sbarber49
-
Posts
490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sbarber49
-
-
Hi!
I am intending to buy a MP3 portable recorder to record the organ. The two I am thinking about are the Roland R-09HR and the Zoom ZOOMH4. They both look pretty good but I was wondering if anyone had any opinions about which I should get - or if I should think about any other recorder - it would be most useful. I want to be able to attach other microphones to it as well as having excellent built-in ones. How does the acoustic of the building play into my decision?
With every best wish,
Andy
Try these threads:
http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...ic=2063&hl=
http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...c=1796&st=0
I am very happy withy my Edirol R-09, but it's probably less good than the Zoom if you want to use external microphones. The built-in microphones on the Edirol are very good, but I find they can be a bit bass-heavy with organ pedals, depending on how carefully I place the machine.
Stephen Barber
-
I tried it out this morning and, yes, it went down well. I've had the book for some time but had not managed to get that far.
Good! Most of Stanley Vann's organ music is slow and meditative so this is a bit of a change. It's on Gary Sieling's CD from Chelmsford (http://www.crotchet.co.uk/PRCD827.html)
Stephen Barber
-
I couldn't understand why my pupil couldn't get the rhythm of bar 4 (of Bach's Liebster Jesu) right. Only when I looked closely did I discover that he WAS playing what it said (in NBA)! I have never heard it played like that and all the other copies I have (Novello, BG, Kevin Mayhew Funeral Album, Roger Davis's Tutor, this one http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/bac...ral_BWV731.pdf) have the version I'm used to.
Has anyone changed the way they play this bar to the NBA version? I presume it is a correction of a misreading. Are there any other editions that have the NBA reading?
It's bar 4, 2nd crotchet beat. NBA has: quaver tied to a demisemiquaver, followed by 4 hemidemisemiquavers and a demisemiquaver.
BG, Novello etc. have quaver tied to 2 demisemiquavers followed by 4 hemidemisemiquavers.
Stephen Barber
-
In Playing them in & playing them out ("a huge new collection of processionals and recessionals") there is a toccata-type thing called Fêtes by Stanley Vann which is rather good and always goes down well. (I'm promoting it as he dedicated it to me!)
-
I'm no organ builder, so I'm sure the following can be refined, but...
The Cornet is composed of wide-scale ranks which consequently have a rather flutey quality, the aim being to give the effect of a reedy fundamental sound rather than the sound of an overtly compound stop. In English Baroque organs the Cornet was a solo stop, but for proof that it could be effective as a chorus stop as well, look no further than, on the one hand, the French Baroque organ (where its function was to boost the weak trebles of the Trompettes) and, on the other, the Swell at St Paul's Cathedral.*
The Sesquialtera is composed of narrow-scale ranks of Principal tone. The effect is still reedy, but far more incisive and acid. It is an invaluable colourant as a solo stop, but in English Baroque organs it was essentially a chorus mixture.
* Correct me if my distant memory is playing tricks, but I am quite sure that the St Paul's Cornet really is a Cornet and not just a standard Fr Willis tierce mixture under different name.
Thank you for that. I know about the French use of the cornet as a chorus stop. I had thought that you were saying (in post 14) that because the stop was voiced as a cornet it could be used as a chorus stop, whereas if it had been voiced as a sesquialtera it couldn't be. On re-reading your post I see that I was inferring something that you hadn't written.
I thought that the St Paul's cornet was just a tierce mixture but since I'd forgotten it was called a cornet my memory is obviously not that reliable!
Stephen Barber
-
As far as I remember it is a 12.17 stop voiced as a Cornet, not as a Sesquialtera, and it can be used in chorus.
Please excuse my ignorance! How different is the voicing between these two stops and in what way? I had thought that it would be more likely that a sesquialtera could be used in chorus than a cornet.
Stephen Barber
-
Can I politely ask if anyone could PM me with the article?
And me, please, as I don't subscribe to the Church Times.
Thanks,
Stephen Barber
-
Personally, I still prefer the altered version. It actually seems stronger in some respects. For example, the second line of the first verse is obscure, to say the least: 'Naught be all else to me, save that thou art;' I find it clearer in the altered version. However, as you say, it is a matter of choice. However, I would not accept that this is an example of 'dumbing-down'.
But have the editors the right to alter the metre completely? Especially since they don't even acknowledge that they have done so (in, for example, Common Praise). Eleanor Hull did NOT versify the hymn as printed and it seems to me to be disgraceful to print such a radically different version under her name.
