Colin Harvey

I too thought the pneumatic action at Bristol was very elegant to play and just right when I played it last. I remember the Open Diap 3, small principal, twelfth, fifteenth and small mixture (Sesquialtera?) was a lovely chorus, which had a ring of something much earlier than Victorian... beautiful. I didn't care for the bix mixture (Fourniture?) at all - to be used as a last resort after the Great reeds...

Well, would you put them in the same rank as Lewis, Hill, Walker and Willis? They might be pleasant musical instruments and well worthy of retention and restoration when you come across one that hasn't been molested too much, but Vowles were hardly one of the leading builders of their day. It's not that I'm being disparaging of the quality of Vowles organs (which I know are nice and to be appreciated), it's just that they were not builders of high profile that led the way.

Chaps, is it really right to give Vowles such credit for the choruses at Bristol Cathedral? Didn't the Vowles rebuild of 1861 reuse the majority of the Harris pipework? The 1685 pipework by Renatus Harris included 2 Open Diapasons, 2 Principals, a Twelfth, Fifteenth and Sesq. on the Great Organ - almost exactly the same as the organ in 1861 by Vowles! Are we really sure a provincial builder firmly of the second rank would have had the temerity to replace the majority of this pipework by such a celebrated builder when re-organising the organ in a new position? After all, the organ in 1861 was still sporting a GG compass to the Great organ and a tenor g swell organ! (If NPOR is to be believed). The pedal organ was decidedly unadventorous too. It all looks very conservative to me and reading between the lines, I think money was tight for the Vowles work. I find it very unlikely Vowles replaced much of the existing pipework. The organ was re-tuned to equal temperament in 1867 - 6 years after the Vowles work. Please can contributors note that the plural of "Tromba" is "Trombas". It is not "Trombe". There is no need to use italics when writing them either. "Is it not the case that the organ moved in 1905 from a gallery position to its present place on the North side (the eastern bay of which is the old East face of the gallery case)?" No, it moved in 1861 by Vowles.

Thanks for that Bazuin... That's because the console and choir organ have been resited.... If the choir organ was where it should be (i.e. in front of the Swell organ), the organ's sound would be more focussed and the organist wouldn't suffer from the distraction of the choir organ next to him. It really doesn't help playing this organ. However, even if it were restored to its original layout, I rather suspect many organists will always find this organ difficult to listen to while playing because it speaks in 2 directions but the layout and tonal design, as described by Stephen Bicknell, is genius. I think the Dulwich church is a great success and the organ is all most satisfactory. I'd be interested to know what you don't especially like about it.

Why the quotation marks around "Lewis"? It's one of T.C.Lewis's original masterpieces! As I've explained elsewhere, the location and design of this organ are ingenious, and intrinsically linked. The only downside is the choir organ was re-sited, not really to organ's advantage. The new St. Barnabus, Dulwich is an ideal situation for the organ. Also the modern trend for organs to be at the East end of an open, airly Aisle is usually successful, giving good projection to the Nave while being close enough to the choir. St Giles Cripplegate and Westbourne are good examples.

Interesting. Pierre, fascinating designs. Could explain the rationale behind them a bit? 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. The temperature and humidity in a kitchen aren't really ideal for organs for starters - and I would like as much of house to be free of sound while I play the organ - just in case I fancy a blast at 2am while eveyone else is sleeping... Personally, I would have a large private chapel attached to my house, obviously with excellent acoustics and designed so the temperature and humdity remain constant throughout the year. Something a bit like Milton Abbey would be wonderful. I would invite either Paul Fritts, Ralph Richards or Martin Pasi (or maybe Msgnr Aubertin or Henk van Eeken), show them the organ gallery and say "build me an organ". And I'll enjoy the journey to see what evolves. Something around 3 manuals/40ish stops would be ideal. I suppose I would like it to have a Ruck Positive, a Quintadena and a Vox humana. There would also be an excellent Grand piano, a selection of other keyboard instruments and space for a few other organs, which I would want to rescue - ideally including a Spanish Baroque organ and an early Italian organ. I would also have a second organ on my private yacht. But, to be honest, I already have a lovely organ to practice on, an excellent grand piano in my flat and access to other good organs so I won't complain too much if I don't win the lotto straight away.

