Pierre Lauwers

Always a favorite of mine: (....But it would be even better with more foundation tone in place of those neo standard mixtures) OH!!!!! AND!!!!! Choral song & fugue played on...the previous Gloucester's cathedral organ!!!: I won my day... Pierre

It is surprising that it still seems, in 2009, impossible to like one kind of organ without disliking others ! I myself claim the right to like as well a little baroque Positive organ as this one: Pierre

Why still use dutch organs ? Ladies and gentlemen, remember, the iron curtain is fallen off 20 years ago. We have the real thing now. Go for the thuringian sound, 300 Miles away: Pierre

Why ???? Here is a slightly different version: Open Diapason 8' Voce umana 8' Stopped Diapason 8' Principal 4' Nason Flute 4' Twelfth 2 2/3' Fifteenth 2' Sesquialtera 2r 1 1/3'- 4/5'- 2 2/3'- 1 3/5' Pierre

"What knots we tie ourselves with such categories." (Quote) Indeed; doing so, we "file" the objects into distinct cases, and the real life isn't so. It is just an help for our thinking, in order to understand. It works....As long as we do not impone ideas to the things. (I will add one or several Links to Le Picard organs) Here is already a beautiful one: http://p.thimus.free.fr/pages/festival6.html (Note the Sesquialter. It belongs to the Principal chorus). And here is the Le Picard organ of Tongeren/ Tongres, on which the belgian organist Serge Schoonbroodt recorded....Yes: de Grigny's complete works: http://www.orgues-thomas.com/FR/references/tongres.html (Note the two Sesquialteras, on the Great and the Positive!) Pierre

I would certainly keep the Gloucester organ as it is. Why add another execution ? We would just continue with the same game... What I would do would be, perhaps, to commission H&H to build a "Howells organ" nearby, whenever the occasion arises. As for Grigny, I prefer this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxPooeWo64k ....Note the date -1698-. de Grigny's organ wasn't Dom Bédos, rather end 17th century organs, still with flemish influence, whose last representative was maybye Jean de Joyeuse -his Auch masterpiece was destroyed by Gonzalez- towards 1700. As we had in Liège, Belgium, the Le Picard dynasty of french organ-builders, who settled there precisely towards that time, and built 17th-century french organs up to near to the end of the 18th century, we do have interesting organs for de Grigny in Belgium. Compared with Dom Bedos, Isnard's and Clicquot's late baroque french organs, those have lighter wind, nervous reeds -as illustrated in the video in this post-, more polyphonic "Plein-jeu" AND......Often, a somewhat narrow Tierce, which could go with.....Guess what ! (The belgian baroque organ, even those belonging to the Le Picard school, very often have at least one Sesquialtera). "Neo-romantic" ? I'd talk rather about "inverted neo-classical". While the first "néo-classique" organs were largely post-romantic organs in search of some mutations, some Quint Mixtures (after Dupré's model for "ancient" mixtures, that is, french ones), we now have néo-baroque designs in search of some celestes, one swellbox, one Flûte harmonique added to a "baroque" great... It is not difficult to find the first Voix céleste (or equivalent) to come back after the complete withdrawal of such stops round 1980. Pierre

Yes, Iann. But Chartres did not replace a Mutin -or, for that matter, a 1929 Rinckenbach, or anything else of the same kind-. (I do not mean no Gonzalez replaced historic organs, quite to the contrary!) Pierre

Though the "modern" organ tends to resemble them more and more, the "néo-classique" organs are out of fashion; they are "wrong", and will soon be nearly all disposed of in the years to come if we do nothing to protect them. Round and round....Etc. But those organs reveal themselves, thrive with the music that was written in their own period. And here is an excellent example: The organ is a 1973 Gonzalez, specifications by André Marchal. Pierre

Maybe the most interesting book of late: http://www.weltbild.de/3/14859139-1/buch/d...-j-s-bachs.html Pierre

"I doubt even Audesley in his most eccentric moments came close to your ideas. I'm trying to work out why I would want a division of the organ in my kitchen." (Quote) Indeed; Audsley wrote about 90 years ago and more, so it is time we dare something further, isn't it ? Again: In a living-room, Dulcianas might not be restrained to aethereal occasional effects, they are intended here as "diminutive Diapasons", as who you know wrote. There are strong, practical reasons to invade the kitchen (with a closed swellbox, opening towards the division in the living-room!) and a room upstairs: 1)-To dispatch the rather cumbersome whole in three different rooms instead of one; 2)-To avoid to get the impression to sit right on the soundboards, something very unpleasant (save maybe for some neo-baroque addicts). This will give some depth, some distance to the sounds. Now what is it designed for ? As stated here from the start: not an utilitary practice organ, but a leisure one. There is a "Plein-jeu", there is a "Grand jeu" you can play seperately or togheter. There is a "choeur des fonds", Solo stops, celestes, and even a Tuba substitute. So... The pipes I'd buy from several suppliers (In England, Germany, Slovenia), the soundoards and action parts in Germany.....All is available. Pierre

