Colin Harvey

Yeah, I think 30 degrees would be fine for this type of organ and console. A lot of mainstream English builders put the jambs at a shallow-ish angle on their smaller organs (angled, but not as deep as 45 degrees) these days so I think that would be perfectly appropriate here.

Interesting topic. I think Cynic raises a very good point: "What really determines the comfort level of any of these designs is how far the jambs are set back from the key-frames" Absolutely right! And this is very frequently overlooked when designing a console. If the stop jambs are set too far back from the keyboards, it makes it much harder to change stops - you really have to stretch. Here is a very good example of an organ console with this problem: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/PSearch.cgi...D07926&no=4 Look at the distance between the tails of the highest keyboard and the start of the jambs. Ouch! It's surprisingly uncomfortable to manipulate stops on this console, which otherwise looks comfortable and efficient. A shame on what is otherwise a lovely, musical and sensitively designed organ. Although I've yet to play it, I suspect this organ has the same issue: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/PSearch.cgi...E01245&no=3 Both these consoles could have kept their clean modern looks and yet be much more comfortable if the builder had moved the jambs forward. Next point: "If I go for something that feels right for me am I being a bit selfish for anyone else who might come to play the instrument in the future" I think you need to think in terms of what is the right style of console for the organ. If it's an early/mid Victorian style organ, this should be reflected in the design of the console. I wouldn't expect to see angled jambs and a sequencer on a 15 stop 1860 Hill organ - it would be out of place. I think this should guide your decision making and this at least justifies your decisions to your successors. Otherwise, I entirely second Cynic's comments. The only other thing I would add is that if you have flat jambs and more than 1 column of stops, it's more awkward to pull stops out on the outer column if the stops closer to the organist are already drawn - especially if the stops have a long draw. For this reason, I think that it's slightly better to err on the side of single columns if you've got flat jambs, even if the stops end up rising quite high. Obviously there's a limit - probably towards the highest point of the music desk is more than high enough. For example, one nearly needs to stand up to reach the highest stops on the left hand jamb of this curiously awkward organ console: http://www.peartreechurch.org.uk/Music/peartreedetail.jpg (there's another couple of stops at the top of the left hand jamb, outside the photo...) One would hardly believe the design of this console dates from 1895! It really hasn't moved forward in design terms from 1848, the date of this console, which inspired me when I got an opportunity to influence an organ console design: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/PSearch.cgi...N07483&no=1 http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/PSearch.cgi...P00129&no=3

Hi Hector - just listening to the first clip. Don't think you've got anything to apologise for about the standard of playing. Lamentable isn't the word I would use. Thanks for bringing this super organ to our attention.

Found it on Youtube as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlcw_42vv78

Oh Dear! I feel this debate is getting a bit too heated and emotions are beginning to show. I think a bit more respect and a little less emotion needs to be shown in some of the response above (including mine). I'm certain Leeds Cathedral have spent a good deal of time and effort selecting a builder. A project like this is going to be in the region of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Nobody today is going to select a builder casually for this sort of money, least of all a Cathedral. I'm sure Benjamin Saunders and the Cathedral have spent a lot of time selecting builders for consideration, inspecting examples of each builders' work and forming relationships to finally select the builder that's right for them. It's a protracted business and many things influence the final decision. I'm sure they've done a very conscientious job and are well justified in their choice of builder. I'm sure everyone here respects Leeds Cathedral's decision and wishes them well for a successful and happy project. I'm sure no-one here wants to hinder the project in any way - in fact, I'm sure we all want to give Ben, Klais and his project our full support. I think every project gets the question "why are you using so-and-so as organ builder?" I got asked that question several times. Sometimes it was irritating, especially from people who really knew very little about the project and the builders. I think Henry Willis's and Bazuin's question and their considerable experience should be respected, even if people here don't like the question. I don't sense a lack of respect or jealousy from either Bazuin or HW - in fact, they've been very deferential. So please let's avoid ad hominem attacks on them that subvert answering the question. Of course, no-one has to answer their question but let's try to avoid branding them dogmatic, glib and ignorant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Ben - I apologize if you misread my last message as implying you and Leeds Cathedral were "clueless". I really didn't mean to - I was thinking of some less happy projects where the client had micro-managed the builder against their better judgement. I've never met you and know next to nothing about the project at Leeds - so who am I to speak about it?