I'm struggling too... St Mary's, South Stoneham - very small but a nice West Gallery location; St Luke's, Sarisbury Green... but both of these are in Southampton, which isn't technically part of Hampshire...

Thanks for posting this up David. Interesting stuff! Yes, that so much of the specification is given over to the design and details of the console yet there is so little else on the remainder of the organ speaks volumes... I'm never quite sure being prescriptive like this on the tasks to be carried out in a tender invitation is such a good thing. In this case, this is the sort of specification I would give a plumber, not an organbuilder!

Walkers did quite a few mechanical adjustable composition pedal actions in the 80s and 90s. They're adjusted by a set of switches a bit like butterfly wing nuts. It is clever stuff but I understand there was always a slight question mark over their performance and reliability - the parts are quite delicate and if a butterfly lever is not perfectly aligned, it wouldn't work properly. I think the planned mechanical action scheme for Abergavenny was to be on the same principle - I think there was to be 2 pedals per department. While I think it's probably right to say this project is not abandoned (but it is on ice), I understand it's highly unlikely the project will be realised as originally proposed by Bill Drake and Stephen Bicknell. The other thing about mechanical/pneumatic cominbation actions is expense: an electric stop and combination action is much cheaper and easier to install.

How about Parramata Cathedral in Australia? That's a very modern, architect-designed building. It houses a 1900s Norman & Beard organ in a new case. I've heard it's a success.

It's not unknown for the Great to couple through to the Positive on some continental organs. We might find it a bit odd in England, but it's quite helpful in some Lutheran churches.

Oh dear David, I'm not sure what your experience of consultants is! I'm also not sure how you managed to link my last post to consultants as I didn't mention them or imply them at all! The situation you describe of a consultant (or a "self-appointed expert") "specifying" the voicing and the voicing process is very unhappy and is basically micromanagement. Unfortunately, micromangement usually results in disengagement and mistrust by the other parties and does not encourage good results. While I am sure good organ builders welcome informed discussion with their clients and consultants to establish the parameters of the projects, I know they wouldn't accept a consultant dictating tonal finshing since the ultimate responsibility is and must be theirs. I can't think of a professional consultant who would disagree with that, either. Of course, key to any successful collaboration is effective working relationships. Mutual respect and trust are vital as well as understanding each other's responsibilities and authorities. Although it takes two to make a relationship work, in my experience, the best organ builders have great skills to establish harmonious and effective relationships with all they deal with. It is a very particular skill, which few really understand (either in organ building or wider in business) and even fewer really master: I would hold up Mark Venning and John Pike Mander as people I particularly admire with this skill. I believe at the basis of these skills is a underlying respect for the people they deal with and their opinions, the ability to listen and understand those people, and the nous to keep relationships positive in tone and productive. I was sorry to read about your experience and opinions - it really cannot be doing you or your company any good at all. In my post above, I was merely describing my (happy) experience as an interested observer in the voicing process. In this project we were dealing with a good deal of old material, which did not seem to need much doing to it. It was more of a discovery exercise, finding out how the old voices reunited together worked. I think the results speak for themselves. I have also observed less happy experiences of tonal finishing elsewhere, with a consultant. I was just the dogsbody so I kept my head down, made the tea as benefited my lowly position, and tried to be nice to everyone when they deigned to notice me. I have to say I had far more empathy with the organ builder, who did know what he was doing, than with the consultant. I'm sure we would be very interested to hear Willis's current "system" of voicing choruses. Certainly, I've heard good things mentioned about recent Willis voicing and I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear about your company and voicer's approach and thoughts on it. Let's try and keep this interesting topic on its original subject.