" I am not surprised at the plethora of dulciana-type ranks, but I am not sure what I would play on such a scheme, other than a few quiet pieces and the odd etherial improvisation. " (Quote) This is a project for a living-room, a chamber organ. In such a place, the Dulciana -voiced along traditionnal lines, also not stringy- will give the effect of an Open Diapason. So the backbone of the tonal structure will be a Dulciana chorus (complete with the Dulciana Cornet), the actual Open Diapason taking the role of the "Big one". This choice isn't a "repertoire" one, but an adaptation to the conditions. We may take for sure many an O.D., in a chamber organ, resemble a Dulciana... Pierre

I just found this video on Graham Barber's website. It illustrates the fabulous Diapason chorus of the Armley Schulze organ: http://www.grahambarber.org.uk/videos/high.mpg Souvenirs, souvenirs ! but no video can convey the gigantesque effect this monumental Plenum gives in Situ. Pierre

We just had a similar thread on Organographia... My toy: First division:in the living room, against the kitchen wall: MANUAL I Outside the swellbox: Open Diapason 8' Dulciana 8' Under expression: Dulciana 4' Dulciana Mixture 3 ranks. C: 2'- 1 1/3'- 1' c2: 2 2/3'- 2'- 1 1/3' c3: 4'- 2 2/3'- 2' First division, second clavier: GRAND-JEU (in the same box) Lieblich Gedackt 8' Physharmonika 8' Dulciana Cornet 4r (Can be drawn with the Dulciana Mixture) C: 4'- 2'- 1 1/3'- 4/5' c1: 4'- 2'- 1 3/5'- 1 1/3' c4: 3 1/5'- 4'- 2 2/3'- 2' Second division: : SWELL ORGAN, in the kitchen, behind the first division, with the shutters opening into its swellbox: Zauberflöte 8' Aeoline 8' Voix céleste 8' Zauberflöte 4' Octavin 2' Basson-Hautbois 8' Third division, fourth manual division: upstairs, with a channel conveying the sound to the living room(with shutters): FERNWERK-SOLO: Flauto Dolce 8' Flûte celeste (cf. Skinner) Flauto Dolce 4' Unda-Maris 4' (cf Skinner) Harmonia aetherea 3r 2 2/3'- 2'- 1 3/5' Clarinette 8' (free reeds) Tromba 8' (cf A.Harrison) PEDAL Soubasse 16' Octave 8' (ext 16') Serpent 16' (ext Physharmonika) -All couplers, including 16' ans 4', -Claviers 61 notes, chests 73 (true 4' couplers) -electro-pneumatic action with Taschenladen windchests -Movable Console -Négociations with Madame to be carried over. Pierre

"I would argue that we just go around in circles, occasionally squeezing them into ovals. We have been doing it for years, and I'm not quite sure where we are going with it as we still seem to be making our buildings and customers fit our concepts instead of the other way around. I honestly think we are sadly lacking in vision, but we are safe and comfortable and above all, not collectively or openly challenged." (Quote) Indeed ! We agree, and this was the point of this thread. As about the Antwerp's organ itself, it is an excellent organ, to the point nothing has been changed since its opening. (save the console) The action is fully reliable and did not need repairs. The tone is full and rich, and I guess some of the points in the specifications that seem to be questionnable may be explained by the nomenclature, which differs somewhat from the today's one; more important still, the voicers from that time were the same who were at work in the previous, post-romantic school, so that many a "Cymbel" sounds rather like an Harmonia aetherea (a kind of Dulciana Mixture, often with a tierce rank) than a modern Zymbel. And actually, the Antwerp's organ sounds more "romantic" than it reads! Today, the specifications tend to be established by commities; those commities are formed with academic people, who impones things wich are fashionable, "comform to the rules". The result is often an hotch-potch of a bit of all -a Sesquialtera here for Bach, an Hautbois there for Franck, etc-, so that such "commity specs" invariably end up with a "néo-classique-Kompromissorgel". But such an organ is actually a 1930-like one, as the works of Klais, Sauer( then under Oscar Walcker management), Oscar Walcker, Gonzalez, Holtkamp et al., of this period, demonstrate. And yes: round and round we go. Pierre

Yes, it is. See here: http://www.orgelbau-klais.com/bilder/pdf/F...rist_Koenig.pdf Mind you, we historians like -or need ?- to experiment sometimes. Be them french, german or english speaking, a vast majority of people believed this 1930 organ to be a modern project. This tends to confirm a belief we are some historians to share=: the 2009 fashion is a remake of the Orgelbewegung, in reverse direction; this time, towards some "romantic" elements glued upon a neo-baroque design. The Christus-koningkerk organ was the first néo-classique organ in Belgium. It had a tremendous influence; nearly all belgian builders tried to copy it, among which the Delmotte firm of Tournai, who rebuilt a vast number of organs in southern Belgium after that model. This organ was much approved by Flor Peeters, who had the organ of the Mechelen Lemmens institute replaced with a Klais organ soon afterwards. About a dozen others followed, mostly in Flanders. This organ is still in pristine condition today. It has an electro-pneumatic action on Kegellade windchests ("cone chests"). Halas the original console -with five free combinations, a revolution then- has been replaced with a new one. A very, very sad mistake. About the musical life and the description of room, acoustics, and pipe construction I told absolutely no lies, though. Some views here: http://www.abdijstraat.com/kristus-koning/klaisorgel.html Note, in particular, the picture with a choir situated between the Rückpositiv and the "Brustwerk" (actually three "blocks" of pipes between the windows). This may seem strange for british practice, but so it is, and it works. Pierre

