Colin Harvey

You've missed my point. The point of a Hauptwerk is that it does not imitate one particular pipe organ - it can imitate whatever organ you decide to upload. That means it can imitate a Skinner or Willis with masses of pistons and swell pedals, or it can imitate a Spanish Baroque organ, with divided stops over a single manual, no swell box, no pedals and certainly no pistons. This means that a console for Hauptwerk needs to be as flexible as possible to make up for these wildly different styles of organ. Having conventional drawstops or stop tabs introduces constraints on the number, layout and labelling of the stops. Touch screens don't have these constraints and can offer an idea of what the "real" console is like with stop layout, and graphics of the real console. For example, look here at the Waltershausen console on HauptwerK: http://www.organartmedia.com/Waltershausen-VCons.html The Sauer organ graphics give an idication of the rollschweller with a typical dial and the combination system: http://www.organartmedia.com/Sauer-VCons.html So touchscreens have definite advantages over stop tabs. Of course, it isn't perfect and doesn't replace the experience of playing the real thing. Console dimensions, key dimensions and touch can't readily be altered for different organs - and there's masses of differences between a midi keyboard and the keyboard of a Spanish Baroque organ. So that's why I say the console needs to be made as flexible as possible and not needlessly limiting by introducing unecessary constraints. As Hauptwerk is bleeding edge technology which is an entirely modern, contemporary product of the age we live in, why should we constrain ourselves to using conventional drawstops when it works best with touchscreens, etc? And I can't understand why someone would want to dress up a contraption like a Hauptwerk console with woodwork. Something like this is probably near ideal (although I'm trying to work out why a console table that looks like little more than a slightly glorified desk should cost anywhere near £1825 - it all looks horrifically expensive) http://www.midi-organs.eu/html/hauptwerk_consoles.html I agree with you that I find it very annoying for conventional electronic simulation organs to have lots of midi switches peppered around the console and unconventionally laid-out playing aids, which seems to be all your point above is about. I wonder how often MIDI ever get used on these organ consoles? I'm currently piano-sitting a Yamaha C5 or C7 which has a midi-out but it's so unobtrusive you would barely know it's there - certainly no annoying buttons all over the place! In fact there are no switches - just a little lever under the keyboard to stop the hammers hitting the strings - Yamaha have quite rightly recognised that anyone using midi with this piano would have a PC or laptop next to it to control the midi player and the midi box is underneath the piano. Why can't electronic simulation organ builders do the same sort of thing? And let's be honest - who's ever going to use it and need masses of control of midi on a pipe organ simulation? Cameron Carpenter maybe?

Urgh! No! The fans on my computer drive me up the wall if I'm practising the piano. And they're not quite a rumble a fraction above bottom G either!

Wowee! I think for the price and space of the second console, one could have obtained themselves a nice little pipe organ... It also seems a bit limiting to have motorised draw stops on a Hauptwerk console. I suppose that console is fine if you want to recreate the organ at Sacre-Coeur but it's not ideal for being a Spanish organ or a Silbermann... or anything else you might want to try! I really don't mind Hauptwerk consoles looking like "glorified midi consoles". At least they're being honest about what they are and their intentions. They're really products of modern technology so I feel the aesthetic of them being unashamedly modern is something to be embraced - I think the idea of touch screen stop jambs, etc, is the right approach, with form following function perfectly. I think a blank, netural canvas would be best for Hauptwerk to do its thing. A practical point about Hauptwerk: the processing power required for a large organ is quite considerable (I see most people are building computers with quad cores and 8GB+ RAM) - and this means quite a bit of heat - and consequently noise. Do most people build water cooled PCs to cope with the cooling requirements without generating noise? What about the sound processing in the computer? I know I've got my eye on a pretty top-end sound card for the new computer I'm contemplating building (which will be water cooled) but this card is £200-300 and I know is nowhere near the fidelity of a top-end hi-fi amplifier, even if it is much better than most PC sound cards. I guess an advantage of the "separates" approach is you can upgrade parts of it (i.e. computer system, sound system) as required without having to replace the entire thing in one go. As (real pipe) practice organs go, this one caught my eye: http://www.orgelsite.nl/kerken40/dronten.htm I like the layout of this practice organ for 2 reasons: 1. Height and space requirements - it doesn't look like it takes up much more space than many electronic organs 2. Personally, I'm not a big fan of having the pipes immediately behind the music desk speaking directly into my face. It's a bit too intense, especially with the voicing and key "regulation" of some of these organs I've played. Having a bit of distance and having the pipes speak away from the player seems like a good idea. The only downside of this organ (to me) appears to be that there's no bellows/regulator, so I guess it uses a schwimmer but I understand wind supply in these small organs is always a difficult area to make work really well (along with key action, pipe speech, etc).