Interesting. Thanks for this. In my example, I can't really say this is the case. The No.2 principal is closest to the No.3 diapason in scaling (I suspect it has been rescaled at some stage) but has been loudened so it no longer forms a comfortable fellow with the No.3 and while it sings out strongly, it doesn't really blend with the No.2. It's not just a question of volume, it's also a question of treatment and compatible design. From my very limited experience, I suspect that designing and voicing a 4' to work with 2x 8's is very much harder than designing it to work with 1. Firstly, the correct scaling needs to be guessed at, the sine non qua being that you correctly assess the effect of the 2 8' stops combined - this is the really difficult bit! If you can do this (and I'd be very interested to find out how you do this), then you can design the 4' accordingly - but the problem is that the 4's will be bigger than the 8's, the 2's bigger still, etc. The danger is of a top-heavy chorus... In my experience, the organ builder and voicer will finish a 4' to work with its corresponding 8', then try it out with various combinations of 8' to see the effect. Usually, the situation is the voicer will go "ooo, that's nice" and may give it a few tweaks but normally won't make any serious changes. It's more a question of giving it final tweaks than designing it from the outset. Most of the organs with 3 Opens/2 Principals have come to us by rebuilds so I can't imagine the design of each of the voices was there from the outset.

Sorry to put a dampener on this but this case doesn't really work for me. The mouldings at the top of the pipe towers look odd - I would expect a freize, topped by architrave and moulding, as per standard architectural practice. Just having the large architrave as here looks all wrong to me, especially in the context of this fairly traditional case. It's interesting - Skrabl have provided cases with correct architectural details before so why haven't they done it here? I find their more eastern European style cases to be their most successful. To my eyes, the entire organ looks too big for the gallery and isn't in correct proportion to its surroundings. I don't like the look of the rest of the organ appearing to spill out behind the case either. Also, are those beards around the mouths of the bass pipes in the towers? What are they doing on this style of organ? Anyway, I'm sure it's a vast improvement on whatever was there before and I think the church at Lyme Regis are to be congratulated on their new installation, even if certain aspects of the details and design don't really appeal to me.

I think organbuilders have always wanted their choruses to be used properly and heard to best advantage to produce the clearest and most attractive musical sounds. On the organ I play most regularly, the Great Open Diapason is the strongest stop and doesn't need any reinforcement in the pleno. Therefore, I will tend to use Gt: 16.8.4.3.2.III with balencing pedal for a Bach pleno. Using the stops on one soundboard also gives the most focussed sound which aids clarity. Adding any extra 8' stops (except reeds) to this doesn't really do very much except waste wind as the grandly warm Open Diapason and harmonics thrown down from above swamps any sound they produce. This chorus is wonderful and you can play the entire Bach F major toccata on it without any stop changes, without having to worry about tiring or boring your audience. You could play it twice to them if you wish. During the 20th Century in England, the pattern of the Diapason chorus evolved as extra Diapasons were added to organs in their successive rebuilds. Quite often some of the upperwork would be rescaled larger by cutting the pipes shorter and moving them a few notes up the scale. So the interrelations between the stops in the chorus was lost to the interests of dynamic variety. I also occasionally play a large, very highly respected, 1950s organ where this is the case. It is a super organ which I think many traditional English organists would hold up as an exemplary organ. The Great Diapason chorus is all to do with how loud the stops are, providing enough dynamic range from being able to not swamp a halting treble solo to shouting down a full congregation with ease. It's a job to control it all. The preoccupation is the volume of the stops and adding them, not traditional chorus building. The character and sound of each of the Diapasons is all different, reached at from revoicing pipes from different sources and periods. Some would praise this organ for its great variety of Diapason colour - and indeed no 2 Diapasons sound alike on this organ and all the principals each provide yet another, individual Diapason sound. But the problem is the No.2 Principal is too large and the wrong scale to work with the No.3 Diapason but it's not large enough for the No.2 Diapason. The No.1 Principal is too big for the No.2 Diapason but not large enough for the No.1 Diapason (which is made to a completely different progression). It's all to with providing different volumes of sound. The sound is always a compromise. The various rebuilds have introduced different scalings and voicing to provide this dynamic variety at the expense of blend, focus and clarity. On this type of organ I think it's fine to say "Ah, Baroque!" and reach for the octave couplers on the swell mixture to provide that much prized "brightness".

