Colin Harvey

What a nice idea! If I publish it, I might get around to keeping to schedule. Immediate pieces on the list are (once I've finished off the Franck Prelude, Fugue and Variation and a small clutch of Parry Chorale preludes from his second book) Toccata Chromatica - Ad Wammes Gigue Fugue - JSB Movmt 1 from Widor V Schumann Fugues 6 & 3 on BACH They should give me plenty to think about for the next few months! Good luck with the Bach F major. It's not really that difficult but for those notorious trio sections, which come with practice. A steady pace is best - it's not a gigue but a passepied, which is slightly slower - don't feel you need to race it to outdo GTB. The fugue is a biggie - on a par with the D major BWV 532 - but very satisfying, esp. the final page, when Bach combines the two themes (I think it's Bach's only double fugue in the organ preludes and fugues). But the Toccata is addictive when you can play it... And best of luck with Mendelssohn 4 - I thought it was a swine when I learnt it - esp. the first movement!

"I don't know whether Flentrop left behind a Flentrop organ or a Mittenreither organ" It's definitely a Flentrop. A nice one, but definitely Flentrop, late 70s, built at an interesting time as Cor Edeskes was starting to come to the fore in Flentrop...

Indeed it does - and it negates the parrallel octaves between the descant and bass line in While Shepherds in AHB in the 2nd line by going to the mediant on the second beat of bar 3. In AHB, it goes to the dominant in 1st inversion, so you get F falling to an E in both bass and descant lines...

The Alan Gray descant to While Shepherds watched is in the Anglican Hymn Book. I agree with you: I like it, and my choir and congregation tell me they prefer it to the other descants available. I find that sometimes technically difficult and adventorous harmony doesn't always cut it, especially with a no-nonsense carol. I suppose it's called "good taste"... I also like the melody in the tenor line version of this tune, which is in Ancient and Modern. Very effective for the angel speaking, especially with a solo reed for the tenor line in the left hand.

Some of the local IAO organists' associations arrange overseas visits. Winchester has visited Netherlands, France and Spain in the past few years and I know many of the neighbouring associations have done similar things. Most of these are fairly small scale - like an extended weekend or 4-5 days over a half-term week. Generally, we get about 1/2 dozen, which is a very easy number to manage. I find small numbers means a more relaxed, informal, feel to the holiday and a much longer time to play the organs yourself and get much better contact with them. Alternatively, if you've got a friend or two, who would want to go as well, you can arrange your own trips. Many of the organists are very amenable if you contact them by email and many speak good English too, esp. in the Netherlands. If you speak French and German you should be fine. Thanks to the Internet, it's relatively easy to sort out travel arrangements and accomodation in advance. You can also sort out your itinery to do other things that'll interest you as well, like interesting Cities and such like, as well as controlling the costs yourself. If you have a friend like Mr. Allcoat, with lots of contacts abroad, they're usually happy to help organise a visit by giving you the contacts and give suggestions of places you might not have thought of (not that I'm trying to prosletyse Nigel on his own behalf...). So have fun - you'll have a great time. As well as finding out how a North German Sesquialtera really sounds, I found that my forrays abroad have made me appreciate the organs we have in England much more and broadened my outlook as a result.

I slipped over on the ice on my way to lunch today. I currently have a right elbow about the size of a small melon, with about 20 degrees of painful, slow movement. I also had the carol service this evening, and due to unforeseen circumstances, was having to do both organist and choir master... Thankfully, the choir was in good voice and although I currently conduct like a Gerry Anderson puppet (I almost felt like shouting "F A B Virgil!" as I waved my hands), as soon as I heard the choir, I knew things would be OK. A friend came over and helped with the stops (which are slightly stiff and I couldn't really reach higher than the Great Principal). Somehow I managed it through to the end (although the final few pages of Jehan Alain's Litanies on a mechanical action organ were rather painful) but think I might visit A&E tomorrow...

I played the Bach/Vivaldi Concerto in A minor when asked for a filler to pad out a Vivaldi Gloria. Worked well, but assume you want something for the choir to sing?