If you haven't come across it, I like this website, especially the strap-line: http://tempogiusto.ning.com/

The Italian Symphony is a very fine piece indeed and she transcribes it extremely well. Just not sure it really comes across so well on the organ in a dry acoustic like that - nowhere to hide but she's so well prepared she doesn't need to! I like the Stamm videos at Waltershausen. Is it just me or does he sometimes look a bit tense and uncomfortable on that organ? Before we start going on about historic organ consoles not being comfortable to play or "ergonomic", just watch someone like Jacques van Oortmersson play at the Waalse Kerk or Pieter van Dyke play at Alkmaar - both similarly historic organ consoles - but those two look very comfortable and graceful when they play, without a hint of tension and the resulting playing is very different in its character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnv8gjbx-0Q

Did anyone go to this organ's opening concert? Looking at the photos on the website, it does appear to be a very large organ for the church. The church seems to be a relatively intimate but airy 4-5 bay church and the nave only seems to take up the first 3 bays, along with the west gallery. This doesn't look like a difficult building for a relatively modest west gallery organ. Notwithstanding the organ spilling out of the main case into cases behind (which is not all that uncommon - but here the cases behind the organ are larger than the main case and so are on show, unfortunately), I cannot but help feel that a more economical scheme could have been devised to give the same sounds and functions for the liturgy and repertoire from a smaller organ with less stops. However, I warmly applaud the church on their commitment to get what is certainly an interesting organ into the darkest recesses of traditional Dorset and hope they are enjoying it. The photos of the Skrabl organ installation in Huddersfield indicate their organs are well constructed and I'm sure this is the case at Lyme. But I cannot help think that this organ (not so far away from Lyme) can do all the Lyme organ can with a lot less stops and it fits very neatly into one (very nicely designed, proportioned and made) case. Maybe in the same situation, I would have thought this would meet the church's needs without breaking into a sweat at all: Great Organ Double Open Diapason 16 (maybe stopped bass, remainder in prospect) Open Diapason 8 Stopped Diapason 8 Principal 4 Harmonic Flute 4 Twelfth 2 2/3 Fifteenth 2 Seventeenth 1 3/5 Mixture IV 19.22.26.29 Cremona 8 Swell Organ Horn Diapason 8 (slotted; bass from stopped diapason plus helpers) Stopped Diapason 8 (maybe with chimneys or pierced stoppers for contrast) Unda Maris 8 (TC, tuned against Horn Diapason - I like the sea connotation for Lyme...) Principal 4 Open Flute 4 Flageolet 2 Mixture III 15.19.22 Cornopean 8 (may require some heroic mitring) Oboe 8 Pedal Organ Bourdon 16 Principal 8 Trombone 16 Trumpet 8 Or, if you really wanted to make a statement with something different, how about a 16-foot organ in the Dutch Town Church manner of the mid-late 18th Century? Hoofdwerk Praestant 16 Octaaf 8 (doubled in discant) Roerfluit 8 Quinte 5 1/3 Superoctaaf 4 (doubled in discant) Quinte 2 2/3 (doubled in discant) Mixtur IV sterk (16 foot mixture) Sexquialter III Trompet 16 split Basse/Discant Trompet 8 B/D Bovenwerk Viole de Gambe 8 (bass from Holpijp) Holpijp 8 Quintadena 8 Gemshoorn 4 Quintfluit 2 2/3 Nacthoorn 2 Cornet IV (discant) Dulciaan 8 Vox Humana 8 Pedaal Bourdon 16 Octaaf 8 Superoctaaf 4 Naacthoorn 2 Bazuin 16 Trompet 8 ManuaalKoppel Koppel Bovenwerk Tremulant I would be inclined to put the console at the side or behind, allowing the case to be brought forward to the gallery rail, thereby giving plenty of space for the 16' Praestant and the Bovenwerk in its traditional place above. The small Pedaal could live behind the main case, along with the wedge bellows stack (which would be mechanically operated, of course). Now that would really create a stir! It would also provide a wealth of colour currently unheard in deepest traditional Dorset as well as some fairly remarkable abilities managing the congregation. I wonder what they would make of it?