Sorry to hear about the cold - there's a lot about (and I've succumbed too) In a nutshell, the ranks of pipes in a diapason or principal chorus (e.g. 8, 4, 2 2/3, 2, etc) should relate to each other in pipe construction, design and scaling (the relationship of the circumference of the pipe to it's speaking length). The reason for this is so the sound from all the pipes blends into a single, unified sound and makes the chorus sounds homoegous and pleasing to the ear. The most simple type of chorus is the "straight" chorus. In a straight chorus, a pipe of a given length (e.g. 2' C) will be the same, whether it sounds middle C in the 8' stop, tenor C in the 4' stop, bottom F in the 2 2/3 stop or bottom C in the 2' stop. In a perfectly straight chorus, they will all produce the same power and sound. The effect of this chorus is very strong, with a lot of harmonic interest. It can make a bold, ringing sound which is very effective in a large space, where the air will attenuate the higher frequencies. In a smaller, intimate space, the effect of a straight chorus can be rather wearing on the ears. So many builders would make the higher pitched pipes in the chorus quieter. The easiest way to do this is in the voicing: an easy way is to make the hole at the bottom tip of the pipe smaller , while means the pipe gets less wind and so sounds quieter. This type of chorus can sound very appealing, with a lot of homegenity and excellent blend. But if the pipe is made to speak too quietly, the sound of the higher pitched pipes can become bland and unappealing, with problems starting the pipe speech. Another way to make the pipes to sound quieter is to make them smaller scale - so they're narrower. This allows the higher pitched pipes to keep a harmonically interesting sound while at a lower level of output and gets around the problems listed above. Builders have experiemented with many different relationships between the scalings of the pipes in the choruses over the years. One of the simplest methods is to rescale the pipes one or 2 notes small each time you go up. So the 4' stop at bottom C will have the same diameter as the pipe in the 8' rank at tenor D (i.e. not tenor C), bottom C of the 2' stop will be the same scale as middle e of the 8' stop (i.e. not middle C) and so on and so forth. One further factor to throw into this is halvings. You would imagine that the diameter/length relationship of the pipes remains constant throughout their lengths so a 4' pipe will have a diameter exactly half that of an 8' pipe because it is half the length. This doesn't happen. Lower pitched pipes will need more hamonics in their sound so the human ear can detect their pitch more quickly but the higher pitched pipes would sound too shrill and thin if they were the same scale. There's also some technical details of the pipes to take into account as well as they get smaller. But basically, most ranks of organ pipes halve their diameter somewhere around every 15th note (i.e. so tenor D# will be 1/2 the diameter of bottom C). Now, if you apply that to re-scaling of the higer pitches above you'll find that bottom C of the 4' rank is the same diameter as tenor or F in the 8' rank and the gap widens as you go to the 2' stops - Bottom C of the 2' rank will be around the same diameter as middle G or A of the 8' rank. Different builders had slightly different flavours to this. In the earliest organs, the relationship between the pipe circumference and length was geometric. If you plotted a graph of pipe length against pipe circumference for a single rank of pipes on a graph you'd get a straight line, with the length halving every octave (every 12th pipe), the circumference halving whenever the organbuilder had chosen (typcially somthing like every 15th pipe). Dom Bedos describes a method where the builder would use a dulcimer to determine the scale of the pipes. Basically, you had a big board with a diagonal line on it. The builder would put a piece of pipe metal