Colin Harvey

My thoughts, having listened to the recording are: 1. The acoustic is very dead indeed. If it's a small space, there isn't really much need for strong upperwork. Strong upperwork in a small space is just going to be antisocial and not that helpful. 2. The organ, despite the rather wayward tuning in places, unsteady wind supply towards the end and rather cloyingly thick heavy reed, is really not bad at all. It seems to do a good job in that space - and a small space will throw up deficiencies in an organ that a glorious acoustic will hide. 3. An original Skinner is never going to play Bach as a Flentrop would. But Bach seems to work OK on it, accepting its style as a fairly small American Symphonic organ in small space. 4. The statement about how Skinners work in the original post seems pretty accurate. Talk to Jon Ambrosino, who knows much more about these things than I do. So, IMO, I'd keep the organ as it is, sort out the wind supply, accept the Great Tromba as it is and revel in its (many) qualities.

David Coram: "I always think it's interesting that the convention of calling a stop 8 foot or 4 foot always applies to the length at bottom C even though the lowest note is frequently below that .... Did this convention ever vary from one country or builder to another (I have seen some reference somewhere by someone like Dallam to an open diapason 10 feet, I think), or was it just decided upon? Did we begin at C, and the lower notes came later? It seems extraordinary that the number convention would just emerge and be adopted so readily all round the world at once with seemingly little deviation." That is a very interesting question, to which I don't really have the answer. I've just had a look at some photos of Thaxted's stops (H.C.Lincoln, 1821) and notice that no pitch length is given on the stop heads. This seems to be common for the time. I'm not sure when it came common practice to include the pitch length on stop faces. Even the photos of the (C compass) console at St Peter-upon-Cornhill (Hill, 1840) don't give pitch lengths. However, I remember the Schnitger organ at Alkmaar (1725) (one of the first C compass organs in the Netherlands) *does* have pitch lengths on the stop lables but the (F?) compass choir organ (1511) doesn't... Just found this: . very strange, very interesting to see this and possibly one of the finest plenos in the world.

pwhodges: "Another issue is compass. Would we now consider taking the opportunity to provide a manual G-compass for the stops that date back to Father Smith? Possibly with a flap to cover the keys when not in use (like the big Bösendorfer pianos). Expensive, I know - but perhaps we should bite the bullet in a few organs at least." Yes, compass is an interesting subject for this organ and I liked the suggestion. There are a number of relevant points: One of the arguments for German compass organs replacing GG compass at the time was that it would provide a better bass with a 16' pedal and the lost bottom notes of the manual compass (which never moved quickly in early English organ music) could be taken by the pedals instead. The second point is space. Bass pipes take up a lot of space and accommodating a pipe larger than 4' on a soundboard for an 8' division is difficult. Introducing a full set of bass pipes GG-BB in addition to the C compass would add extra difficulties and would be more likely to lead to an overcrowded windchest - something best avoided if possible. One way around this is to use an old practice: Many old organs with GG compass would have a short bottom octave - GG# and AA# are very rarely called for in music of this period, due to the keys used and the temperament to which the organ was tuned during these periods. So we could have something like GG,AA,C or such like, with a split key for C#/AA and GG in place of B. This would also give a financial saving as well as a space saving - large pipes are more expensive than little ones! However, those of you who know will have already picked up that cost isn't really an overriding consideration here... (should it ever be an overriding consideration with lavish and long lived musical instruments like organs, though?) Finally, it is worth bearing in mind G&D would have been very unlike to keep the bass pipes below C in a rebuild, especially by 1870. And also Bill Drake (e.g. Jesus, Oxon) and a few others have built a number of organs with GG compasses. The Mander at Pembroke, Cams has a GG, if I remember. At the back of my mind is this article: http://www.stephenbicknell.org/3.6.15.php which I think is very relevant here for use of the long compass and pedals. Of course, out of this answer comes the even more thorny question of the temperament of the organ... Bombarde32: "The history of the early instrument is slightly different to that which has been stated above..." Thanks for this. Very interesting. I think it might be worthwhile writing a note to NPOR, with your references, so they can improve their history of the organ. pcnd5584: "I suggest the following, which through necessity is different to the scheme which was laid out by Colin (due to the fairly narrow design perameters adopted by Gray and Davison) is, I hope, still representative of good English organ building..." I think the key consideration with the organ here is space. You're right, you would need a far larger case for this organ - the Great is a real 16' division here and would need a soundboard to match. Whether it can be built using the parts of the Smith case *and still maintain the correct architectural proportions needed for a successful case* is open to question. Whether the extra stops add that much over the original spec is also open to question. I'm not sure how you would intend to lay this organ out, I would rather have an enclosed Solo organ than an enclosed Choir organ. "still representative of good English organ building" Yes, but by which builder? The spec above could just as easily be by JWW or Bishops as G&D. If you just try to copy generic trends, you end up with something that *at best* would be a new individual voice but is more likely to end up very anodyne - just like a lot of organs built today that use pipes from trade suppliers to standard scales, etc. If I were to be brutally honest, I would say the spec is just as representative of Copeman & Hart! "The instrument would have tonal similarities with the JWW Walker organs of Bristol Cathedral and Romsey Abbey. In addition, there would be some affinity with the restored instrument of Chichester Cathedral." I think this is much closer to the point. I'm very fond of all three organs you mention here. And in order to build an organ with an affinity to them, it's necessary to investigate what makes those organs tick and sound and work the way they do. Look closely at the pipes, look closely at the design and layout, look closely at the action and winding, look closely at the playing experience and how it's achieved and the answers will come out. But to build an organ like those today takes real application, a lot of investigation and an open mind.