What is Eclecticism? In architecture and art (probably the closest areas we can consider to organ building), eclecticism is the combination of elements from different historical styles in a single work. Of course, there are many organs that meet this definition, especially since the organ reform movement. Pierre points at the 1950s Holtkamp organ of Syracuse, Bazuin uses the 2006 Pasi organ at Omaha as an example. There are many examples of eclectic organs that try to combine elements from different historical periods, from the Holtkamps, the organs of C.B.Fisk, to organs today. Today, we see widespread eclectism in the organs being built today. Builders like Fritts, Pasi, Richards Fowkes, etc habitually combine historical styles together - such as Dutch/North German style choruses with swell boxes and combination actions. The new organ at Llandauff cathedral sports Tierces, Cremonas and Choir Mixtures in a roughly traditional English Romantic specification on electric action with a modern, ultra-stead wind system. The new Mander organ at St. Giles Cripplegate draws its casework inspiration of 18th Century serpentine flats with a 12.17 Sesquialtera II and Gedackt on the full-compass Swell organ. All these styles of organ can be justified to come under the term of eclecticism. But eclecticism is nothing new. Pierre cites the Wagner organ of Angermünde. In the 19th century, builders like Foster & Andrews were trying to combine the Schultz-style of German romantic choruses (themselves purported to be inspired by Gottfried Silbermann) with more traditionally English voices, using the then-modern Toepfer scaling system. There's some justification to count this as an eclectic organ... The problem with eclecticism is that the definition is too broad and too basic to be of much use. It covers a huge variety of organs, from organs of over 100 ranks in several locations with electric action (is Crystal Cathedral organ eclectic? I think so!!) to a well-disciplined 2 manual tracker action organ with 18th century dutch-style choruses and a swell organ. It is a term that is often and misguidedly used pejoratively but this does many organs and the appreciation of them a disservice. It maybe worth thinking about the influence historicism has had on organ building. Historicism is to do with the developement of artistic styles that draw their inspiration from copying historic styles or artisans. The work at Gothenburg and in the US is well documented. Maybe this is worthy of further discussion?

I've come across one or two Taylors in my time. Fine instruments - solidly built and nice sounding. De Montford Hall (?) has Taylor's flagship instrument in it - a pretty mighty 3 manual organ. I think Paul Hale did a recording of it on Priory - warmly recommended. This organ also has the miniature stops, which is a bit of Taylor hallmark. I've never played one with this arrangement, but those that have tell me they're not much of an issue in practice - in fact, the arrangement works well.

Certainly, my local IAO association is very keen to help and support reluctant organists. Every year or 2 we run a workshop aimed specifically at reluctant organists. It's usually a Saturday afternoon and we'll usually get a fairly well known teacher in to lead it. It covers how to play hymns, playing suitable voluntaries and service music - and also how to accompany worship songs on the organ, which we find is a big concern to many reluctant organists as many of the songs weren't composed with organ accompaniment in mind but their church is very keen to use them. We aim it very much at the reluctant organists - pianists who play the organ, people who've had no organ lessons but "get by", beginners, etc. We cover things like how to play a hymn (with or without pedals), playovers, registration, use of the pedals, and also a bit of a workshop on pieces of music. We can also follow up with links to organ teachers, etc, if reluctant organists want to have further guidance. Although anyone can come, we try to avoid giving too much coverage to the latest whizzkid in the association who's just got a highly presitgious Oxbridge scholarship and passed his ARCO at 15 as we want to encourage the more humble organists to feel comfortable. A big issue we have is connecting to these reluctant organists - quite often they are isolated away and don't really mix with other organists - so getting word out to these organists about our workshops requires quite a lot of effort and cost on our part. We've found one the best ways to get people to come is to write to all the churches in our "patch" with a flyer and covering letter - but I'm sure it doesn't always get from the vicar to the organist. However, we end up only broadcasting to C of E churches because that's the denominiation most of the association belongs to: it would really help if we could contact non-conformists churches and the Catholic fraternity in the same way. I think it would benefit them as the skills and area we cover would also be useful to them. But the problem is, nobody in our association has enough knowledge to know where to start... I think a big concern many reluctant organists have is confidence. Many of them are very humble and painfully aware of their shortcomings. And it does take a fair bit of confidence to accompany and lead a congregation effectively. So I think it's important at our workshop to be aware of the psycological side, how to give our reluctant organists more confidence and how to make them feel valued for the very important contribution they give. It also gives reluctant organists the opportunity to share experiences and network a bit, which they find very valuable.