against it at the length the pipe was to be and measure off from the side of the board to the diagonal line the width of the pipe (this would determine the pipe's circumference). Hey presto, the organ builder has his pipe metal of the correct dimensions and he doesn't even need to be able to read. It is highly likely that this method was used until surprisingly recently. The evidence from the choruses of the Victorian organs of Hill, Willis, Gray and Davison and J.W.Walker seem to conform to this geometric progression (or variants thereupon) until the years between WW1 and WW2, where the demand for new organs dried up and the majority of the work turn to rebuilding. It's a bit difficult to be sure of this - organ builders in this period jealously guarded their scaling plans in a way we find difficult to understand today. In the 1830s, theorists like Toepfer proposed a new method of scaling pipes, using logarithmic scales. The standard scale was born but the majority of well-established builders (listed above), brought up in the noble tradition of organ builders passing down their skills and knowledge through the generations (and probably without the knowledge of how to wield a slide rule), did not adopt these new principals as quickly as has been suggested. Schultz and Lewis were early adopters and it tended to be the provincial builders and supply houses that seem to have been the early adopters of Toepfer's ideas, using the (slightly spurious) argument that the (supposedly) scientific principals of this scaling method were superior to the older, geometic-based, methods. Today, organs are predominately scaled to a variation of Toepfer's ideas, with the ideas of scaling to alternative methods confined to a very few small pockets. If we were to compare the difference in the scalings between these 2 methods we would see something quite interesting. If we were to plot the pipes in the Toepfer standard scale as a straight line, we would see our geometrically-scale pipes whizzing off to a hugely wide scale in the extreme bass, being proportionately narrowerer in the mid-range of the keyboard (between somewhere in the tenor octave in the 8' rank and about an octave above middle c) before broadening out to be wider scale in the extreme treble. As you can imagine, the problem comes if we try to combine pipes scaled from different builders with different schools of thought. Ralph Downes, with a little knowledge of Toepfer standard scales, really couldn't make head of tail of the scales employed in old contiental organs which were never designed using these principals - hence free variable scaling was invented. However, consider adding a 2' rank scaled to toepfer-based logarithmic scales to a geometrically-based chorus. This is fraught with risk and danger. Even if the new rank is balenced to give the right amount of power to fit in with the pipes beneath, in some places of the keyboard the pipes will have to forced to speak very loudly compared to the other pipes on the same note and so they won't blend together comfortably - the new material will stick out. In other parts of the keyboard, the new pipes would have to quietened down and so the nature of the sound would be different again - the new material will sound muddy and indistinct. Now try playing a scale across the entire compass and see how the nature of the sound changes! Of course, at a basic level, it'll work if the regulation is OK but to someone who can objectively appreciate the difference of the sound of the choruses of different builders, the results will be horrible. This is why sticking a modern mixture made to standard modern scales from a trade supplier on top of your 1860s Hill or Walker Great principal chorus is to be discouraged. So if a chorus says "it is based on a certain 8' stop" it means that the higher pitched pipes of the same family of stops are designed relate to that stop to form a homogenous chorus, as the organ builder envisaged and designed it.