Interesting. If I'm honest, I found it a bit too ponderous and heavy. Mendelssohn's metronome marks are right for this piece! The recording and acoustic robs a lot of clarity but I don't think it's right to play it slower to compensate.

Attacks ad hominem, not ad nomine. To be honest, a difficult or clueless client can be just as much a hindrance to an organ project as an organ consultant. They can be just as much to blame for a bad project. There are one or two very good consultants out there (who can also help sort out difficult clients for the builder) but there are some consultants who bring questionable benefit to a project. A good client or consultant will develop the environment and inspiration for the builder to create the best organ they possibly can. And that certainly will not stem from micro-management and having unrealistic ideas of the parties' knowledge or abilities. The organ building craft today is far smaller in the UK than it was in the 19th Century. In Victorian times nearly all major builders were turning out organs by the dozen each year and made all their major components, like pipes, soundboards and actions, in-house. So they had a huge opportunity to develop their ideas and skills. It would only be in the third and fourth rank builders where firms would rely on trade suppliers for pipes, soundboards, etc. This is not the case today, where new organs are built less frequently and there is more widespread use of trade suppliers, like P&S, even by some well-respected names in high-profile contracts. This isn't unique to the UK - it's just as common on the continent and USA. I think there's an element of the rhetorical about David Wyld's question but I too am a bit puzzled why Klais have been given the project to add a sanctuary section to an organ. Their style works best in large, continental basilicas and modern concert halls. The effect in more delicate surroundings can be distinctly harsh and unlovely. I'm puzzled why they were even considered to build a somewhat unheroic chancel section for what I assume is for choral accompaniment purposes. Maybe Benjamin can elucidate?

I have to say I think the Ad Nos is simply magnificent. Superb organist and magnificent organ which is perfect for the music. Played from memory and hand-registered throughout... (love the free reed here) Re. Pierre's discovery of his Mendelssohn - I've come across it too. It's fine - the latest RCO Journal has an interesting article that suggests Mendelssohn may not have played his own music in a Neo-Classical Bach inspired manner after all. Contemporary sources indicate he might have changed stops during movements and might not played everything detatche with micro-articulations.

Cynic's advice is good, as ever. Do try Derrick Carrington of the Rendundant Organ Rehousing company. He's not far from your part of the world either. However, I would take issue with the advice above and suggest at least a modicum of restraint. I've come across a small Willis organ where the pedal division was a lone Bourdon, later expanded in this manner - and it had more stops than the rest of the organ put together. Did it make the pedal organ vastly more effective? No, it didn't - it merely made the entire organ ridiculous. What use is a 5 1/3 stop on a pedal organ - especially if the organ is small? Isn't a 32' bass derived from 1 stop quinted on itself a ghastly and ugly sound - especially if the stop is Victorian and of vast scale in the bottom octave? Why not just play down the octave at times and - if you must - use other (more effective) tricks for 32' effects? A Victorian Bourdon extended upwards will make a fairly non-descript (although heavily used) 8' Bass Flute and (without fail, in my experience) an infrequently used, 3rd rate 4' flute. What are you going to use this 4' for? Because at best it'll do nothing, at worst, it'll stick out like a sore thumb in the sound of the rest of the organ. Will it provide an independent pedal? No, it won't because the flute based pedal extension chorus won't balance happily or sit comfortably with the principal-based manual chorus. Will you be able to play 4' chorale tunes in Bach Chorale Preludes? I doubt it... Again, for trio sonatas, would not all but the most dogmatic neo-classicist find it an acceptable compromise to couple the RH manual to the pedal for the pedal to have more definition? Why not leave it to the ingenuity of the organist to extract as much versatility out of the organ at his disposal? If we start to modify organs in this way, do we not rob them of their character and disfigure them into something artistically deformed, into a shape they were never intended? Were not the Orcs in LOTR once elves, tortured and disfigured into their ghastly shape? When I come across a much rebuilt or modified organ, I experience the same sense of revulsion and loss. My experience is that I've gone from an organ with 8 pedal stops to an organ with 3 - and the organ with 3 pedal stops is so vastly finer than the old organ I've not once missed the 5 less pedal stops (including 4 foots and acoustic 32s - the 5 1/3 had disappeared in the 1980s). This pedal organ does everything it needs to because the overall concept of the organ and its design are strong and well thought out. The pedal organ's role is clear in this organ so the organist never feels a sense of compromise or inadequacy. In fact, when you hear the organ or look inside it, compromise is the word furthest from your lips.

