Pierre Lauwers

Well David, I believe that if the english situation is less disastrous than the belgian one, it is precisely for that reason: Conservatism. In the judgment of any organ, be it its balance or whatever else, we should think we are not alone; the previous generations had other tastes, and the ones that will follow us will have even other tastes. It is so since the very first instrument was build. So I strongly believe we need to exercise utmost care when deciding what to *do* or *not to do*. Take my area here in southern Belgium: 80% of the organs to be found here are neo-classical rebuilts of romantic organs which themselves followed ancient ones. What should I promote now? Having them rebuilt as neo-romantic organs? Respectful restaurations, even with "hybrid" organs, avoid the risk to lose even more of what remains of our heritage, and such works will ever gain my vote, be the result to my taste or not. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

The second volume's description is an update ; see the footnote: "In the first series of this work this organ is stated to have been built by Cornellis (probably "Cornelis") Hoornbeck (probably "Hoornbeek") in 1580.This, however, the author has now found to be an error. The Hoornbecks were a noble family of (Sint) Hertogenbosch, and probably gave the older organ which was burnt in the fire of 1584. The list of stops given in the former volume is the list of this latter instrument". As to the differencies between the two drawings, the second one could be from somebody else: it does not show A-G Hill's signature. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Hill does not specify any date ; maybe the disposition he gives is simply a later state than this "about 1630" one. Does anybody know more about the pre-1942 state of this organ, and who worked on it in the course of the 18th century? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Here follows A-G Hill's description of the "second organ" (The "Totentanz-Orgel") "One of the chapels on the north side of S. Mary's Lübeck, possesses a fine mediaeval organ, which is here depicted. The great west end instrument (The Schulze) is the subject of illustration in the first volume of this work. It stands in a gallery, with coved base and receding sides, and is thoroughly gothic in design. This organ is probably a little earlier in date than the one at the west end, and may be assigned to about the year 1500. The high side towers have lost their original cresting, but retain their floral shades and other enrichments. The choir organ is a later addition, at which time the gallery front was also altered. All the woodwork has been painted a brown colour in imitation of oak." (!!!) He then gives the disposition as follows: Great organ Quintaton 16' Principal 8' Spitzflöte 8' Octave 4' Flöte 4' Rausch Quint 2r Mixture 5r Trompete 8' Choir organ Principal 8' Quintadena 8' Rohrflöte 8' Octave 4' Flöte 2' Sesquialtera 2r Mixture 4r Scharf 5r Fagotto 16' Regal 8' Swell organ (? probably "Echo") Gedackt 8' Gedackt 4' Cornett 3r Trompete 8' Pedal organ Principal (in front) 16' Gross Quint 10' (probably 10 2/3') Octave 8' Gedackt 8' Octave 4' Octave 2' Mixture 3r Posaune 16' Trompete 8' Schalmay ("Schalmey"?) 4' So a baroque design, the choir organ even a late 18th century's design to be compared with Hildebrand's aesthetic. Something that would have been very interesting to hear with Bach... Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Thanks for these interesting precisions Barry, Hill describes a "second organ", still with a baroque disposition, in his second volume; this must be the actual "Totentanz-Orgel". Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

It seems there was something like a local dance party whose name was "The dance of the death people". Well, Saint-Saëns wrote a "danse macabre"... A-G Hill, in is well-known book "Organ cases and organs of the middle ages and renaissance" gives a beautiful drawing of the case. He also gives Schulze's disposition, according to his 1853 rebuild, after Hopkins. Here follows the mixtures, that may be interesting to compare with the previous scheme. We know Schulze was by no way against classic choruses -quite to the contrary- so we may assume this scheme was sufficient for the Marienkirche; but everyone having heard Armley "in situ" know also how boldly and loudly he voiced them: HW Rauschquint 2r Mixtur 5r Cymbel 3r Pos Mixtur 5r Scharf 3r Echo Mixtur 5r Schwell Mixtur 3r There were two pedal divisions, one "great" and one "positiv". On the great one: Cornett 5r ....in which we may suppose there was a Tierce rank, but this did not necessarily made this stop comparable to the classic "Cornet". Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Yes ! This time is it the correct one. (By the way, the "Death's dance" organ) Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers

The "Dom" is the Cathedral, while the Marienkirche is another church. Interesting page, though. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