I think most sub and super octave couplers on new mechanical action organs employ electric action - which is also making a come-back on "mechanical" action organs for inter-manual coupling, etc. As you say, sub and super octave couplers employing genuine mechanical action are generally heavy and unpleasent - even on modern mechanical actions. I think sub and super octaves became more widespread when pneumatic action in the mid to late 19th Century made these types of couplers more feasible. There were some isolated experiements with octave couplers earlier than this but met with limited success.

For ARCO, the RCO will give you an allocated practice slot (about 1-2 hrs, if I remember) at St.Barnabus Dulwich 2-3 weeks before the exam. Obviously you'll need to find some more practice slots, if you are going for AR. I get the impression St Barnabus is used pretty heavily during the RCO exam periods so I'd be surprised if you get the opportunity to do regular (i.e. daily) practice there. Maybe someone like William McVicker (who is organist of St Barnabus) might be able to help? One of the hats he wears is Dioscean organ advisor for Southwark so he can probably suggest somewhere in the Streatham/Dulwich area. Unless other bored members can help?

Hi Dave Thanks for these - utterly fascinating stuff! That building in Wroclaw/Breslau (should we re-name the hymn tune Breslau to Wroclaw I wonder?) is fascinating and extraordinary.

I don't think we realise today how much composers and musicians collaborated and shared ideas across the borders in the 16th and early 17th century. Frescobaldi's music travelled from Italy to Germany, the Netherlands, France, England, etc and inspired composers to write their own efforts. William Byrd and John Bull shared music with Sweelinck: Sweelinck wrote variations on John Bull's themes and visa versa. There seemed to be a little community that seemed to enjoy excellent communications with their collaborators across Europe. It's extraordinary considering the difficulties of communications and travel in those days. The upshot of this is that many of the very earliest organs (15th & 16th century) are more notable for their similarities than their differences. Things like the F- keyboard compass and tuning seemed to span from Italy to the Netherlands. I don't believe these things were a coincidence. I think it's entirely appropriate to play Sweelinck at Adlington Hall and John Bull at Uithuizen. It is really in the later 16th century through to the 19th century that each country's style of instrument diverged further from other countries, although ideas still continued to cross-pollinate across the borders. I think there's a lot to be gained from playing, say French Classical style music on a pre-1800 English organ. Although we've mentioned the Dallam's sojourn to Brittany, I think it was Smith's Flemish influence from the Netherlands that probably had the largest effect on the English organ - which, in turn, has French roots. Even if a period English organ can't muster a 16' Plein Jeu, it is quite capable of a Grand Jeu and many other appropriate trio and duo combinations. Of course, not on the same scale as a true French Classical organ in a French church but informative to listener and player all the same. It's just as appropriate to try a Grand Jeu on an 18th Century Spanish organ - yes, you can do it and the results are quite literally hair-raising! Similarly, why not play period continental manuals-only repertoire, like a lot of Krebs, on a period English organ? Yes, I agree we do not do enough to promote our own literature. It has the same roots as the continental repertoire and I think it is just as important as the music of Sweelinck, Froberger, Kerll and Muffat - maybe more so to us Brits. I certainly think we should treat our own repertoire with the same level of hallowed respect as say, the Dutch regard Sweelinck. I think much of the problem is to do with finding appropriate organs (also with the appropriate temperament) - although I know of several appropriate early instruments within 50 miles of here, access is not always so easy! Best wishes Colin