Hi Paul What a good thing to discuss!! I've listened and measured Jean Costa's recording for you: Opening - crotchet = 120 Quaver movement before the final 2 pages - minim = 92 Chordal section (with dotted pedal) on final 2 pages - minim = 72 Total play time = 11'37'' I heard a friend's recording of M-C Alain on the Erato label over the weekend. She pushes the tempo much more - there's a lot more urgency to it while Costa is more reserved. Despite myself, I have to say I much prefer M-C Alain's recording. According to iTunes, she times in at 11'05''. The free sample on iTunes shows her opening (the pedal solo) is much slower. The iTunes sample also picks up an annoying mixture break in her pedal opening at St Etienne in Caen. I think it's a piece that needs lots of panache to make it work and pull it off - its affekt and general writing are hardly scholarly... Interesting comments about Schumann too. Yes, the 6th Fugue speeds up and Schumann also asks for the first fugue to pick up speed from the middle onwards. I also accelerate the 4th fugue a bit, starting off at about crotchet = 92, speeding only gradually to about 104-108. It seems justified with the writing and crescendo from mf to ff for the final 2 pages. Also published at about the same time (1845) Mendelssohn asks for the semiquaver section of the 3rd sonata to pick up speed gradually from crotchet = 72 to crotchet = 100 when it returns to the major (but asks for a rit to the original tempo in the final 2 bars). (BTW, I've just realised you've recorded the Schumann Fugues at Southwell and I haven't heard it so I'm ordering a CD...) Hope this helps Best wishes Colin

Oh, yes, playing romantic organ music at TSCH is a good challenge!! I found that I had 2 options for a celeste: 1. Use the gambe with the tremulant. It was a good wheeze but you had to play very legato and carefully so the gambe's wheezes don't disrupt things... 2. In a concert, one could couple the Oberwerk Gedeckt to the Brustwerk Gedeckt. If there were enough people in the concert hall, there would be enough of a temperature difference (you only really need 3 degrees) for it to form a nice flute celestes... ******************************************** Rather interesting that Tommie Trotter is trotting out the 6 trio sonatas again in this neck of the woods. He did the same concert about 1 or 2 years ago at Winchester Cathedral and even more recently at Queen Elizabeth Hall (a very straightforward train journey away from Soton). Some of you may be surprised to hear the Trio Sonatas work very well in Winchester Cathedral. However, the Cathedral organ works very well (the EP action here is responsive and accurate) and there are plenty of suitable sounds on the organ to choose from. The acoustic in the Quire (where everyone sat) is very clear and intimate so we could hear everything in very acceptable clarity. It proved to be a surprisingly good venue for what turned out to be a very good gig.

This is a good idea! Shall we use this thread to suggest new CDs and recordings we've come across which we'd recommend?

In a bid to do something "not French" and to celebrate his bicentenary year, I did Mendelssohn Sonata III

Absolutely seconded.

Thank you for this link!! Tom Murray's performance of these canonic studies and the sketches are superb - there's a fine recording of his by JAV on the Schoenstein at Lincoln, Nebraska - well worth having! This music is much, much harder to play than it sounds. To play it with this level of control and to make it sound so effortless and musical is a major feat of organ playing. I play this piece so know exactly what he's doing and Tom Murray's performance still leaves me in wondrous admiration. I've yet to come across a recording of the Schumann BACH Fugues that I like. Any suggestions?

Haha! I think we must all get one. Then we must all learn how to play it (the standard to which we can play it is not that important) and and join the nearest "music group" at the local happy-clappy church (where the organ is frowned upon or discarded) and unleash our Bombardes on the tambourines and guitars... Where they use electronic amplification, remember to ask for a microphone for your Bombarde...