:-) I like the cynicism of this. I'm sure I would have a Lieblich Gedacht somewhere... Maybe a "Kein Crumbhorn" as well

(My excuse is I'm bored and back at home after skiing for 2 weeks...) I remember making some rather strong comments about the organ at Christchurch Cathedral - some, which on re-reading, are perhaps rather too acerbic. But what is one to make of a modern germanic organ with a neo-french-classical specification inhabiting an historic English organ case specially altered to accomodate this organ? What was the thinking behind that? I wonder what type of organ we would build there today? The Rieger is a child of its time - the voicing and disposition are orientated somewhat vertically, the overall layout is clear Werkprinzip. Since the time Rieger built the Christchurch organ, thinking about organs has moved on. Today, the better builders aim to create an organ that is less about making a statement and more about building an organ which is in harmony with its surroundings and heritage. With a stronger focus on looking into the past to find the future, and acceptance once again of the English style and romantic organs, I wonder what we could end up building in Christchuch today? Would we not want to build an organ that is at home in the organ case and surroundings and provide the practising musicians of the Cathedral with an organ eminently suitable for its functions accompanying the professional choir, congregational singing as well as be a superlative organ for performance of all schools of classical organ music? Delving into the history of the organ, here are the key points in the organ's history: c. 1680: Father Smith builds an organ Gt 8.8.4.3.2.II.III.8.4.IV, Ch 8.4.4.2.8(?) 1848: Gray & Davison enlarge and improve the organ: http://npor.rcm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?...ec_index=N11007 1870: Gray & Davison rebuild the organ: http://npor.rcm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?...ec_index=N11008 After that, the organ is thoroughly rebuilt by Willis in 1884. The organ is further rebuilt by Willis & Son in 1910 and by H&H in 1924, eventually leaving little of the original organ in a recognisable state. I started wondering what if the Smith Organ were to be recreated with a G&D style rebuild to make the romantic repertoire more accessible? Wouldn't this give an organ that is more at home in the case and also be more easily and pleasurably used for services? I used the scheme of 1870 as my starting point: in many ways the 1870 scheme was a conservative rebuild (some would have found it very backward in 1870 - I'm not surprised it was rebuilt 14 years later by a more progressive builder) and augmentation of the Smith organ. So I decided to augment it a little further with a Solo organ in a consonant style and make a few little tweaks, as might have happened if G&D had been invited back in 1870 to add a Solo organ and to iron out a few of the less desirable anachronisms (as seen today). Hopefully the Smith concept still remains intact as the core of the organ, while the G&D work moves the organ solidly into the Victorian Romantic territory. Great Organ 1. Double Diapason 16 2. Open Diapason 8 3. Stopped Diapason 8 4. Principal 4 5. Flute Harmonique 4 6. Twelfth 3 7. Fifteenth 2 8. Sesquialtera III 9. Mixture II 10. Trumpet 8 11. Clarion 4 12. Cornet IV Swell Organ 13. Double Diapason 16 14. Open Diapason 8 15. Stopped Diapason 8 16. Salicional 8 17. Voix Celestes 8 18. Principal 4 19. Flute 4 20. Fifteenth 2 21. Mixture II 22. Cornopean 8 23. Oboe 8 24. Clarion 4 Choir Organ 25. Keraulophon 8 26. Dulciana 8 27. Stopped Diapason 8 28. Principal 4 29. Flute 4 30. Fifteenth 2 31. Cremona 8 Solo Organ 32. Clarabella 8 33. Gambe 8 34. Flute d'amour 4 35. Corno di Bassetto 8 36. Grand Ophliechide 8 Pedal Organ 37. Grand Open Diapason 16 38. Grand Bourdon 16 39. Grand Principal 8 40. Grand Trombone 16 Couplers Solo to Great Solo to Swell Solo to Choir Solo to Pedal Swell to Great Swell to Choir Swell to Pedal Great to Pedal Choir to Great Choir to Pedal 8 Pistons to Great 8 Pistons to Swell 6 Pistons to Choir 4 Pistons to Solo 8 Pistons to Pedal 8 General Pistons Multiple levels of memory (do we still need to count them these days? I would expect over 50 levels for the generals at least, several hundred shouldn't be that much more expensive today) Reversible pistons to couplers, Grand Ophliechide, Grand Trombone. Toe pistons to replicate Great and Swell, Swell to Great, Great to Pedal, Solo to Great, Grand Trombone Toe pistons for Swell and Great/pedal divisions. The usual Gt & Ped combinations combined and generals on swell toe