The french baroque organ is something extremely codified. Each Cornet had its role: 1)- The "Cornet décomposé" or "Jeu de tierce" with one slide for each rank, in "big" organs even sometimes in 16' on the Great (5 1/3'-3 1/5', or 3 1/5' alone, very often with 2 2/3' and 1 3/5' as well), ever 2 2/3' 1 3/5' on the Positif de dos plus very often Larigot 1 1/3', is intended for detail use, pitted against a reed on another clavier in polyphonic music. The Great's jeu de Tierce was on the left hand, the Positif's played with the right hand. (It is to be remembered the french flue chorus with mixtures is *not* intended for polyphony). According to french standards, these "jeux de Tierce", tough of course flutey, are of relatively small scale, the 4' and 2' ranks being often principals (Prestant and Doublette). The large-scale "Quarte de Nazard" 2' is rarely provided. 2)-The solo Cornet, on one slide but normally not mounted ("Posté",fr) is the one on the Echo division (or sometimes already "Récit" or "Récit-Echo", but we are already towards the end of the 18th century there with builders like Isnard or François-Henri Clicquot). 3) -The mounted Cornet itself, actually a "Grand Cornet", is the one to be find on the Great -where there is already a "Jeu de Tierce"-. Its purpose is to sustain the reeds in the treble in the "Grand-jeu". The "Grand-jeu" is: anything but the principal chorus (Montre 8' Bourdon 8' Prestant 4' Doublette 2' Fourniture Cymbale) which may never be mixed with the Tierces. According to its purpose, the mounted Cornet covers only the upper part of the compass. French reeds being of the "free" type, and the baroque Trompettes even more, are extremely rich in upper partials. These are of course less audible in the treble by far, hence the classic balance problem between bass and treble to be even more difficult to solve with this kind of chorus reeds. So the Cornet was the solution, and its place just beneath the "Montre" (case pipes) gave it a commanding position to help for that purpose. Who actually invented the Cornet we do not know. The french organ derived from the flemish one (hé hé hé, let's blow our own Trumpet!) which was introduced in France by Titelouze. The flemish organ used the Cornet more the english way, as a detail/solo stop in music the kind of voluntaries. Interestingly, the flemish organ, up to the ninetheenth century (Van Peteghem, for instance, built classic flemish organs up to about 1850) did still know the Sesquialtera (2 2/3'- 1 3/5'), which was scaled as principals. This never existed within french organs. So the mounted Cornet may have been a creative solution found by french builders confronted to the problem of balancing bigger organs than before. Later, in the romantic organ, the Grand Cornet and the mixtures were fusionned (under wathever name on the stop-knob) to allow for the tutti. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Thanks James, The question is to know wether the old Lady will be sent to her retirement because her bones are rotted or if it is because she is an hotch-potch. Which is something very different. Up to about 20 years ago, we had an organ of the same kind in Brussel's cathedral: an hotch-potch where nearly all belgian romantic builders had worked. It was an huge Choir organ, nothing for recitals. You could not play Bach nor even Mendelssohn on it. Franck......yes, but. It revealed itself with simple music. Boellman's "Suite gothique" was a tremendous experience, something unforgettable! It was extremely good as accompaniment for the voices, with that "magic" I talked about above. Even the old ladies kept silent.... Now there is a modern Grenzig. A splendid, very beautifully made instrument, excellent for recitals. But the "magic" is gone, for "perfection" instead. The old ladies may chat again... Do you know what will happen to the old lady's bones? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

I found this one too: http://www.kirche-ahrenshagen.de/ahr6.htm Interesting: the metal pipes were already made of zinc! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

For Sweetland I would say somewhere between 1850 and 1890. Here is a page that may be interesting: http://www.stcuthbertswells.co.uk/organs.html Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

I just learned Porsche subventionned Leipzig's Ladegast restoration. I hope they did not replace the Barkers there with turbos. Who added the Barkers at Merseburg? Was it not Ladegast himself? After all, Ladegast was one of ACC's pupils, so I don't see many "deviation" with the Barker lever in his organs. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Yes, I'm personnaly convinced we are now in a "POST-something" period. But maybe it's pedantic. Anyway, good things may emerge out of such uncertain times, as long as we realize we have no "Truths" more, and have to do or *own* research. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Apologies, Nfortin, This may not help you, I agree. At least it will enable others to realize how beautiful and interesting this organ is. I also used this file to show the members of the french forum an example of a Willis organ. Indeed, it seems quite original or not-that-modified. Maybe you need not to worry too much. It can be that this instrument is still intact *because* of lack of funds. I often noted that wherever there is money, chances are high you find playable disfigured organs ; where there is no money, you have not very playable intact organs. Between two evils, which one do we prefer? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Go to: http://www.smcsociety.co.uk/music.html Click on the file that's mentioned "for Media player"(one of the "reunions")You get a picture of the console about the middle of the page.Click on "organ voluntary"....And wait a bit (long to download). Was this organ Ouseley's? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