I'm intrigued by Franck - Mediation (sic), pub. Ashdown. Definitely one for the wishlist. It's an excellent service and there's bargains to be had in just about every area - although I thought £3.50 for Clerambault's Basse et Dessus de Trompette (fine piece though it is from the 1st Livre d'Orgue) was a bit steep, esp for 1-2 pages in "level 3" condition.

I'm puzzled by this. Please could somebody explain what's going on?

I'm trying very hard NOT to do this... I fully support lots of builders, including IBO members, who don't cast their own metal, manufacture their own pipes, etc, but know what they're doing. I know there are lots of practical reasons why not. I've got lots of respect for those people. I'm sorry if it doesn't always come across. Yes, agreed.

Yes, Henk van Eeken does build some new organs, generally in a very traditional Dutch manner. His website gives further details: www.henkvaneeken.com and http://www.henkvaneeken.com/english/completedprojects.html. I note there is an organ destined for Galway, Ireland. Yes, it's interesting to note both van Eeken and Aubertin come from a family line of craftsmen.

Thanks for posting up the videos of Henk van Eeken. I think this makes the points I was trying to explain about research, investigation and gaining a fuller understanding of the craft of building organs and how this involves taking full control and developing your understanding of everything you do. It isn't just about the pipes, it is about every aspect of the organ. I'm really delighted we have builders like Henk van Eeken that have been able to step out of the needs for commercialism and making ends meet (as David Wyld's post sadly illustrates - and I do feel for the people in this situation) and have been able to spend time developing a greater understanding of their craft, rather than churn out rank after rank of pipes. I think the entire craft of organ building benefits from such work. It is very easy to try and pull builders like this from their position and try to do them down or prove their ways or ideals aren't the best or (just as divisive but subtler in approach) there's an alternative way of doing it that's just as good for half the effort or cost. I think we have seen this type of arugment very clearly on this discussion. But such an approach, for whatever motivation, is ultimately self-defeating. As Henk points out, it is the smallest detail that counts. It is the attitude and the approach of builders like Henk that one admires. As Jacques van Oortmerssen puts it so well - "an organbuilder could think very commercially. That would mean one should cut down on all sorts of important aspects. One could cut down on research, one could cut down on the choice of material, which would mean that the quality decreases. And Henk van Eeken is uncompromising in this regard." I would gladly support an organ builder that has the same aspirations as Henk to develop the way he builds organs, his craft, his skill, his overwhelming desire to build better organs, understanding all the side effects of all the processes and not compromising, finding ways out of the commercialism of a production line of building organs to have the time to devote to developing his craft and understanding of it. Without getting too effusive, I feel Henk's work clearly demostrates the merge of modern scientific research with artistic development (as a physicist by education, I was delighted to hear an organ builder talk about crystal lattice structures in metal), while at the same time developing a greater historical understanding. It really is a thing to behold and entirely on the cutting edge of organ building today. And this company of just 5-6 people seems to have found a way to research pipe metal casting on sand, while also able to carve acanthus leaves beautifully, which I think negates some of the points made above... While the organs of the past are Henk's inspiration for him to uncover their skills and processes (and I think it is so very important to have this inspiration), it is also important to think to the future too. One important part of the craft is to be able to pass the skills on to the next generation of organ builders and to keep mastery of the full craft alive. As Henk points out, it is necessary to be a master of all parts of the trade, to understand how they all fit together and interact. I feel that subbing parts out to sub contractors doesn't really support this necessary part of the craft. I think it's the self-defeating attitudes I have an issue with. Of course, I know there are builders (like David Wyld) who are taking steps to improve their work and are starting to make their own pipes again (although I was alarmed at the " dragged himself out of the distant past in terms of hammered lead" comment - there's so much to learn and an open mind is the important thing). I think it's the complacency and closed mind that's the issue - the mindset of "so-and-so makes good enough pipes, so we'll use those. There's no need to make our own". This isn't the attitude of an artist or a worthy craftsman, this is the attitude of a chancer, a jobsworth, someone with a superficial understanding of quality and little desire to improve their craft. I think that is why I started to protest when this discussion seemed to have reached a consensus that subbed pipes were OK. of course, there are sometimes reasons why a builder can't make their own pipes - but the aspiration and mind-set needs to be demostrably there. "That doesn't mean any fool could do it, as Colin stated;" Actually, I stated the complete opposite... I'm really not interested in trying to argue the toss or the minutae with people that don't care to understand what I have written, or seem to deliberately misconstrue what I've written. I felt tremendously dispirited that this board had reached a consensus so quickly that there was really nothing wrong with subbed out pipes without any dissention or any real discussion of the subject because I saw it reached deep into the core of the craft and I was alarmed that nobody seemed to mind. As a result, I am really beginning to wonder if this board is really the right place for me and I find myself considering whether I really want to remain a member. It feels so much like an uphill struggle with nothing to show at the end of it.