pistons. Pipework & Specification As one can see, the Great organ is pretty much as Father Smith left it, with the addition of a 16' Open Diapason (stopped bass, probably - although aren't the front pipes down to GG?) and a 4' flute. Likewise, the Choir organ is intended as Smith left it, with the addition of a later Keraulophon and Dulciana. The Swell organ would be G&D style, possible a rebuild of an earlier swell division, along with the Solo organ and Pedal organ. The pipework would be near copies of Smith and G&D pipework, getting as close as possible to pipe construction and design, scaling, materials, treatment, finish, etc, as possible. I would expect study trips to investigate period organs, including overseas if necessary (e.g. Edam to look at the 1664 Barent Smit organ) to inform all aspects of this organ. It would be ideal if there were actual period Smith and G&D pipes on loan in the metalshop while the pipes are made for the pipemakers to use them as reference templates to make the new pipework. I'm not decided on mixture compositions and my research here is a bit sketchy - the Great Sesquialtera would probably have been 17.19.22 in the bass, most probably breaking to 12.15.17; the Great Mixture may have been 26.29, breaking back maybe several times to something like 12.15; the Cornet was apparently always 4 ranks, would have probably been mounted and at 8.12.15.17, working with the Stoppped Diapason; the Swell mixture would probably have been 19.22, breaking back to 12.15. Layout The Great organ to be in the front of the main case, with the Swell organ behind and mounted slightly higher. Passage board between Great and Swell. The Solo organ to be mounted horizontally in a swell box on top of the Swell organ, with the soundboard vertical (aka Leeds Town Hall) and all pipes horizontal. Venetian shutters to the front and top of the Solo box. The Solo organ to be on a higher wind pressure than the rest of the organ. The Choir organ to be in the Chaire Case. The Pedal organ to be behind the swell boxes, basses in the centre. The paneling either side of the Pedal organ to be pierced to assist egress of sound. A passage board behind the swell box with access up to the solo division and tops of the bass pedal pipes in front of the pedal chest. Bellows & Reservoirs underneath swell and pedal windchests. Key Action I would expect the action to closely follow period Smith and G&D practices as far as possible, giving the impression of playing a genuine G&D/Smith hybrid, with period visual appearance, materials, feel, pluck, etc. However, I would not expect the builders to forego modern design advances, such as the calculation of weight, allowing variations in pallet size, gearing, etc, to maintain manageable weights at the keys. Similarly, I would allow refinements to allow for variation for seasonal movement, etc. Therefore the organ would be predominately mechanical action, although I would allow period assistance methods (e.g. Barker lever) if they are the most appropriate solution to ensure an effective musical experience for the organist. Wind System Straight up and down traditional. I assume G&D would have provided generously sized double rise reservoirs in place of Smith's wedge bellows. Concussions could be used as well. The wind could be raised by electrically operated feeder bellows rather than a fan, if feasible, like Bill Drake's examples. Console & player aids, stop action The console would, as far as practical, be designed and finished to give the impression of sitting at a small 4 manual Victorian G&D organ. Details such as stop head design, key dimensions, materials, finish, etc, would be informed by period examples as far as possible. The jambs could well be angled, if there is evidence G&D and their contemporaries would have done this in 1870. However, I would allow variation from period practice for good reason. For example, the relationship and dimensions between manuals, pedalboard and bench could also be informed by RCO, BDO and ISOB standards. Similarly, with the pedalboard: while I would expect it to appear and feel like a period Victorian pedalboard, it would be acceptable for its critical dimensions (such as width and pedal spacing) to be informed by modern standards so a visiting organist doesn't come to grief on it. To allow for modern expectations and use, I've allowed a generous modern provision for pistons - much more so than G&D would have allowed!! I think I would be prepared to forego a mechanical stop action (naturally based on G&D principals) for an electronically controlled system, although I would be delighted if it controlled pneumatic motors