After having reviewed some books and notes, I feel I need to add some precisions: By "Closed toned", I do not mean Hope-Jones's excesses. Bonavia-Hunt classes the reeds in three categories: -Closed tone (Originally H-J's "Tuba sonora", later H&H Tromba and Horn) -"Normal" (Willis's chorus reeds and Tubas) -"Free" Cavaillé-Coll's reeds That we on the continent know only of the "Free" type, the "normal" type english chorus reeds sounds "closed" to our ears. Tough it seems ACC did appreciate Henry Willis's reeds, which does mean something because he disliked so many ancient or other builder's ones, he never built something of this kind himself. When a belgian organist hears (in my hi-fi room for instance) an english reeds chorus for the first time, his/her first reaction may be summerized like this: "He, what is that???" So by "closed toned" I mean the Willis type too, that is, all english chorus reeds since Willis that do not belong to the "free" type. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, This is another british peculiarity I find interesting, these trumpet-scaled stops (and full-lenght) but with bassoon reeds. Seemingly started with Willis and later Harrison & Harrison, these "Trombas" and the kind of Tuba I prefer (smooth, like in Westminster), these stops, while known by Cavaillé-Coll (who was Willis's friend after all) and german builders, where never built on the continent. There may exist some "Tuba mirabilis", but rather free-toned. French reeds are so pervasive that whenever one Trompette is drawn, the rest is at once superseded ; closed-tone reeds just "fills in" a diapason chorus so it may be an useful supplementary step in the crescendo (in an organ built on romantic lines). The smooth Tuba I find very interesting as a solo stop to be pitted against choruses, "demi grand-choeur" or full-Swell. But there are no two Tubas alike, I prefer the smooth ones, not overdone in power and enclosed in a Swell-box (contrarily to the common practice having it the only unenclosed stop of its department). Have such stops been tried in designs that provide "french" reeds too? Most important, are they bound to high pressures to the point they would be impossible to pair with mechanichal action? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