As have I yours, Adrian. ;-)

I don't really see what the difference is between a "general music lover" and "us" when it comes to recordings and reviews of recordings. Of course, many of "us" are very informed, can already play the 3 chorales and know what a Cavaille-Coll organ sounds like but I don't know why this makes "us" any different from a "general music lover" - except possibly be a little more discerning. I think there's a difference between a piano with a squeaky pedal and an organ where one can hear the barker-lever action. One is a fault, which can be fixed with some oil or graphite; the other is created as part of the instrument in its normal operation. I've got a lovely recording of Adlington Hall with a fire in the background. Having the fire cracking and popping in the background charminginly enhances the "feel" of the recoring of this organ in a large country house - it gives a sense of place and character to the recording. You feel more like you're there, in the hall on a cold day, listening to the organ with the fire roaring next to you.

"I don't agree that match pipes need research, investigation and testing over and over again. Historic pipes may warrant material investigation, which would be undertaken by a specialst metalurgist, but general replica pipework is very ordinary stuff for metalhands to make. " ...true - but how many actually get really close to accurately re-creating replica pipework? I can't think of that many successful examples. I probably preside over one of the most successful efforts in the UK - but even here, the builder is at pains to point out the pipes are not exact replicas... (and I think their integrity has much to commend them, despite the very convincing results). "There is nothing new in Organ Building, just a re-cylcing of ideas. The days of Vincent Willis experimenting with pipe constuctions are, I think, largely over. " If this is the case, then artistic interest in organbuilding is effectively dead and it's just degenerated into plumbing. Without trying out new ideas, refining ideas and constructions, then development of organs and organ construction is effectively stagnant. And sorry, but people like Richards/Fowkes, Pasi, Fritts, Aubertin, etc - are constantly experimenting with pipe construction today. That's partly why they're counted amongst the best builders in the world. "There is always a place for specialist suppliers/subcontractors as long as they are under the control and instruction of the main firm." It's not merely a question of control and instruction. It's a question of collaboration and working together towards a shared vision. They are different things and I'm sorry if I can't explain the sublties of the differences. One is fine for manufacting plumbing parts, the other supports artistic development. "The craft is in specifying to an appropriate level of accuracy the scales, halving rates and other information; communicating that information effectively..." I think there are many, many organbuilders (and artists and craftsmen, for that matter) that would take exception to this. I could do all you outline above with comparative ease. Does this make me a great organbuilder? Of course it doesn't. There are many organbuilders in the US that do precisely this - have all their parts (including soundboards and cases) made by trade suppliers, put it all together and put their name plate on it. You can even sub out the design work as well. Is there anything original in what they've created? Why don't we count some of these builders amongst the finest in the world? (except I'm told many of these types of builders (esp in the US), relying on trade suppliers, believe they are amongst the greatest builders in the world - and they also have the salesmen to back it up - well, what else do they have to