rather than solenoids at the console and windchest. At the console, the pistons should sit comfortably in the style and ambiance of the console - I would certainly not expect the modern fashion for ever-smaller piston heads, which would jar here - but it would be delightful if there were turned brass piston heads aka early Willis. Naturally, all the controls for the levels of memories and the blower controls, etc could be hidden from view in a small drawer underneath a stop jamb, rather than jar unnecessarily on the stop jambs themselves. Comments and Issues I'd imagine this organ would be quite capable of most styles of music: Early music would be well served here, French Classical is quite possible as well with a cornet, cremona, plein and grand jeux (although a petit grand jeu is missing - one will have to use the choir cremona or swell reeds without a tierce - but good compromises should be possible). While there are choruses for Bach and enough trio cominations, some organists today might look in askance without a Schnitgerian Pedal Reed, a choir mixture and terz - but to them I say go and play Bach at Romsey Abbey! We have a classic 4 manual romantic English organ, which should happily serve the romantic schools quite well enough and there should be enough to cope with the 20th century repertoire as well. Of course, it would be very at home accompanying Choral Evensong, where it should lend a distinguished, varied and accomplished voice - in fact, some may hold up the specification as almost tailor-made for choral accompaniment. I suspect the issue with the organ here is space, in that there isn't very much of it in the gallery. The current organ is very compact and the G&Ds of old tended to be quite crowded. The proposed Swell organ here would take up a lot of space - especially depth. Hence the idea of putting the Solo on top of it, en chamade, although the bottom octave of pipes could well require mitering or a shared stopped bass for the Gambe and Clarabella. This position will also give the Solo division an advantageous position to project over the top of the organ. I find it rather satisfying considering recreating one of G&D's most celebrated and unique experiments of the en chamade Solo division at Leeds Town Hall. A further advantage I can see is to make the solo box very compact, which should give it good qualities for projection and enclosure, contrasting to the effect of the rather different, larger Swell organ's box. An issue I see with the position is that the Solo box shouldn't be visible above the Great organ case from the floor - I'm hoping the pediments of the two central towers of the main case frontage and the position of the solo box sited some way from the front of the organ case, along with the darkness above a fairly high case, will obscure it sufficiently. Naturally, I would intend to restore the Great organ case to its original height without a Swell organ directly underneath the Great as it is at present. However, the issue of the depth of the organ will still persist with a pedal division (however minimal) behind the Swell organ - the sound will have to come out round the corner, down each side and over the swell box. I have kept this division minimal for good reason - not only space but also the bass pipes get their sound round corners (like the swell box in front of it) better than upperwork. I suspect a 4' and pedal mixture would be next to useless in this location so why bother? People will have to accept this is a dependent pedal division and apart from adding pedal towers, I don't see a way round it. Hopefully this small pedal division can be fitted in without too much crowding so the sound has a fair chance of getting out but it'll still need to be fairly assertively voiced. However, hopefully this division should provide a bass line underneath the manuals and would be fairly easy to control in every day use. The action to the solo organ could prove interesting. It would have to go beneath and up behind the swell organ, then through a square to operate a soundboard mounted at 90 degrees on high wind pressure (maybe 7 or 8 inches). The run behind the swell box would be very long and could be affected by seasonal movement while momentum might be an issue here. Maybe this would be an opportunity to recreate a Barker lever action or some other suitable period action? If the swell organ were to be pneumatic, I would happily countenance the idea of sub and super octave couplers but not with mechanical action. Perhaps one way around this would be a barker lever to the Great organ but I'm not sure how Father Smith inspired pipework would sit atop it.