Thanks for your comments so far. Please could we try to keep this topic on track to the original subject, which is to do with the approach and philosophies of teaching, rather than how to register a particular school of organ music on the organs at our own disposal. To pick up on some points: "we have in the UK the relative luxury of being within an hour's journey of an immense variety of instruments" Yes, this very true if we make it entirely clear we're talking about jumping on Eurostar or EasyJet from the UK. TBH, from Winchester, I find it is just as easy and quick to go to Leiden for the day as it is to go to Newcastle. This is often overlooked. The "immense variety" in England mainly comprises restorations of Early English organs, English Romantic organs and a variety of 20th century instruments, both foreign and indigenous. It's quite right to be passionate and positive about the rich heritage and diversity of English organs we have but we also need to be aware of its shortcomings. There's not much else but these schools of organ, except the very rare French or German 19th century organ, which, with one or 2 notable exceptions (Farnborough Abbey stands out), have been heavily modified. " I want to teach the music - phrasing, fingering, analysis etc. I am not particularly looking for the 'authentic' sounds at that stage. " Yes but in order to teach historic fingering, phrasing and understanding, it so helps to have the right organ at one's disposal as the sound is only one aspect to an historic organ (otherwise, we could all use Hauptwerk or whatever it is). There is also the console, wind supply and experience of playing on an historic organ to take into account. This is mainly the point that's inspired this topic. Early fingering in Sweelinck doesn't really make much sense on a modern keyboard and many students in the UK don't really see the point - to the extent that some will ridicule early fingering - but go and play it on a Brabant style instrument with its short, small keys and it's a revelation! Suddenly, everything - the fingering, phrasing and articulation - all come together and make sense - although it's quite an intense learning experience. The "sounds" are only 1 aspect to an organ. " There seems (alas) such interest on playing the sounds before knowing the music" I agree. I think this has already been borne out by the digressions on this topic about registering French classical music on our H&H/Vowles/Uncle Tom Cobbley and Sons. "As well as having an opportunity of seeing the lands that bore the instruments and the rest of the culture/architecture, " This is so true. I think it really helps to understand the culture and influences on the composers and organists at the time of the music. It really makes the music come alive. And it broadens a musician's outlook to appreciate the art, culture and architecture in which the music was written and the instruments built. I often think organists should have the broadest outlook as their instruments are so often tied up intrinsically with the context of their time and period: the architecture, history, politics and sociology of the place and period in which the organs were built. It also helps to understand music for other instruments and the types of musical instruments used at the time. For example, I remember Nigel talking about the small baroque consorts of Bach's time and using the context of that to make a Bach Trio sonata come alive; I remember Pier Damiano Peretti talking about the brass and woodwind ensembles common in Buxtehude's time and how this affected his registrations and performances of Buxtehude's music (like Nun Freut Euch). I find these tit-bits of information fuel my imagination and inspiration for the music and performing it. "It is good to have a mixing as students and their experiences seem an admirable talking point and lasting friendships can be made" Very true. It's a very broadening (and sometimes humbling) experience to hear other students from different countries play and find out about their musical background and education. Often, I think our music establishments could do well to develop stronger links with foreign conservatoires- it would be beneficial to all parties. I think this type of cross-pollination of ideas across countries is growing and developing, especially in organbuilding. I remember talking to german organ builders working at H&H when my organ was being built. This is not uncommon. I know a number of English builders have either trained or worked on the continent or the states and I think we all benefit. "For a start, the organ needs to be correct for the room and not 'we need a so-and so'. That is courting disaster in my estimation. " Yes, this is so very true. And quite often the style of the room will give a lead for the right style of instrument. Stephen Bicknell makes this point very well here: "Oxbridge Colleges need eclectic instruments which in many folk's mind need to be accompanimental instruments first and foremost with a nod to one tradition or another if they can." Yes, absolutely right that Oxbridge colleges want an instrument that performs the duties for the functioning of the chapel, which for many colleges will boil down to choral accompanimental work as the No.1 priority. We also need to take in to account the point above, that the instrument also needs to be appropriate for the room and not a "we need a so-and-so". I also think it is very important than an organ is beautiful, especially in the glorious, inspiring surroundings of many Oxbridge college chapels. However, I think that flexibility is the main requirement here, not eclectism. There are a good deal of college chapels which seem perfectly happy with their 1870s Willis or Binns or whatever. The instrument, whatever its style, needs to be readily adaptable to lend itself to the main musical requirements of the chapel - whether that be choral accompaniment, solo repertoire or congregational work. Whether that be an English Romantic organ, a French Romantic organ - or something completely different. It is a question of adapting the features on organ in the chapel to the music, not lamenting that the organ doesn't have a tuba/cornet/pedal divide/swell oboe/Pedal Septieme/8 pistons per division. An organ with a cohesive musical structure, carefully designed for the chapel and so that every element contributes to a single whole in the organ is far more important than the expectation that the organ draws on multiple schools of thought, historical periods and schools of organ building. "all (the organs) have musicality which can inspire in one way or another" Yes, inspiration is very important, especially with teaching. An inspired student can overcome so many obstacles, like having the wrong style organ at his disposal, for example. "the dangers of practising the sound" Yes. I think it's important to have experienced the sound of authentic instruments for yourself so you know what you're aiming for when you're playing the organ at your disposal. That knowledge of the sounds of different schools of organ will help you in registration choices far more than any book or teacher's advice. Playing the music is the important thing - but one needs to have the contextural understanding to understand the music and make it come alive.