Looking at this year, I see David Titterington is playing Elgar Organ Sonatas 1 & 2 on Sat 25 July.

"Looking at Nicholsons' ad for this organ in 'Choir & Organ' recently, it struck me as a bit odd that in a large scheme which unashamedly 'marks a return to the romantic English style' there doesn't appear to be a tuba, tromba, or big solo reed of any description. It's got just about everything else you could want. Is this really the case, and if so, does anyone know the thinking behind it?" Yes, you're right but if you look at older copies of Choir & Boredom, you'll notice there's not only an unenclosed Tuba but also an Orchestral Trumpet. Panic averted then. It might just be me but I find this specification speaks more to me of modern eclecticism with a gloss of English Romanticism than a genuine English Romantic organ. Look at the seven ranks of quint Mixture on Great and Swell, the choir mutations and mixture, the complete flute and principal choruses on the Choir organ. However, it's nice to see a fully traditional romantic Solo organ specified though - I'll be interested to see how it turns out - but otherwise you will forgive me if I cannot detect any originality in the specification. The most recent Nicholsons I've seen speak to me of unapologetic modernism in their own style, when the gloss of traditional English nomenclature is removed: they are built in an uncompromising modern way which speaks more of efficient manufacture and wholesale adoption of modern techniques than building in a particular style. Not that there is anything wrong with that: builders have always done this throughout history and Nicholson organs are soundly made and finished. The same goes for the tonal result, which seems to aim for the same sort of tonal qualities that Wyvern and Makin seem to arrive at, albeit with the advantage of real pipes. Not that there's anything wrong with that - they are competent and worthy organs and fulfil the needs and expectations of their customers - but they're not like a vintage Hill, Lewis or Willis. Not that you should understand I am criticising Nicholsons in any way: when faced with something genuinely competent, the senses are keyed up to the next level and the bar for excellence rises. I will be interested to see how far Nicholsons go to recreating something genuinely romantic at Llandaff or whether it remains on the gloss of the stop list.