I don't doubt you for 1 second - can you give some examples in the romantic repertoire where you'd use a stop duplexed to the pedal? Do use HTH as an example if it helps. Off topic: We must always remember the dramatic difference the Solo double clarinet has on full organ at Westminster Abbey. I have a similar experience on my organ - one must never, ever draw the Great organ Harmonic Flute 4 with full organ. Completely ruins the effect.

And this was so much the case of many rebuilds in the UK in the lean years after 1945... incidentally, a time when borrowings were very commonly introduced at the same time. Co-incidence? I think not. I feel these manual to pedal borrowings are invariably a compromise solution (as JPM explained - thanks for the insight), suitable only for augmenting the Pedal ranks when they are not able to provide a suitable bass line themselves for the manuals. This is not an uncommon situation on British organs, where a good Pedal organ is a rarity. Incidentally, did anyone read Jon Ambrosino's rather penetrating review in C&O of the new little Schoenstein in Manhattan? One of the points he made was the lack of any true pedal ranks on this 3 manual organ - all pedal stops are derived from the manuals.

Generally the church or the diocese will have a policy on who needs to be CRB checked. So don't take it personally - it's just part of the organisation's policy - and the organisation is responsible for ensuring a safe environment blah, blah, blah... I don't think anyone in churches likes been CRB checked and many key people in the church - Church wardens, vergers, ministry team, lay workers, etc - will have also been CRB checked. At our church, even people who have a key to the church need to be CRB checked - including people who just use the church for private practice in the evenings and would never come anywhere close to a child at the church. But it's the Diocesan policy. I don't think it's helpful to be difficult about CRB checks, how much of an affront you may feel it presents to your personal integrity. Many other people in the church will have had to have done a CRB check, even if they come nowhere near children and will probably feel the same way as you do. Being difficult and obtuse about it can only serve to alienate yourself from the rest of the church community.

Absolutely yes. But sometimes I wonder if those churches should at least seriously consider ditching their ancient premises for somewhere which is cheaper to maintain and easier to heat for holding their services? But I agree. There have been many moments where we've experienced moments of disorientation and created organs in churches better suited to perform something like Bach trio sonatas and little else, or built octopods capable of producing gentle and suitably dignified sounds before and after the service but are incapable of doing anything actually during the service, like accompany a congregation singing a hymn for example. However, quite often churches have ruined a perfectly good organ in the name of "to be able to lead the service and accompany the choir more effectively" or to satisfy some vainty of theirs. Hence the organist eventually finds himself able to be wheeled around the church while playing, connected remotely to a set of pipes situated in some distant corner of the church. Quite often those re-worked and battered pipes have seen better days and the quality and long-term future of the key action and wind supply have frequently been overlooked to provide new features at the console or some new sound. It's always a frustrating experience to sit at an organ that must have once been a fine musical instrument which has been emasculated into something that merely serves the liturgy. Let's be honest, the features one needs for the liturgical use are not that demanding: a chorus consisting, at the *extreme* very least, an Open Diapason 8 and Principal 4, underpinned by a 16' pedal to accompany the congregation; some softer stops, some ideally enclosed in a swell box to accompany the choir and enough variety for musical interludes. The sky's the limit after that as one wants an organ capable of playing more demanding and varied choral accompaniments with contrasts of sounds, solo voices, multiple swell boxes, etc. But it's surprising how much a really good organ can accomplish with very few stops. It is very possible that the organ ruined by the church in successive rebuilds is quite capable of fulfilling its liturgical requirements but is an unsatisfactory organ for playing solo. In the glare of the spotlight when it is not hidden behind the choir or underneath the congregation, its musical deficiencies are more likely to be apparent. My mother's main complaint about the organ she commented on was that she couldn't really hear any real notes in the sound produced by the organ, which she thought was rather a dull and uninteresting organ, despite its fine pedigree and comprehensive specification. While she liked the pieces of music and knew quite a few of them, she felt disconnected from it, no matter how loud it was and despite having the performer in full view.