I suspect our dear Dutch pedal reed friend might have been refering to this: http://www.dioceseofleedsmusic.org.uk/orga...uddersfield.php For those of you of a technical bent, the photos of the organ's installation give an intrigiuing insight into this organ's interior design: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/saundersbp/S...ation11July2009 http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/saundersbp/S...ation21July2009

Fine if you play the synthesiser.

Rare but not unheard of - St. Mary at Hill (Hill, 1848) has a 6' Quint on the Great organ http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=E00332 Interesting to note that Hill tended to use the practice of rounding up to the nearest foot until quite late. I'm sure there are one or two others from this period as well - but the 6' Quint seems to have fallen out of favour in the UK. Nowadays, 10 2/3 Quints are quite common on larger instruments that don't quite run to 32'. "...and when it would be used" Well, I'm sure we can have a fascinating discussion on this as there's lots to say. The pedal quint 12' - if well done - adds a good deal of gravity to the pedal line, forming a (slightly crude) 32' waveform when combined with a (stronger) 16'. It tends to work best in fuller registrations - in quieter registrations, the 12' rank can draw too much attention to itself and the effect can sound a bit ugly - especially towards the top end of the pedal board. The best examples tend to be independant open ranks, which can be voiced specifically to work with the 16' to form a 32' resultant - but these are pretty rare as they're quite expensive for what they are in terms of materials and space. More commonly in the UK, they're derived from a soft 16' rank, like an Echo Bourdon or Dulciana 16'. But, that said, there are quite a lot of recent organs with independant 12's. When done well, it can be very effective: Some 32' Open woods actually use a trick bass for the bottom 4 or 5 notes - using 2 ranks of 16 and 12' to form the 32 fundamental where space is limited for the largest pipes - I think All Saints', Margaret Street and St.Mary Redcliffe may use this trick. More recently, I think Bill Drake has used a 5 1/3 trick bass at the bottom of a 16' manual rank on one or two of his organs.

Dear all, I thought you might like to hear this organ, recorded on Wednesday on the Radio: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p005b...ill_03_12_2009/ Have a listen from 2 hours 15 minutes 10 seconds onwards. You will all be delighted to know that this organ is pretty much fully operational, including the Melotone and the 32' Diaphones. There really isn't space on this board for me to fully describe the features and abilities of this remarkable instrument. But you get to hear Peter Hammond talk about the organ and he's been instrumental getting this organ back to full working order. There's a good opportunity to hear the organ in the flesh, at 3pm on Sunday 13 Dec 2009, where Richard Hills will be playing the organ, alongside the Southampton Phil and Victoria Simmonds (they won't be playing, just singing alongside it). Tickets £12/£9 from the box office, 02380 632601. I understand there's an idea to do a recording of this organ - probably a 2 CD set with one side played on the variety console, the other from the classical console (and hopefully a few duets played from both consoles...).