I'm quite interested in the development of 2 organs in British Cathedrals: Southwell has a Screen organ speaking into the Quire of 4 manuals and 51 stops, with a Nave organ of 3 manuals and 44 stops in the nave triforium; Chelmsford has a chancel organ of 2 manuals and 24 stops (with a 3rd manual for coupling and playing the Nave organ) with a West Gallery nave organ of 4 manuals and 40 stops; Worcester has a 4 manual quire organ of 57 stops with plans for a second organ of similar size in the nave. I'm sure people on this board can add many other examples. The pattern and thought that seems to be evolving in British Cathedrals is that the larger organ is intended for the smaller space. The Southwell example speaks into the relatively intimate Quire with some pretty high pitched mixture choruses on 3 manuals with an electronic 32' reed in its 51 stops. The organ is shoe-horned (squeezed?) into a relatively small case for the size of the organ and the fourth manual is home to the unusual (and rather dubious) collection of lone 4' flute, cornet (conveyed to a chest above the Great organ soundboard) and party horn. Worcester (an organ I've yet to see) is similarly sized, with the three enclosed divisions of the organ in the triforium while the Great and Pedal organs occupy the cases cantilevered out at triforium level. Although I've yet to hear it, I can imagine that the Great organ and the pedal reeds in particular must speak with some presence throughout the building, while the enclosed divisions must have quite a job to get out of the fairly deep swell boxes, through those small apertures out of the triforium and though the Great and Pedal divisions. It must be quite a miracle if they can be heard in the quire, let alone the rest of the building. It must have been a very difficult job to get the thing to balence - I think Ken Tickell and his voicers deserve every credit if they've managed to get the divisions to balance well with themselves. Contrast this to the common 2 organ situation on the continent. The Netherlands and France are typical. In France, one will find the Grande Orgue, complete with Organiste Titulaire, occupying the entire west wall, capable of filling the entire basilica with Earthquake, Wind and Hailstones of Fire, all at once with just a single note. In the east end is the much smaller (commonly 2 manual) Orgue de Choeur, frequently with reversed console, for use with the choir. St Sulpice and Notre Dame are the two examples that spring to mind instantly - as do the scorings of the Widor and Vierne Masses which require these 2 organs. The Netherlands have a situation that, on the face of it, looks similar: the large West Gallery organ and the Koororgel. We all know about the Grote organ but the choir organ is often overlooked. One example that's always captured my imagination is this: http://www.orgelsite.nl/amsterdam3.htm And how many of us have overlooked this as we head for the famous Muller at the west end? http://www.orgelsite.nl/haarlem1.htm (and yes, I have no idea what it's like either...) None of these continental examples try to squeeze a large 4 manual into an Quire organ, with whatever design compromises that may entail. However, I think it might involve overlooking an important school of music that has evolved since Walmisley penned his evening canticles in D minor to expect British Cathedrals to adopt Quire organs of continental size. The British Cathedral Quire is used for the majority of the choral services and the choral tradition has evolved the requirements for the organ accompanying these services to become ever larger and complex, initially from transcriptions of orchestral accompaniments to things like Finzi's God is Gone up. Of course, more stops does not necessarily mean louder: more stops give the organ more variety of sound, while more divisions give the organ more contrasts and make it easier to orchestrate the effects and contrasts while managing the organ with less effort - all of which are highly desirable for choral accompaniment. As has already been mentioned, a "gemeentezangorgel" is quite adequate for accompanying a congregation - but this need not be a large organ, as long as it has sufficient sound and presence for the congregation. In addition, I think the argument for proper 16' manual support on this type of organ is not to be overlooked, especially as half the congregation will be singing an octave lower than pitch anyway - so why does the West Great at the proposed new organ at Llandauff have a 5 rank mixture in its 4 stops but no 16'? (especially odd as every other manual division has a 16' stop) I think my main concern about the organs in British Cathedrals with 2 separate organs for Quire and Nave is that the organs should be very carefully designed for the space and purpose they're intended for. I don't have a problem with a 4 manual organ in the Quire and another large organ in the Nave but I do think it is a mistake if the Quire organ is too large and too loud to be used in its entirety for a service in the Quire and its sound is confused or overbearing to listeners in the Quire. If builders are to build separate Nave and Quire organs, they need to understand and develop their craft to build organs that work in the intimate environment of the Quire, with the subtly, seamless blend and crescendo and beauty of sound the Anglican choral tradition demands, while still being able to understand and successfully apply the (slightly different) principles to build an organ capable of filling a larger space like the Nave for accompanying the massed congregation. Most importantly: it is vital they understand the difference between the two styles and know what to apply where. Sometimes I feel modern organs are still too much under the influence of the neo-classical ideals, where powerful upperwork and mixtures were encouraged and all divisions needed to be placed at the front of the organ. This is fine in a large space, where higher frequencies are attenuated as they travel through air (like the Nave) but this is rarely required in the more intimate environment of a Cathedral Quire, where the organ needs to be sociable and subtle at close quarters and at all dynamic levels. It needs to go from very quiet sounds which somehow have enough space to sound distant and yet have presence, grandeur and dignity when summoned while still not yelling at its listeners in the Quire. I think it would help if there was greater confidence to build organs in a particular style so it was not felt necessary to include both a Sesquialtera, Cornet decompose and 32' pedal reed to serve all types of organ music. Clients need to know better than to ask for large eclectic instruments in both spaces and instead start to focus on the purpose of the organs in difference spaces and ask for something suitable for its location and purpose, rather than something that will be compromised from the outset by being too large for its location - both in physical space for the organ and the space it's intended to be heard in. I think the most recent organs could benefit by being more economical in their means by eschewing eclecticism and applying better understanding how to apply a single style to get more colour and interest out of a single organ out of fewer stops and space. This would not only have benefits for the size of the organ, it would help the quality, musical interest and effect of the organ in the space it occupies.