Not dumbed down? As you say, a matter of opinion.
Stephen Barber
-
The G major Fugue that I have always greatly enjoyed playing but can find only in the Novello edition is BWV 576.
Malcolm
Or here, of course:
http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/7/76...A_-_BWV_576.pdf
Stephen Barber
-
I have been using the post-Christmas 'down-time' to redouble my efforts to investigate and eventually buy a practice instrument as soon as possible. My shortlist comprises the Eminent DCS 326 from Cathedral Organs Ltd and the Ahlborn Praeludium II from Classical Organs Ltd. I will try and play examples of these over the next few weeks, however, does anyone have first-hand experience of either or both of these two models?
Have you tried Allen? I've just bought an Allen CF-2a (http://pearsaa1.memset.net/~allenorg/index.php?page=church-organs) which I'm very pleased with. Although the pedalboard is less deep than normal, I found it much more comfortable than the Wyvern Sonata. The quality seems very high. I had divisional pistons and a headphone socket fitted and the Great & Pedal made unenclosed. Anyone who lives near Peterborough (I know: why would anyone?) is welcome to come and try it.
It's very basic: one specification (although there's a choice of 2). I have software which allows me to do some voicing (adjust treble/bass) and alter any stop or note for volume. Beautifully made console.
It wouldn't fit in the door! They had to take it away and "split" it. If I want to move it again, though, I can split it myself and then put it together again.
Stephen Barber
P.S. I do play a proper organ on Sunday mornings ( Harrison - 1917).
-
Slane is said to be the tune to a folk song that originated in the eighteenth century, commemorating this event at the Hill of Slane: http://www.hymnnotes.blogspot.com - second item down. Is this folk song available anywhere on the web?
http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiBNKSBAN2;ttBNKSBAN2.html
Of course, it's a very different tune - especially as it begins begins on the 3rd beat of the bar. Had Percy Dearmer kept the opening upbeat his version would make more rhythmic sense to me. (Although still not acceptable for Be thou my vision)
Looking on Youtube, it seems to me that the version of Be thou my vision with added syllables is only sung in this country, certainly not in the USA. What about Australia & New Zealand?
I couldn't find a decent performance of it on Youtube but this one has a nice flow to it. would you really want to add upbeats and extra syllables to this?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=627zCglxaMA
Stephen Barber
-
Slane is said to be the tune to a folk song that originated in the eighteenth century, commemorating this event at the Hill of Slane: http://www.hymnnotes.blogspot.com - second item down. Is this folk song available anywhere on the web?
Try matching these words and this tune:
-
I am a little puzzled. It may simply be wrong, but the companion to With One Voice (aka The Australian Hymnbook) seems to tell me that the version of Slane with upbeats is the original tune, and the version they use for Be Thou my Vision is adapted to the words by omitting them.
It's wrong.
SB
-
Neither was I sure what you were disagreeing with, Stephen. However, your post above makes it clear.
I have compared the two versions this morning - frankly I cannot see the attraction of the 'original' version (HON)*. I would be the first to admit that I am not an expert in the appreciation of poetic verse; this said, to me, the flow of the text as given (for example in NEH 339) appears to be superior in every way to that as laid out in HON. I cannot see that the absence of either notes (as upbeats) or ther attendant 'extra' syllables is a detraction. If anything, the additional word 'be' added at the beginning of several lines could be said to thave a unifying effect.
I would not describe the altered version as 'dumbed-down'. In any case, the harmony given in HON I find to be considerably more offensive than any perceived failings of the revised text. The same arranger supplied a similarly strange harmony for O come, o come, emmanuel - which I also find to be lacking in flow and harmonic sense.
* Both versions of the text appear to be translations by Mary Byrne - subsequently altered ('versified') by Eleanor Hull (no other arranger is credited). At least, I think I recall the name of the latter also appearing in the version in HON - I will not have a copy of this book in my house.
My last post on the subject! I find that if I read aloud, say, the first verse as originally versified and the version in CP the "modern" version has a dreadfully banal rhythm in comparison.
Original, 1919 version:
Be thou my vision, O Lord of my heart,
Naught be all else to me, save that thou art;
Thou my best thought in the day and the night,
Waking or sleeping, thy presence my light.
CP version:
Be thou my vision, O Lord of my heart,
be all else but naught to me, save that thou art;
be thou my best thought in the day and the night,
both waking and sleeping, thy presence my light.