yes. the problem is, it was being planned in the late 90s and it's still in storage...

well quite. As my mother (a complete organ innocent) recently commented after hearing me give a recital on a well-appointed instrument (with everything Hector asks for above and more - she looked in astonishment as the moveable console was wheeled around - "I've never seen one of those before - why would you want to move it around?"): "well, I suppose this organ is OK for accompanying a congregation and the choir on a Sunday morning but it's not really up to doing anything else, is it?" I love her to bits: she has an uncanny knack of whacking those nails completely on the head.

It is such a shame that this stunning Bridge organ (the largest he made) is still in storage, while the rest of the building has now been restored and is back in use, albeit with an empty organ case. It is becoming rather a national embarrassment - our cultural and artistic bodies should be ashamed. Although it's a shame Bishops got at it in the 1920s with some rather curious additions and revisions, this organ really deserves to be carefully restored - it is a remarkable survival. Anyway, it would be completely unsuitable for Hector5's requirements - as it's mainly 1735, it's hardly going to be just a romantic liturgical slushbox for leading hymns and choirs. Hector5, RobH: I assume you've already tried Derrick Carrington at the Redundant Organ Rehousing Company? http://www.rorcl.co.uk/

No. That was the job of the pedal Trompette 8.

Yes, on both counts. Tickell's 8' Open wood stop works on the same principles as a helper bass: a set of pipes, quite gently voiced to give the overtones missing in a stopped pipe's sound (which misses out the even numbered harmonics in the harmonic series). It's an ingenious solution where space and head-height are a problem. They seem to have become quite a common feature on Ken's smaller organs so I imagine they've been successful. I like the idea and the logic. The Bass Flute 8 found on French classical organs is an open rank, completely unlike the perennial Bass Flute 8 usually found on many English organs, which is more often than not extended from the Bourdon 16. The French Bass Flute is stronger and more defined, quite capable of holding its own with combinations like a Cornet or Cromorne in each hand in a trio. On an English Organ, one will more often than not need to use an open 8 foot rank on the pedal - often an Open Diapason will work better than a stopped flute. Maybe Ken Tickell's 8' Open Wood stops would work pretty well here - he often likes to provide the right stops for the French Classical schools. The other solution where space is a problem for open 16' ranks (a frequent issue in tight spaces where the organist wants a large organ) is a haskelled bass but I've never found one that did it for me. The wooden examples I've come across produced rather ugly, boomy and ill-defined notes while the metal ones tend to sound rather hungry. Another issue to take into account with open metal and wooden pipes in the 16 foot region is manufacture. A 16 foot metal pipe will need good design and construction if it is not to collapse- especially if it is to go on its side, as it would if it were to go in a triforium. If the pipe is to go on display, the builder will want to use 16 foot lengths of metal so there are no visible seams, which will need a large casting bench to manufacture, etc. A wooden pipe might be a little more robust to knocks and dents and will not sag if laid on its side but the builder will need to use wood that will not warp or split and the pipe will need careful skilled work and an inordinate number of clamps to ensure 4x 16 foot long airtight joints to ensure good, firm notes. The other issue with 16 foot pipes is the cost of materials - a 16 foot metal pipe may weight around 100-170Kg, which is rather a lot of lead & tin (let's not start talking about zinc here - I'm just waiting for some members to come crashing in here - it's really easy to argue zinc is the ideal material for bass pipes but why do the upmarket builders continue to use other metals if they can?) - and a wooden pipe will require lots of long lengths of good quality wood. On other points, I read Bombarde's comments on the organ at Christ Church, Oxford with interest. The last time I visited I sat in disadvantagous situation in a remote corner of an aisle for a service where there was standing room only. My overall impression of this organ was that it is voiced too loudly for the building. Fine organ though it is, I am not convinced it is the right organ for its situation - it would be very possible to build an organ which is just as musical for the player, which is better suited for wider areas of the repertoire (in addition to playing the rather undemanding areas of repertoire the current organ can tackle) and works better in the building, not least in the process creating a more flexible, effective and useful instrument to accompany the choir. (Being voiced too loudly means the poor organist is restricted to using about 4 stops on the Swell organ, 4 stops on the Choir organ and 3 on the Great organ when accompanying the choir while still sounding dangerously exposed, which is ridiculous if one remembers this is a 40 stop 4 manual organ). While the mixtures are needlessly loud, I thoroughly agree with Bombarde that its foundation stops and pedal are relatively thin and hungry and endorse his comments on the reeds. While the reeds are loud and powerful, they completely escape any effect of grandeur or majesty at all: Their chronic lack of tone makes them sound merely characterless, harsh, hard and coarse.