offer?) "Cutting the metal sheet up and soldering the bits together in a given order is something either done right or wrong" Errm, no it's not. It takes many, many years to learn how to make a metal pipe. It's not a black and white process as you make out - it's something that requires great skill that takes years to perfect. Just like playing the organ, for exmaple. There are so many little details to take into account - it's just not a question of supplying all the technical dimensions and data and thinking you'll get the same pipe from 2 different supply houses. "The list of firms Bazuin provides are not, as s/he states, the best organbuilders in the world. They are merely the most successful... implies nothing whatsoever about excellence, only salesmanship" Oooh! David! Do I detect inverted snobbery and jealousy here? Define "success" as you see it in the context here. Most of the builders Bazuin lists don't employ salesmen and operate on a small-ish scale - maybe 8-12 people - but some are significantly smaller. Some of them have a very small output indeed - maybe one organ every 18-24 months and an all-new organ every 3-5 years. I know of one builder Bazuin particularly admires that is a 1-man company and yet he makes everything - metal pipes, keyboards, etc - himself. Very few of Bazuin's admired companies have had large financial backing to get them started. Why does Bazuin admire them so? Because of their artistic achievements in the field of organ building, their understanding of the craft of building organs, their standards and their principles, their desire to make sure that every part of the organ construction, to the smallest detail, as good as it possibly can be. The reason why people want their organs is everything to do with artistic excellence and very little to do with salemanship: most of these builders will get a contract not through glossy brochures and an offer they can't refuse from a slick salesman, but through discerning clients experiencing their organs and letting their organs' qualities speak for themselves. And, for some reason, these organs are so good that discerning clients are sometimes quite prepared to pay 50-100% more for one of their organs or to accept a significantly smaller organ for the money they have. And, no, these companies don't make vast profits and these organbuilders don't drive around in swanky BMWs to get to their mansions and holiday homes. In summary, there is a great deal of difference between parts supply and collaborating with a specialist in their field and I'm interested how many of the responses above have ignored this point.

Fascinating stuff Paul - thanks! So these records should really be released in a proper surround sound format?

... but I think you miss the point about artistic control and development in the interests of trying to prove your point.

Thanks for the heads up on this. Most interesting and full marks to the Beeb for this. I must admit I was slightly dissappointed at the way Graham Kay dismissed so many of the recordings because of the merest hint of action noise - ruling out many fine recordings and performances in the process. To me, some action noise is to be expected with many of these Cavaille-Coll organs: it is part of their character and one is likely to hear some action noise if one were hearing the organ live. I felt the final choice was slightly too distantly recorded for my taste: I would have rather have a slightly less cloudy-sounding recording at the expense of introducing some action noise. It is a matter of purely personal taste, but I am not sure I would have rated the Jean Guillou recording, with its mischevious facilitations of the rhythms and in some cases the notes too, so highly either. However, I think I may well find myself a copy of Eric Lebrun's recording quite soon...