I feel this is slightly unfair so I'll add my own insights on this for everyone to enjoy. Stephen came from a musical family on his maternal side. His grandfather played the violin and his mother was a pianist. At Winchester College, Stephen took a lively interest in composition, an interest he was to keep throughout his life. He entered his compositions into the annual music composition competition, where he frequently found himself an honourable runner-up to Francis Pott. As in many areas, Stephen had a vast knowledge of the theory of music composition and delighted in finding a new tome to devour on the subject - I remember him eagerly scanning my copy of Marpung when I had him over for coffee, giving a spoken running cross-reference against the likes of Greene, Fux and the like. Stephen was always very self-effacing about his ability to perform music. I think this stemmed from his time at Win Coll, where, rather than sing in the chapel choir or even at St. Michael's, he was speedily dispatched to the local parish church of St.Thomas on Southgate Street. While I think he found this privately slightly demeaning to someone so euthusiastic about music, his interest in the organ was enlivened each Sunday at this local parish church where the organist, himself an enthused amateur, played J.S.Bach's Preludes and Fugues week after week as voluntaries. Stephen's appetite for the organ was utterly whetted by this. Stephen was an organist who did not use the pedals, except when a slightly gangly leg would stretch out for the occasional pedal point. He always took great interest in the English school of organ composition before 1850 and this continued after he started a career outside organ building, where he collected and edited the organ music of John Keeble in his spare time, with plans to publish the collection. He was always an amateur organist, who would happily stop and re-try passages if he wasn't happy with them first time round, taking delight in commenting on their compositional features as he played - the fugues and contrapuntal work of the early English school tended to be favoured. There was no side or pretension to his playing - he played not to show off his skill to others but for his own delight and amusement. Stephen had a piano at his home and took similar pleasure happily bashing away - he commented he never held back. In his own words, he was quite capable of mangling a Schubert Impromptu or Chopin Nocturne. But I think this is Stephen's modesty showing through. At his heart, he was an artist with an innate musical instinct. He instinctively had a feel for the affekt of a piece and knew exactly where it should go and what he wanted it to do with it. I think that while he knew exactly how the piece should go and his listening was always very detailed, informed and nuanced, I think he felt his technique let him down from faithfully reproducing every nuance and detail in the music exactly as he felt and noticed. If he had developed the technique, then I'm sure he would have been a concert pianist of some distinction. Stephen had a very keen ear indeed and the ability to understand objectively and describe what he heard. He could tell exactly what was going on from the smallest aural details. He took great delight listening to a real artist play the organ and seemed to have the ability to analyse what he heard and work out what was going on. He always had the utmost wonder for some musicians and organists, even if he didn't like them personally, but if they brought something new to the music that he hadn't heard before, he would eagerly comment on it with admiration. In many ways, he taught me how to listen to an organ objectively, showing me the effects of scaling and voicing, the effects of acoustic, pipe design, placement, projection and everything, really, for which I am extremely grateful.

Very appropriate. And you'd want it to be a much bigger stop knob than any other on the organ, to emphasise its dominance over the other stops on the organ. A red, (maybe orange) flashing warning light would be useful too. Preferably on top of the organ console so listeners can run for cover when it's drawn.

I like this. A friend of mine pretty much has Trick of the Trade 1 set up as a general on his Willis III - dubbed the "Bach Pleno Piston" (alongside "The Standard Hymn General", "The Small Congregation Hymn General", "The Strings General" (all strings and celestes with octave couplers...), "The Flutes Piston" and "'Full' Organ"). It works well. The Great Reeds on Choir Transfer is invaluable - it's on almost all the time. But I think we've all used the other tricks of the trade at some stage... I was using No.5 just last weekend...

Wrong. They do. It's called diffraction. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_formalism if you want a mathematical workout. Apply this idea to an organ in chamber producing sound waves from 32 feet in length to less than an inch and you'll start to understand the physics of the point I'm making. It's not really belief... Reflection and scattering has a large effect too, which grows with higher frequencies. This also accounts for the echo and loss of attack. I'm not sure Palladian architecture creates such superior acoustics to other buildings that it is more important than anything else. In times gone past there was an idea that a double box was the ideal shape for a music room but, on the other hand, the problem with regular boxes and standing waves is well known. And a flower is a flower is a flower by any other name... It can be a rose or a dandelion, or anything in between. But I agree, the grafting of dandelion petals onto a rose is not especially attractive... Yes, agreed. I think the organs of John Compton frequently proves that high pressure, leathered lips, etc, does not invariably produce forced, unmusical speech as has been suggested by the proponents of the organ reform movement in the 1950s. It's a big misapprehension, that a lot of people sadly still labour under today. It's the design, treatment and regulation of the pipework that really seems to affect the quality of the sound and speech, which makes it heavy, hard and unmusical. A high pressure gives a lot more scope for the organ builder to play with. I'm looking forward to visiting John Compton's largest all-new installation next week, which is pretty much untouched. I have great respect for this wonderful organ, its choruses and much else besides. :-) Actually, I believe this may be another example of a building designed around the organ... Which is a very interesting essay into the contemporary (and John Compton's) ideas on ideal acoustics. I find the organ makes best sense in the gallery. At the front, the sound is a bit confused. My experiences of the great continental organs suggest the mixtures are generally much stronger and more determined than the mixtures of Victorian organs in our intimate little parish churches. However, they are a good deal better regulated and finished than lots of modern mixtures introduced since the organ reform movement. It's a generalisation, I know, as it varies from organ to organ and builder to builder. Actually, I think that's exactly what Marcussen did to this organ in the 1960s... Uuurgh, I'd hate to accompany an entire hymn on a tuba. Can you imagine? Can we have something else but a lone tuba for the congregation to listen to and sing along to? I think "body of sound" is important as the Father Willis sound does tend to evaporate in big spaces. Salisbury Cathedral in the quire is a wonderful organ, especially in quadraphonic sound between the cases, but halfway down the nave I find it is but a distant haze of sound unless there are lots of big reeds drawn. However, I agree that sound needs to have good definition to listen to the music and dull, flutey sounds don't really assist this. I'm not really a big fan of big, windy, flutey No.1 Diapasons that are half way towards being a claribel flute.