I'd have a really strong terz in that set up and a very gentle holzgedackt 8. My Spec: Great Organ 1. Grand Chorus XV (based on 16' open metal diapason) Swell Organ 2. Full Swell VIII (Trumpet 8 + 7 rank Mixture) 3. Celestes (at least 3 ranks - more would be nice) Octave and Suboctave couplers, unison off Tremulant Pedal Organ 4. Bombarde 16 (Full length, spotted metal, "French Voicing", with 12 extra pipes in each direction (full length, of course - no skimping here - I've been thinking really hard about this) Octave and Suboctave couplers, unison off If I was allowed another stop, I would have a Tuba Magna en Chamade on a solo manual, enclosed - maybe it could be prepared for? Swell to Great at 16,8,4, Great to Pedal at 16,8,4, Swell to pedal at 16,8,4 (extra pipes to cope with all these couplers) Lots of thumb pistons, generals, levels of memory, stepper, etc. Would it be too much to ask to have this with tracker action with a detached, moveable console? C

I was rather surprised to find the Bishop of Winchester taking this morning's service. He was the only member of the clergy there and it was a completely normal parish Eucharist - very little of the pomp and circumstance that usually accompanies a bishop and Lord Spiritual. He did everything himself - act as minister, read the Gospel, celebrate the Eucharist, preach, ask the Children's Church what they had been up during the service, read the banns and announcements. There was no explanation or reason why he was there. To be fair, he did everything very well and we all felt honoured to have him. The things I most wish I'd done better was the improvisation for the entrance for the choir and clergy - somehow basic keyboard harmony managed to elude me for a minute or two and I managed to lose my way once or twice in the final voluntary - but to fair it was the G minor fugue BWV 542, I didn't have a page turner and I was trying to overhear a fairly loud conversation going on about 8 feet behind my back...

This will be of interest to many people here - a demonstration of the Hill organ at Sydney Town Hall by Robert Ampt to none other than our host! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PAtIDU3R2eQ And a tour inside the organ (also posted above by Heva): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gvCjxRd-Hl8

Agreed. In the context of blending foundations, a Lieblich Gedeckt 8 and/or Salicional 8 usually makes no difference whatsoever when added to an Open Diapason 8 on a Willis I organ.

Yes, absolutely - I do the same sometimes, using the manual double as a soft pedal 16. I'll sometimes resort to the 16 up an octave when needed - sometimes it's the only way to get enough brightness and clarity out of some organs.

Yes, I agree - I have a similar situation: a very dry acoustic, with pin-point like accurracy and a fairly gentle but prompt 16 Bourdon on the Great organ. It helps to give more body and fullness to the sound. Usually I add the 16 at around the same time as the mixture - sometimes before, sometimes after. I often add a 2nd 8 when I add the mixture - otherwise in the treble the 4,2 2/3 & 2 ranks are all doubled but not the 8... Although this isn't really necessary as the 8 is larger than the 4, which is larger than the 2 & twelfth (which are about the same). However, this does allow me to do some very weird things: I can start with the Mixture and Great 8 Open Diapason alone (yes, really), then add the principal, twelfth and fifteenth...