I've just been on a small voyage of discovery around the stunning Hinsz organ of Kampen, courtesy of YouTube. Ab Weengenaar's playing is very fine - detailed, musical, poised and sensitive to both music and instrument alike. His playing is interesting to observe to in the light of recent discussions on this subject elsewhere on the board. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWzLvxj_IlQ - This music probably won't be to some people's taste (especially to some on this board) especially if they don't like Mozart. However, even they will had to concede it's beautifully played on a stunning organ. And it'll make you feel good! - Who says 18th century organs can't play romantic music?! - This is what Vox Humanas are really about! Nice 16' Dulzian/Fagot in the opening too. - a tour inside the organ. Everyone interested in the insides of organs will be interested in this; those who know lots about the insides of organs will be very impressed. There are also some nice C17 frescos for those not interested in the insides of the organs. It also helps if you can understand Dutch. Enjoy!!

This is great! The playback ability so you can hear what you're creating in Worcester Cathedral is simply brilliant. The experience is just like you're there, playing it yourself! I've now hooked it up to my midi player so I can play all the Demisseaux Etudes on it perfectly now. This is nothing short of a miracle if you've seen me play the organ before - it's like I'm a different player now!! I'm just uploading Sorabji 3 for performance this afternoon... Have no idea what it sounds like but I'm sure I'm about to find out as I play it perfectly first time! It's a bit unfortunate several players can use it at once. The resulting cacophony right now can probably be heard in Gloucester.

Errm, the organ at Portsmouth RC cathedral was put in by David Wells & Co... It is a re-homed Lewis from Christ Church, Sunderland and replaced a Mander from the 1960s. I've never heard, seen or played it but I did once play the old organ. The organ in the Anglican cathedral is the Nicholson... I think there's a small typo in your last message! Did you mean abomination?

I must confess I don't have any Heiller recordings but I have heard some of his recordings through Pipedreams. An inspiring player. I'm just going to take some of Malcolm's points (if he doesn't mind) from the GDB topic for a bit of discussion: "Perhaps in those days players were less fanatical about proving a historical point and more ocncerned about being musical, than some of the more recent players we have been discussing on this topic." Well, isn't it interesting that those famous recordings by Walcha, Rogg and Heiller were some of the first to be made on historic organs - Alkmaar and the Andreas Silbermann organ at Strasbourg spring to mind immediately. They were breaking new ground discovering the sounds of old organs and re-evaluating the way they played Bach &c. Isn't what has followed - e.g. JvO, PDP, etc - evolution on from these trail blazers? "Perhaps those more recent players would not have reached the point they are at without Walcha, Heiller and even Rogg coming first." Absolutely Yes!! Each generation, especially in this field of playing learns and evolves from the previous generation... "Fashions come and go, as do ideas of historical accuracy..." Totally. Now we consider builders like Hildebrandt to be closer to the style of organ Bach knew... the ideas are constantly evolving as new discoveries are made and previous assumptions are challenged... Exactly the same picture can be seen with physics, especially in the late 19C, 20C, as the ideas of quantum mechanics developed. It wasn't an overnight discovery: each generation of scientists experimented, tested, developed and sometimes challenged the ideas developed from previous work, to develop the knowledge we have today. And still today, the ideas are discussed, re-evaluated, added to and challenged. We're still aware our knowledge is incomplete. " but I still find that Walcha and Heiller inspire me in a way that van Oortmerrson and Koopman do not." I think the early recordings had an impact that diminished for the recordings by succeeding generations. When Walcha & co. made their ground-breaking first recordings, the excitement of listening to Bach played on period organs for the first time must have been palpable. As a result of the impact of these ground-breaking recordings, our palettes are more refined and discerning than ever before. We're used to - almost expect - new recordings of Bach or Buxtehude to be on historically appropriate organs, played in an historically informed manner. Listeners today would laugh if someone released a new recording of Bach's organ music on a 1930s HNB with Tubas and Full Swell. As we're more discerning and knowledgeable than before, the impact of a new Bach recording is going to be listened to more critically than before. When I now listen to Walcha or Hurford today, I hear things things a modern "historically informed" player wouldn't do (e.g. registration changes in odd places). Conversely, I hear things that Walcha & co don't do that I would anticipate a modern player would do, like certain articulations, pointings of rhythms, etc. One player no-one's mentioned yet is Gustav Leonhardt. I've always enjoyed his ground breaking recordings of South German and Alpine organs. BTW, I've also got some LPs of Flor Peeters playing at Marekerk, Leiden, Bonifactuskerk, Medemblik, Oosthuizen, and Haringe and a recording of the Chaumont suites played at St Maximin Thioville (very outrageous seven tower case) - which seems to have won the Grand Prix National Du Disque in 1971 from Ministere de la Culture. They've never been played. What should I do with them? Obviously, I'm not selling them...