Interesting M'sieur... My source was from a consultant linked to the project, who had a slightly different story. One of the prefered reports gave a couple of options - one was to sort out the action (I think keeping it largely E-P) and mechanics - getting them into a workable state that wasn't too cheap and nasty, new console in Victorian Walker style (but a bit of a hybrid console with buttons, like, say, St. Albans Copenhagen so there was at least some sense of sitting at a Victorian organ but with a full supply of buttons to keep today's organist happy), reversing some of the tonal changes to get it to a more integrated tonal scheme. Option 2 was for full historical restoration, returning to T-P, fully authentic console (one wonders how those poor Victorians ever managed), careful restoration of the pipework and tonal scheme, attire of hobnail boots and waistcoats with growth of beards by the organ builders as they work on the organ, complete authentic disregard of Health & Safety, steam driven power tools, etc...

Thanks. I really ought to clarify what I meant about the Wimborne organ, in that as well as speaking across the chancel towards the console, there is also an arch to the west of the organ chamber into the South Transept, through which some sound from the Great and Swell Organs (and Pedal) seem to get to the nave. I tend to agree with Mark Venning's assessment and your comments about the manual foundation stops but am unsure (after my brief visit) how the location of the organ, although not perfect, could be improved. I suspect there will always be an element of compromise there. I haven't experienced the in-house style of registration at Sherborne and can only relate what I was told. I'm sure they know what they're doing.

I'm glad David points this out now (after defending the mechanical design of the Peartree organ most vigorously to me once) as this was exactly what I thought about it. However, despite its shortcomings (which I saw little point in alluding to), I still think my point above is valid. I know the full story of dispersal of the choir at Peartree too - I had a number of friends in the choir at the time. As far as Portsea goes (and I wasn't going to say this), I'm aware of a number of proposals put to the church a little while ago, the majority of which were very well balenced between the historical desires and practical concerns and outlined a number of potential options for the organ. They were all mainly pragmatic and one or two of them were very good indeed. They were not all brass candlesticks and rusty screws as suggested. I'll be interested to know if one of these is going ahead or whether the church has decided on an alternative plan - or quite what is happening. If the church is putting in an HLF bid, they must have a good idea what they're planning to do, although, if I remember from my own experience with the process, the level of detail required depends on what stage of the application process they're putting in for.

The general concepts remain the same but there are a lot of other factors to take into account, which would explain Wimborne (which doesn't exactly speak across the chancel) or the effects at other places. You might be overstating the case at Sherborne - I understand the case and the core of the pipes remain from the old organ, brought back to something closer to their original concept. Ken Tickell wrote a good article about the work in Organ Building 2005 but I should really go and have a look sometime.

This was a number of years ago now - I'm sure it's all change now. Besides, they've got their Nave division now. The action and soundboards of the organ when I played it were in a dire state.