Comment aimed primarily at David and Sean removed.

I thought Bazuin made a very apposite point in a recent topic, which I thought was worthy of further exploration: If you go to, say, the Amsterdam, Hamburg or Innsbruck Academy, there is a great emphasis on teaching using period instruments (or faithful reconstructions) to guide students in their understanding and learning of period repertoire. So students will get the opportunity to practice and be taught Franck, Widor and Vierne on a Cavaille-Coll, Bach on an early 18th Century organ, Frescobaldi on an Antegniati, etc. In a nutshell, the guiding thought is that letting students listen to and play period repertoire on period instruments lets them experience what the composers knew themselves and allows them to make their own discoveries and conclusions about playing their music. Quite often, this will go hand-in-hand with studies on other period keyboard instruments at the Academy - so Harpsichord and Clavichord for early music, piano and harmonium for romantic music. The cross-over between the techniques of playing these different keyboard instruments with corresponding technique on the organ is emphasized - such as the use of clavichord techniques playing Bach. Other academies and conservatoires have a different focus and do a greater proportion of their teaching on modern, "eclectic" instruments - with standardised console dimensions and modern console accessories, etc. Their rationale is to equip their students for the flight decks of modern concert hall organs and cathedral organs - so one can tell the difference between a sequencer and a stepper and knows how to control scope, I suppose. Plus develop a modern technique - Germani pedal technique, etc. Based on the recent evidence of the latest organ being built for the RAM, it could be inferred the RAM overall fall into the latter camp, although I know they also organise annual trips to the continent for their students to experience organs of different periods and schools and have lectures from William McVicker on organ history so this may not be entirely fair. What do people see as the relative merits and advantages of each approach? Of course, I don't think any single conservatoire offers a single, wholly polarised approach (such that they ONLY play historic organs built before 1850 or ONLY play modern eclectic organs built since 1970) but what are people's thoughts on the merits of different teaching styles?

I am slightly bemused by the RAM's choice of new organ. As Bazuin points out, they already have good access to a large, modern eclectic instrument at St Marylebone. Why would the RAM want a second instrument in such a similar style? There is a notable shortage of authentic period French, German, Spanish or Italian instruments in London. There are a number of builders today who are quite capable of building organs successfully in a variety of foreign period styles. As well as adding an interesting and unique contribution to the organ landscape of London, commissioning a project to build an organ in a particular historic style at the RAM could have been used to further study into different periods and schools of organ building, which could have contributed to the international arena - as the Gothenburg organ project has, for example. I don't see an opportunity for this type of scholarship in the project the RAM have embarked upon, which is why I feel this project is a missed opportunity. Surely commissioning an organ to be built in an authentic foreign period style would also reap a richer teaching resource to the RAM as well as developing their status in the international arena? What about a replica of a late German Romantic instrument - maybe a Sauer, late Ladegast or Walcker? Such an instrument would be perfectly usable for all the roles in a concert hall as well as providing valuable teaching and research resourices. There are already plenty replicas of French Romantic organs so replicating a different style of organ would contribute something new.

Sarah Baldock is playing at St Mary the Virgin, Twyford on 6 October 2009 at 7:30pm. (That's the Hampshire Twyford - at SO21 1NT, just off junction 11 of the M3) Tickets £10/£8 concs, which includes a glass of wine and refreshments after the concert. Be good to see lots of board subscribers there!