I like the old Walcha and Rogg recordings too. A couple of weeks ago I dug up some old Hurford recordings and I enjoyed listening to those afresh as well. I now recognise them as products of their time but accepting them as such actually increased my pleasure in listening to them. Can someone please point us at an example of an historically accurate performance? I notice all the discussion above focusses on the musical facets and interpretations of the music - no-one's yet said "Oh but JvO/Ton Koopman/Ulrich Spang Hanssen (delete as appropriate) is right to do that because it's historically accurate" in the discussions above. All the discussion is on the musical features. Rather like some people study theology and exegesis of biblical passages to develop their understanding of God and their faith, so I think studying the music and its historical context helps to uncover a greater understanding and depth of the music we play. Study of the music and its historical context gives us the opportunity to reflect on our own interpretations, giving us new ideas to try and new viewpoints, to help us approach the music we know so well already afresh. I think it's necessary to constantly review and revisit the way we choose to play our music, whether it is through historical study, listening to other people's ideas (whether they're musicians or historians - they both have differing viewpoints that can only broaden our outlook) and performances of the music. We constantly need to broaden our viewpoint - otherwise we risk stagnation, which is followed by regression. The greatest musicians have always reviewed and reformed their art - think about Artur Rubenstein taking years out of his career to review and refine his technique. His later records replace the bravura and fire of his early recordings with a depth and understanding that has rarely been equalled - especially in Chopin. What about comparing an early Beethoven piano sonata to Op 110 or 111? The idea that musicians of the past didn't study earlier music is bunk - Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, etc all had an enormous amount of knowledge of Bach's music - although Schumann didn't really play the organ, he had a greater knowledge and a larger collection of Bach's organ music than any organist of the time - even Mendelssohn referred to him. C H H Parry described the old Samuel Green organ in St Mary Redcliffe as the finest he'd ever heard, with the noblest diapasons. Who says a histological approach detracts from musicianship? Surely if we just concentrate on our instinctive and practical approach to music do we really become better musicians than those that study their music in a broader context?

I find this suffers from exactly the same problem you criticised the Jacques van Oortmerrson performance for. In the dotted quaver passages, the (normal) quavers before the downbeat of the next bar are sometimes late and the downbeats that follow them are late too. I find the slurring from the quaver onto the following downbeat chord unmusical – it robs the music of its rhythmic impetus and the downbeats just aren’t placed. The first time I listened to it I really couldn’t work out where the pulse was at all in the opening… When I finally discovered the pulse (I'll admit it was somewhere around bar 8 to 12 that I finally cottoned on), the performance came across as rather hurried and gasping, with snatched notes – as if the music has an attack of the hiccups. This, and the way the tempo moves around (especially the echo section, which also suffers from late downbeats – sorry, it’s not subtle rubato), robs it of any dignity. After repeated listening, I found this performance ultimately soulless. I totally agree with pcnd’s comments above. It took me a little while to like JvO’s initially languorous but ultimately beautiful performance - initially I didn't like the "breaths" in the rhythm either. However, I’ve really warmed to it now - I think it's in the sequential passages where it really starts to work for me (and the rhythmic "breaths" go away) and his gentle, sensitive and expressive touch is mesmerising. After a while, I started to forget about the "breaths"... I've yet to listen all the way through the Ton Koopman's example. I have to turn it off - sorry, I can't bear it. All that nervy energy puts me on edge. I can remember talking to JvO in the organ loft at the Waalse Kerk: Ton Koopman was coming to give a recital in the next few days. I got the impression JvO was a bit worried he might not have much of an organ left once TK had finished... The Buxtehude Passacaglia is quite nicely detailed - it reaches a grandeur the performance of the St. Anne never comes close to. It works better for me as a restrained piece, rather than mixture choruses throughout. I rather like Piet Kee recording of the St.Anne Prelude at the Martinikerk in Gronigen on Chandos. Just the first chord is a knock out.