Oh yes, one further use of 16' flues is playing them up an octave, to get neo-baroque effects out of your Victorian warhorse. 16,8,2 2/3,2 can so easily become 8.4.1 1/3.1 (with a good, strong 1 1/3 and 1 above your light 8 flute as well). What more could one ask for?

Completely agree with everything Ian's said on this thread. I can hardly add any more to his later comments on choral accompaniment either. I've had quite a few eureka moments with manual 16 flues and would far rather have a manual 16 flue than a 16 reed, if asked to choose. The gravitat of manual doubles can be quite addictive but I would caution against over-use, when the effect can wear off and it just becomes muddy and turgid. As lots of people have commented, it has a lot to do with the quality of the 16 manual flue. Something slow and indistinct is going to be horrid - but they can be wonderful on a good organ - Romsey Abbey has already been rightly mentioned. Further uses of a manual 16 flue: Congregational accompaniment - a manual 16 speaks at the same pitch as the majority of men's voices so it helps support their singing. Obviously, you need at least a 4' to make the organ heard above the singing but the 16 adds much support to the men's voices. It can be used in the pleno - pieces like the Bach C minor prelude BWV 546 and e minor BWV 548 sound much better to my ears on a 16' chorus. German Romantic organ music. For example at my church, something like manuals 16.8.8.8.8.8.8 (including Oboe, no celestes) sounds utterly wonderful for Brahm's Hertzlich tut mir verlangen (the first one). It's not muddy at all - just wonderfully rich and warm and immediately transports you to the sound world of late Brahms. It was quite an OMG moment for Stephen Bicknell when we tried that out the first time... French Romantic organ music - look at how often Widor and Franck ask for Grande Orgue fonds 16.8.4… a big, rich, warm sound… Getting the sound of the organ round corners. This is particularly pertinent to Britain, with our organs stuck in chancel arches and accompanying congregations. Bass notes at 16 pitch are much better at getting out of enchambered spaces and round corners than higher pitches - it's part of the reason why the pedal pipes at the back of the organ get out into the open very happily, past the Swell and Great organs and balencing happily, while a pedal mixture in the same place doesn't... Now take somewhere like Sherborne Abbey, where the organ is stuck round the corner, on gallery on the north wall of the north transept. There must be at least 20 feet from the front of the main organ case to the front of the arcading in the nave. Not a great place for getting the sound of the organ to the back of the nave - in fact, it's nearly hopeless. The only way to accompany the congregation before Ken Tickell added his Nave division at the west end was to use a lot of 16 tone on the manuals. When this happened, the lead from the organ was quite acceptable in the nave. When the mixtures were used instead of the manuals 16s, the organ just shrieked its head off into the crossing and not much happened in the nave, except for a rather indistinct swirl of reflected sound. It's interesting to note that in the Organ Journal of 1935, this organ was described as giving a perfectly adequate lead to the congregation but has been felt to be inadequate since the 1960s. Probably to do with the changing styles of playing the organ and organists' expectations, not forgetting some rather unsympathetic rebuilds of a very good Gray and Davison.

Does anyone else feel that another abomination of a tierce de picardie is in the final chord of the Baerenreiter edition of the Fantasia in G minor BWV542? This MUST be a minor chord - and is in practically every other edition of this piece. So why is the Baerenreiter edition different? And speaking of that, my copy of the accompanying fugue has numerous re-writings in it as I don't agree with what's written - it's quite dramatically different to every other edition I have of it - it strikes me the Baerenreiter editors assumed a rather inaccurate copy must have been the definitive original... What do other people think?

Yesterday, the minister invited the congregation to remain seated after the service to listen to the voluntary and sat down herself until I had finished "Wachet Auf" from the Schubler chorals. And all of the congregation stayed in their seats and listened as well. I had no idea this was going to happen until the sermon, when she hatched the idea upon us and drew the voluntary into one of the points of her (as ever, excellent) sermon. She had checked with me before the service I actually was going to play the voluntary as advertised in the music list. But this was one of those moments my heart skipped a small beat as I hadn't played the piece since last advent...

How about hedging one's bets and finishing on an English Cadence?