I think David gives some very good examples here. I'd like to pick up on "for the addition of upperwork 'to brighten the job up a bit'", which I completely agree with David's implied suggestion that it's not a good idea. Higher frequencies are attenuated by air so only those churches with large distances need strong upperwork. In the intimate environment of most small parish churches, there isn't this need for lots of upperwork to make the sound of the organ "carry". The problem with higher frequencies is that they're much more directional than the lower frequencies. The sound doesn't get round corners. Low frequencies go round a corner very nicely though - the bass of a 16' Bourdon will be heard quite happily throughout a church, even if it's tucked behind a corner but the pedal mixture in the same place will be all but inaudible. I'm sure we've all come across an organ with a pedal mixture hidden at the back of the organ which is all but a waste of a good stop knob. Take this to the English church example, with the organ in the chancel. The sound of the mixtures will remain in the chancel because they're directional and only speak across the chancel, while only the lower frequencies get round the corner in the nave. Rather than try to compensate for this by making ever larger and more agressive mixtures (as we've done since the 1950s), the Victorians played to its strengths and developed massive foundation work to get round the corner and "carry" down the nave. Sadly, it actually works, even if today's organists don't like the all-pervading sound it creates. However, the low frequencies help to an extent to carry the higher frequencies around the corner into the nave. A good example of this is at Sherbourne Abbey (before the nave organ arrived). The organ is against the North Wall of the North Transept and has a big corner to turn if the sound is to get into the nave. I remember playing there, sticking to 16,8,4 on the Great (the 16 was on nearly all the time for hymns) and lots of people commented how they could hear the organ fine and it gave good support for the hymns but it didn't seem to shriek at them. I got the impression that the lead from the organ was still fairly gentle but I don't know what the resident organists used: I suspect they were trying to lead the congregation with the mixtures and weren't using the full foundation work, which would give a harsher but less effective sound. So yes, I thoroughly agree with David on this and deplore it when I see a scheme or work where extra upperwork or "the choruses have been rebalenced" (read: "we've opened up the mixtures and quietened down the 8s and 16s") to "make the organ carry and give better support to the singers".

You could have said exactly the same of Peartree church, circa 1990. Thankfully, they took the plunge, HLF was prepared to put up the money and they've now got a solid little organ in a fully sustainable state that shouldn't need work on the action every 15-25 years. They're proud of their organ and they've attracted a number of good organists at the church, with a large and enthusiastic choir. I don't think it's that positive or helpful to dismiss Portsea taking on this project because it's in a not-especially-wealthy parish and they've got other demands on their funds. Every church, rich or poor, has other demands on their funds. When would they ever have the money to fully restore the organ if they had your outlook? Why should Portsea not take on this project? If we only support the rich churches restoring their organs lavishly, aren't we encouraging a situation where "the haves" have the best of everything and "the have-nots" have to make do? Where's the justice in that? A large, ambitious project of national/international interest does a great deal of good for the church community. It helps draws the church community together and makes them appreciate their resources, which can only have a positive impact on visitors. It gives the confidence and a positive outlook raising money and improving the situation of their church, which can only have a positive impact. Much more depends on the leadership of the church than the wealth of its congregation. Finally, may I point out that there isn't really that much evidence to suggest the organ will be used more with other instruments in the future and that pitches vary over time. Most continental makers of Oboes now make instruments at a variety of pitches, Steinways leave the Hamburg factory at A444, most professional musicians have a variety of instruments at their disposal, so we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog.

Thanks for posting this. It's good to hear that there is to be an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore this fine and historically important organ. It will be very interesting to know more of the details of the work proposed. I know one organ builder wrote a very good report on the organ and suggested what could be done - I'd be interested to know who's successful with their bid and what they do.

