, the kind of which the ancient composers never had. I' d rather have the student organists practizing on "difficult" actions, so far as the today "Repertoire" is 99% an ancient one; Bach on a tracker action whose moving parts are as thick as a finger; Vierne on a worn out Barker lever action; Reger on a pneumatic action, and Messiaen on an EP action. Pierre

"And Pierre, in light of your comments about continental variants and different builder's interpretations, you too may find yourself nodding in agreement with the article in places." (Quote) Indeed, and, as you say, "in places". The author missed an important point about the german organ in general, and the organs Bach knew in particular... Pierre

Fiffaro, did you ever try an authentic french or german historic -of course tracker- baroque organ ? Pierre

As always, nobody is a prophet in his/her own country; there are french people who say the french music of the baroque period is "light" !!!! This is of course completely wrong a statment, and here is another proof of the contrary. The belgian organist Serge Schoonbroodt presents us with a subtile, even meditative interpretation of the "Offertoire sur les grands jeux" from the "Messe à l'usage des paroisses" by F. Couperin at the beautiful organ in Puy-en-Velay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlhRB-XZxZ4...player_embedded Pierre

Here is a somewhat strange video (you'll see immediately why), but which features an historic Antegnati organ with the famous "Ripieno" registration, the most typical of the italian organ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G81T2aKD_BE...feature=related Another beautiful one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejaOqy1iXjE...feature=related After the Ripieno, now, on the same organ, another specialty of the italian organ, the Voce umana (the first undulating stop in the History of the organ): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLY1cfEw84o...feature=related Pierre

There is also the dutch Gemshorn, witch is a large scale 2' Flute... and -The two forms of the Dulciana (and their variants) -The two forms of the Clarinet/ Clarinette/ Klarinette (and their variants) -The two forms of the Vox angelica -The multiple incarnations of the Querflöte/ Traversflöte/ Flûte traversière, harmonic and non harmonic And and and...... Pierre

What is in a name ? The stops nomenclature reflects the sheer diversity of the organ. Let us take for example the most standardised one, the french nomenclature of the 18th century: it contains about a dozen of names. BUT.....Is a Nasard a Nasard ? No, there are countless minute variations of the same. Scales and construction vary according to the builders and the position in the scheme (Grand orgue, Positif, Echo). Maybe we should consider a name as an indicative of a role rather than a strict definition. The Sesquialtera is a good example of those sheer variations. The flemish one starts with 1 1/3'-4/5', and breaks towards the middle of the compass to 2 2/3'- 1 3/5'. This seems to have been the original version (principal scales), issued from the southern german "Hörnlein". In Britain it became a tierce Mixture, with three ranks or more. The Neo-baroques misunderstood it completely and built it flutey, simply a Nasard and a Tierce put togheter (large scale). Etc.... (I wrote a book about that matter, a dictionnary; halas the editor played games...) Pierre

Interesting points, Pcnd, "I do regard clarity as a highly desirable ingredient in a diapason chorus" (Quote) If the clarity isn't in the 8' already, no upper work and Mixtures will provide it; you can add whatever you want, you won't get it. Any polyphonic ability of an organ is determined by the very basis of its Diapason chorus, and there lies, in Fine, the stylistic orientation of the instrument. It is up to us to respect this, and not expect peers from an apple tree. Pierre

"the octave couplers were there to increase the power and solidity of the sound, not to imitate a chorus structure." (Quote) But, Vox, this sentence is a contradiction in its own terms. If we could go now togheter to Waltersausen, among others, we could experiment the baroque chorus is just that: a means to increase the power and the solidity of the tone ! A chorus structure isn't about "brightness", this was a misunderstanding of the second half of the 20th century. We have organs from that period where the Mixture are practically solo stops; you ear them, and nothing else behind, because they overpower the rest of the would-be-chorus to the point you can forget to draw them. And this is what composers like Olivier Messiaen precisely did. Instead of using "choruses" made out of Cavaillé-Coll fonds and neo-classical mixtures, he preffered to use them apart -with outstanding results-. A Diapason chorus does not necessarily fulfill the need to play this or that "repertoire" with this and that results; it is the core, the backbone of the organ, however it sounds. Its function is not an aesthetical one, I mean, a question of style, it is an architectural one; the wall made with bricks. But now the shape of the building is another matter ! "The only way you could ever get this organ to sound bright is to scrap it and start again. Choruses? Pah! " (Quote) No, don't scrap it save the 1993 Mixture; send it in Belgium, the Netherlands or Germany instead! I just learnt we shall have an Hook & Hastings organ in Boom, Belgium, recuperated, and we are very proud with it. Pierre

"From the final sentence of this chapter it seems that his ideal is the eclectic organ." (Quote) I am sorry not to believe that. Rather, the "Diapason chorus", i.e., Principal stops from 8' or 16' up to Mixture(s) or seperate rank trhoughout (Ripieno-like), is the backbone of the organ, and this, from the Renaissance to nowadays without exception. That is to say even the romantic organs do have that Diapason chorus, but sometimes somewhat hidden, and not intended to be used alone. Even the H-J organ in Worcester had its Diapason chorus, reduced to 16-8-4, with two hidden quint ranks provided by Quintadenas at 8' and 4', not to mention the octave couplers. By "essential choruses", B-H meant the Diapason chorus and the reed choruses, which are built up with Trompettes, Trumpets, Trompeten or Trombas, never with Cromornes or Cor anglais or Vox humanas; should you deprive any organ from both the Principal and the Trumpet tone, you no longer have a church organ, but a collection of solo stops, maybe suitable in a theatre organ, though this latter too has its design needs, and is certainly not merely a collection of tones. Those lines are the kind of things you think about after having read Mr Bonavia-Hunt. See here for the references of "Modern organ stops", 1923: http://www.bardon-music.com/books.php?id=9...en&curr=eur There is a 26 pages sample under Pdf. It features A to beginning of "D". See the first five pages about the Diapason, pages 22 to 26 (of the Pdf file, not the book's pagination): Pierre

Bonavia-Hunt's description of the Diapasons and their choruses up to Mixtures is well worth reading; he deals about building a wall of tone, a structure, and not about those funny concepts like "textures" "clarity" etc. It is clear he understood the matter, did he succeed or not to implement it afterwards. Pierre