When visiting "ruins" -I mean organs that were silent since many years- I often noted the pneumatics were the least affected, when the electrics were rotted and the mechanical actions out of order. One day, with two friends, we even succeeded to restart a pneumatic Goll that was silent since more than 20 years (just enough to hear something). When the tubes are short and the organ played daily, this action works quite well. So I would not advocate its re-use in modern organs, of course, but retaining it wherever possible. Mr Mander prefers the mechanichal action. It is an artistic choice nobody has to discuss ; but when he encounters another type of action, he will restore it and this is what everybody should do. Another important point : the lead tubes are horribly expansive ! The more so it is a shame to find them savagly cutted ans packed in a corner of the organ-loft, while a valuable instrument is now filled with cheap electrical cables, glued under the chests with chatterton ! Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Was Henry Willis I himself not somewhere "traditionnal", trough Samuel-Sebastian Wesley influence? I mean especially about compasses, mixture designs and unequal temperament. According to the french authors, the ancient english organs where quite close to the french.....This may have of course to be somewhat relativised. There are no two Cavaillé-Coll organs alike -but the little "models" for private or small churches uses-. For one thing, his taste did evolve, for the other, he very often re-used parts of previous organs. Moreover, Cavaillé-Coll is no summary of the "french romantic organ", exactly like Silbermann is only one baroque german builder. There were other interesting things, for instance in Alsace. In Belgium one finds romantic organs whose stop-lists seem ACC's copies, but actually, they are hybrid between french and german organs. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Thanks Michael, I'm of course interested, but could you scan it and send it by E-Mail instead? As a member of the board at "Lost beauties New Zealand" (an association busy with protecting old found roses is NZ), I have had the time to note Fax communications do not work that well between Auckland and Belgium. I noted these mixtures designs where the Tierce was not present troughout. These are to be found in Germany too. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Splendid post, Michael ! I like going a bit deeper in the matters, and if we can do it with humor it's even better. Of course, Hill is something more important than Hope-Jones as long as sound organ-building is concerned. H-J was no genuine organ-builder, rather an outsider who carried new ideas. Of course, we do not need to see Worcester as a Hope-Jones organ, it is an hotch-potch. I love it that way, because it is one of the instruments that impressed me the most with their musical qualities. However, the introduction of the electric action allowed our happy hoping Robert to redesign *slightly*Hill's previous scheme. Another poster mentionned the thrilling effect of this organ to be due to its particular layout -in short, not quite timidly scaled pipes directly above your head-. Let's go back to Hill. -Quint mixtures? Really? I encounter incredible difficulties convincing french players of today that the "romantic organ" they are in search of might actually rely, to ensure that beautiful Tutti, on Tierce mixtures. Even in Cavaillé-Coll organs, despite the french "Truth" that states, since at least the 18th century, "there will never be any Tierce in the Plein-jeu". Even Marcel Dupré still held to that. So it may be that some "Quint mixtures" in romantic organs today were Tierce mixtures -I mean previously- that encountered someway somewhere a kind of "re-education seminar". See what Mr Mander wrote on the "Tierce mixtures" thread about Willis and Hill. About the full swell. This is something else as a merely "roar", as full as it may be. It is pecularly british, tough the french organ can display something of the kind, but the difference lies with the mixture. In the french organ, you have the "demi-grand-choeur", that is, all flues 16-8-4, with the couplers, plus the Récit's reeds. In the english organ, all what you need are the 16-8-4 chorus reeds on the Swell plus the mixture ( with Tierce). Slightly different, isn't it? About the Titanic. We absolutely need to reconstitute this one; of course, in order to stay historically correct, we also need to reconstitute the iceberg as well. Wether we shall reconstitute the crash is open to question. Anyway, we have our Titanics of today, but they usually only crashes between stock exchanges -or between changing fashions...- Back to Hill, I found this page that shows how fast the ideas evolve today. It's about a 1913 Hill in Melbourne, disfigured in 1960, but with a quite happy end in 1996. Refreshing! http://www.organconcertsaustralia.com.au/Toorak.html Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

Of course, Whenever an organ is to be built, you have an "expert commission" that decide of all, as if the builders did not know their job. Up to the color of the name-plates. And of course any disposition you get from a commission will be an eclectic one, because Jones wants to hear Franck while Smith wants to hear Couperin... A Bourdon is not a Gedeckt nor a Stopped Diapason; therefore, I'm against translating the stop-names. A Salicional from Germany is not the same as a belgian one. Even more frightful, the "Dulciana" you find sometimes on the continent is not a Dulciana at all but a Dulciane... So in order to avoid nightmares, I'd find it better to write "Bourdon" for any french or french-built stop; "Trumpet" for any english stop of its kind, "Trompete" for a german and "Trompette" for the french (rather fiery) version. Of course this way you can find, especially in border areas like Belgium, or Alsace, multilingual stop-lists. But we like it that way. Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

The 1925 H&H rebuild was not *that* deep as one could believe. Later works have been not too fundamental as well, so that the foundations at Worcester are still Hope-Jones's. The main problem with the original organ was H-J's electro-pneumatic action, which was sorted out with the 1925 H&H work. As for the need of a second organ, here follows a link that might be interesting: http://www.mander-organs.com/html/stavanger_cathedral.html Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.

This is interesting Mr Cox, The "logical progress" has been claimed since some centuries to justify the deleting of many instruments we would be quite happy to have today. I do not like particularly Hope-Jones. Actually, he gave many arguments to the "Orgelbewebung" to destroy late-romantic organs, including better than Hope-Jones's! But I believe we do need to respect all the previous milestones in history -with special care for what we do not like-. When I visited Worcester, anyone there agreed the Hope-Jones flue stops that were still in use to be particularly beautiful. Nobody on the continent has ever heard H-J's Diaphones. They are still there at Worcester -disabled, but there-. Yes, I heard many arguments "that's good for ships, etc". But having them restored does not imply their mandatory use everytime. And we stupid foreigners could, while in U.K., pay a special visit to hear these strange things. Are these ideas so "special"? Best wishes, Pierre Lauwers.