I'm interested to read the comments on the discussion forum that try to asert that Bristol Cathedral includes a high proportion of material by Vowles, even claiming that the majority of the Great chorus is by Vowles. I've decided to ressurect this topic, rather than go off-topic on the badly positioned organ topic. All my knowledge of this organ is based on giving a couple of lunchtime recitals on the organ, plus what I can glean from NPOR and the Internet. I think this entry is interesting: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=D04663 Which mentions Vowles's re-use of Harris's spotted metal pipes (in itself an unusual feature) and the retention of the GG compasses - a very conservative feature for 1861! The evidence seems to suggest that the move was done fairly inelegantly - NPOR above states "the case being somewhat mutilated in the process" and the Bristol Cathedral Website (http://www.bristol-cathedral.co.uk/index.php?id=32) states that the old west case was wedged against the north wall of the choir aisle. If Vowles re-used the cases, (even if it could be argued there was little benefit keeping the old west case) I wonder what else he re-used? I think it is likely he retained some of the soundboards and parts of the action if the organ was still GG compass after this work. But it also appears Vowles introduced a number of new ranks as well - stops such as the Choir Organ Dulciana and Viole di Gambe; the Great Organ Clarabella and the Swell Organ Double Dulciana, Harmonic Flute and Cornopean all look decidedly Victorian. Vowles also retained the wooden pedal pipes of Munday in his enlarged, if unadventerous, Pedal Organ. But why would Vowles want to replace the majority of Harris's upperwork on the Great Organ? The specification of the Great Chorus doesn't change substantially during Vowles's rebuild and remained down to GG. Is it really likely a builder would provide a new GG Great Chorus to a 17th century specification in 1861? Vowles belonged to a long lineage of builders that had worked on the Bristol organ for 75 years, since the Seedes added the Choir case and pipes in 1786. It is also worth bearing in mind that Renatus Harris moved to Bristol towards the end of his life and his son, John Harris built the organ of St Mary Redcliffe with John Byfield in 1726 - an organ that C.H.H.Parry wrote about in glowing terms between 1864 to 1866. In the light of such conservatism and lineage, is it really likely Vowles would have replaced Renatus Harris's pipework? It is also worth bearing in mind that the nave for Bristol Cathedral had yet to be built at the time of Vowles's work, which doubled the size of the Cathedral. Why would pipework, which had been adequate for the building for nearly 200 years, be replaced when the organ was moved and enlarged? Further to this, the Bristol Cathedral website states that "with the building of the new Nave in the 1870's, [the organ] was no longer adequate to serve a building which had doubled in length" - which would mean that if the claims made by people above are to be believed, that Vowles's new fluework was not adequate in the new building. The NPOR entry below shows that the organ was re-tuned to an equal temperament just 6 years after Vowles's work. I wonder what the temperament was in 1861 and I wonder why didn't they take the opportunity to retune the organ to an equal temperament in 1861 if a great proportion of the fluework was replaced? http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N03797 Most crucially, the first NPOR entry states Vowles "re-used spotted metal pipes of Harris". I'm interested in the source of this note and the scope of the spotted metal pipes by Harris. Spotted metal from Harris's period is unusual but it requires no special process to make. It might be that Harris made spotted metal by accident or design - most old builders (as today) used whatever materials were readily available and the composition of pipe metal varied over time. Maybe Harris had an abundance of tin at the time and used more than he normally did? I don't know. So maybe somebody, with better access to the evidence and documents than me, can explain why they think the majority of the Great fluework should be attributed to Vowles? I'm interested in the facts - evidence and the sources, such the documents explaining what Vowles did in the 1860s - rather than conjecture, which can be spun with equal ease in either direction. I ought to point out that visual inspection of pipework is not infallible. It's very easy to make a mistake. I remember one local builder told me he thought the pipework in one organ was quite possibly be Bevington - which it wasn't (and he later retracted the idea). So on the basis of the NPOR notes, I'm not sure an argument that says the pipes look Victorian because they're made of spotted metal is really valid in this case without good supporting evidence. As an aside, it is worth bearing in mind Walker's descendance from Renatus Harris too, through Richard Bridge, trained by Renatus Harris, through the Englands and, through a brief parlour aprrenticeship, on to Walker himself. Manders can also trace their ancestry to the Englands too and I find it satisfying to consider the lineage of builders that have worked on this organ in the past - whether Vowles, Walkers or Manders.

:-) I wanted to say that too! Technically, it's a risky option, which could affect pipe speech as well. I would argue for caution...