Having the facility to manufacture your own pipes gives you a level of control and detail you can't really get if the pipes are sub-contracted out. Although some builders enjoy a very close relationship with a supply house (e.g. Schoenstein enjoys a very close relationship with Schopp and they work together on researching new pipe designs - usually in the quest of recreating orchestral sounds in ever greater fidelity), having pipes made in the workshop, next door to the voicing room gives the voicer and builder an opportunity to collaborate with the metal shop, through experiment and working on detail, which isn't as easy if the pipe manufacture is subcontracted out. It also makes the manufacture of replica pipework easier if the builder has the originals in their workshop for research, investigation and restoration, which again is harder to do with a subcontractor - it's a two way process of investigation and testing, re-iterated again and again until the builder is happy with the results. Of course, this isn't to denigrate the skills of subcontracted pipe makers - one only need look at the sub-contracted pipe work of Bill Drake's organs, with many period features (small ears soldered on to the body, chimney flutes soldered at the top, prospect pipe foots brought forward to the front line of the pipe, etc) and the peerless quality of pipe manufacture to see that sub contracted pipe making can be made to work and it's obvious that pipe supply house, deriving their only income from it, make pipes to a highly admirable standard. From my experience, voicing is also a matter of finding out how the pipes react and work in the space. It's not just a question of the voicer imposing their will and ideals on the way the organ should sound. Voicing is about finishing the work done in the workshop and the planning and design of the organ and its pipes to bring out the spirit and character of the organ. Some organs turn out well, others are more challenging - no one ever knows until the organ starts to make its first sounds on site. The work of the voicer usually stands on top of the work done in the metal shop, rarely in spite of it.

Oh, yes - well spotted. I'll probably be going through Freiburg (well Fribourg, of the Swiss variety) on the train in the next couple of weeks...

I really like the look of this organ on paper. It's captured my imagination in a way the Edinburgh organ also under discussion hasn't. Size of organ isn't really proportional to the volume of sound it produces. A small but lustily voiced organ can produce an extraordinary amount of sound, quite capable of filling a large building. A good example of this is the choir organ at Alkmaar, which fills this large church to glittering effect, despite having no pipe longer than six foot and remarkably diminutive proportions. It's quite possible to increase the power output of an organ's pipes by increasing the windways, etc, to give more sound. Small scales can be got round but there's a limit at which the sound from the pipes starts to sound hard and forced and its musical quality diminishes. However, a large building with gracious acoustics will be far more forgiving on an organ screaming its head off so that it's only at closer quarters that one realises how harsh the pipe speech actually is. So in summary the size of an organ isn't really an indication of how loud it's going to be. Another factor is the acoustics. A small room with absorbant, dead acoustics is going to be a far harder proposition for the organ than one with gracious acoustics. I remember the story of Ken Tickell, trying out some pipes designed for Cheltenham Ladies' College (a remarkably dead hall) in Worcester Cathedral and found the pipes were far too loud for the larger building. While there's nothing stopping a well designed small organ from being successful in a large space, I'm not sure large organs in small spaces have the same chances of success. Most large organ sounds need space and resonance for the sound to blend and any rough spots to be knocked off before it meets our ears. A 32' reed at close quarters never sounds pretty or that musical but in a large, resonant space it sounds simply thrilling with the rest of the organ. In addition, the pipes will need to be quietened down and there's a limit at whic the pipes are voiced so quitely that there are problems with speech and producing any musical interest in the sound. So the idea of an organ with 3 32's in a medium sized parish church with limited acoustics speaks more of ego than of good judgement and taste and I think this stands out enough on paper to justify comment. Back on topic: 10 organs I would like to play (which I haven't yet) - the list is endless and I've made lots of omissions. I've only included organs I haven't played or heard in the flesh: 1. Sacred Heart Cathedral, Rochester NY - Paul Fritts Op.26 2. A tour of the organs of the Tierra de Campos, Spain, including Frenchilla and the work of Tadeo Ortega 3. Bovenkerk, Kampen, Hinsz organ 4. Martinikerk, Gronigen 5. Freiburg - Silbermann (and the organs of Rotha as well) 6. Hofkirche, Innsbruck - G.Ebert 1588 7. Usher Hall, Edinburgh 8. The Antegnatis of Brescia 9. St Sulpice (actually a tour of the Parisian churches would be ideal - including Notre Dame) 10. Berlin Dom - Sauer

Nigel Thank you for your wonderful post - and for reproducing the judgment of the case above, which I think is an important ruling if there are future cases. The argument of custodianship for future generations is an important one, which carries much weight with many church people who may not fully grasp the muscial arguments.

My experience of Cavaille-Coll organs (either original or scrupulously restored) is that Cavaille-Coll pedal boards are straight and flat. The drop from the keyboards to the pedalboard is quite large as well. I can't say I find them the easiest or most comfortable pedalboards but the unique musical experience of playing a Cavaille-Coll more than makes up for it...