There are means to "round the rules", this is what is named "non financial barriers". Not only in Belgium, this obtains in all EC countries. We have Neelie Kroes fighting against them, but she has bigger fishes than the organ business to begin with ! Anyway, should any organ-builder experience such barriers, it could be interesting to drop her a line or two: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kroes/index_en.html Who knows ? If she was flooded with organ affairs, the organ file could climb somewhat towards the summit of the pile ! Pierre

"I would not hesitate do go to the sources when asking for an instrument in English style." (Quote) There is obviously something wrong in the EC today. In my area, the german builders did much work from the 17th to the 19th century, from Peter Goldfuss just before 1700 up to Gebrüder Link in 1914, not to mention Walcker, Dreymann... between the two wars, Klais built a dozen very good organs in Belgium. BUT....In 2009, it is simply impossible to have a german builder restore them. Whenever a job is decided, it goes always to a belgian builder, be him qualified or not for the kind of organ concerned. There has been two sad examples lately (I won't give any name nor place, even in private). The european union was more effective, by far, during the 19th century (despite the many quarrels and wars!). As I said, we are at risk on the continent to need some decades to learn to build credible british-style organs, while the "real thing" is available nearby -the organs, and the builders-. Pierre

Interesting comments and suggestions ! Some data: -The Nachthorn Gedackt is well stopped, actually rather a french "Cor de nuit"; -The Cornet 2-5r is a "progressive" stop, starts with 15-17 at C. Pierre

They are excellent, no doubt; try one whenever you can. Aubertin is one of the best builders of our time, and, with that, they can restore and rebuild in others styles as their's. Ask Nigell Allcoat about Thann, for example, an organ I heard once again this last August. Aubertin has even completely rebuild an organ with 100% pneumatic action. Give them an Harrison, they will restore it -ditto with Kern, who already did-... But even an excellent modern organ won't do well if you have dozens of the same in a dedicate area. Here the fashions ever fail. Pierre

"Mind you, it does sound rather as if you are hankering for a fresh start - and a shiny new Aubertin...."... (Quote) .......An organ that the three following generations of organists will fall in love with, no doubt ! " a fantastic future awaits us" (well, where did I read that ?) Pierre

This discussion is becoming quite interesting ! As for the reliability-longetivity matter; there are 100 years+ pneumatic organs still working, with "belgian maintenance" (read: near to zero), and 75 years electro-pneumatic organs in good condition (same maintenance non-schedule). AND.... We also have in store neo-baroque, straight tracker ("suspended action" and all the ideologic stuff conform to the party's phraseology, SED-like)......Completely out after 30 years. (This is not true for all of them, but some of them. But enough to question the equality tracker= X times longer life expectancy). Pierre (old, yes. Armchair, not yet. Wait some years more!) Addenda: If we see the organ after a strict economics, managerial point of view, there is no sense to spoil good materials and workmanship into an organ designed to last 75 years or more. If we consider the life expectancy of the "Truths" during the previous century, it would be advisable to build bio-degradable organs; they would go back to dust in 30 years, a dust that could be sold as a soil fertilizer. So no rebuilds, no high costs. On the long term, the church would make substantial savings. (No, toasters aren't bio-degradable, quite to the contrary, electronic components are a threat for the environment, and must be disposed of properly. Big argument for the bio-degradable pipe organ, whose lead can of course be melted and used again...)

Just because it is an Harrison. Aubertins we still can get, not Harrisons. And to have only Aubertins would be a problem -as good as they are-. I already said we have complete areas in Belgium with organs from one builder, one style, one period. Those organs aren't "bad", but nobody more plays them, and nobody more buy organs CDs there. Such a situation equals the death of the organ. Pierre

I just posted this very interesting historic document on Organographia, under "Documents", so that the french-speaking organ community also may see and discuss it. Pierre

Very interesting file ! And yes, all organ-building firms with a long historic record have the same problems: to be judged after past "mistakes" -or rather: today seen as such- comissionned by people who "knew the Truth", and obeyed to in order to keep the business running. Even a radical guy like myself, I would do exactly the same today if I was in charge of an organ business. You can say "no" up to a point only, and this point you do not decide, but rather the accountant, or -worse- the bank. Pierre

"One can't imagine the average British city council commissioning, say, Nicholson & Co to build a full-blooded replica of an early 1900s Walcker or CC-Mutin." (Quote) ....However, maybe a good plan would be to preserve the original british models -in order to help us on the continent to build credible ones, not needing 75 years of trials and errors, like it happened with baroque organs-. Pierre