No-one brought up on the real thing, like everyone who grew up in the Church of Ireland, will settle for anything less.
The last line is the crux of the whole hymn, in my view, and I almost always used to diminuendo at this point to underline it and because it is so personal:
"Still be my vision, O Ruler of all."
replaced with: "Still be thou my vision................." Emphasis on the wrong word and the hymn ruined.
Yes, the repetition could be said to unify the text, but I think it's already completely unified - can you see any way in which it isn't? Putting "be" in 8 times at the beginnings of lines might seem to be overkill - in any case they've only done it when they couldn't find a suitable "filler" word - so not consistent. (Karl Jenkins' music is very unified but it isn't big on profundity, is it?)
As for the version with upbeats being dumbed down - okay, that's a matter of opinion, but, again, if you had had known the original version first, I don't think you'd be happy with the "tum-ti-tum" version, however smooth and flowing.
I've already said that the harmonies in HON are dreadful so we don't need to revisit this. It's got nothing to do with the rhythm; I have never used them and never will.
Yes, the translation was by Mary Byrne and this was versified by Eleanor Hull. She had nothing to do with the modern version, of course (she died in 1935).
I regard the modern version with the banal rhythm as cultural vandalism.
Over and out.
Stephen Barber
-
I use a reharmonization I wrote out in 1974. Its ending seems to have been heavily influenced by the Willcocks last verse arrangement of God rest ye merry, Gentlemen and ends with a major chord following some slightly clashing contrary-motion triads. Well, I like it!
Stephen Barber
-
The precise meaning of your post eludes me. Do you mean that the version in AMNS (for example) is a later version and that the tune, as it appears in HON, is actually the original rendering?
If this is the case, then I must disagree with you. The version in AMNS (395) to my ears has a better flow and overall shape.
Pardon? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.
The original form of the adapted melody was WITHOUT the upbeats. This fitted the original version of Be Thou my vision. Do you dispute that (see posts 22 & 41)?
As regards your own preferences, you are perfectly entitled to prefer the dumbed-down (in my opinion, of course!) and regularized later version which fits Lord of all hopefulness. In any case you have to use this version if you want to sing those words. However the words of Be Thou my vision are so much better and more profound. (I scarcely feel I have to say that that is a matter of opinion.)
The original words of Be Thou my vision were not in the banal rhythm seen in, for example, Common Praise, but in the far better, and more interesting, metre seen in HON.
I make a plea for all right-minded and discerning organists (all of you, I'm sure) to eschew the bowdlerized version of the words and go for the real thing. I repeat: if you read through the text of both versions you will see what I mean.
Cyril Taylor has made a strong plea that Slane be reserved for Be Thou my vision and not to have its impact weakened through overuse. I have to say that I can live without ever singing, hearing or playing Lord of all hopefulness again.
Stephen Barber
-
I would most definitely prefer it without the upbeats in 3/4 to any version in 4/4. Unnecessarily 'jazzed up'. But as far as what is comfortable and logical to sing, I find the upbeats better, regardless of whether they were original or not.
Ah. Comfortable. I see.
Stephen Barber
-
The original Songs of Praise book of 1936 was, I believe, the first time Slane appeared in print - and it had the upbeats in.
'Fraid not! It was first printed in 1919 for the words of "Be Thou my Vision" in the Irish Church Hymnal - only turned into the jogging waltz later. Though I must admit that I didn't know that "Lord of all Hopefulness" was in Songs of Praise: another wonderful addition to hymnody it produced alongside the theologically profound "Morning has Broken." Where would wedding couples be without these two wonderful hymns?
Anyway, do what you like with "Lord of all hopefulness" (I can provide some suggestions to any one who wants) but don't do the rhythmically dumbed-down version of Be Thou my vision (doesn't a poet have any rights?). Sing "Lord of all Power" instead, if you must have the silly upbeats.
Anyone who doesn't believe me, try reading through both versions of Be thou my vision as poetry.
Stephen Barber
-
Although even the slightly mutilated version which is printed in HON i
But It's NOT mutilated (unless you are referring to the harmonies). The "dumbed-down" version with extra notes gratuitously added, especially when used for the rhythmically emasculated version of Be Thou my vision, is an excrescence. So three cheers for HON - can't believe I've just written that!
Stephen Barber
-
I always think that Slane sounds infinitely better with those upbeats in. Regardless of whether or not it was the original, asking God to 'be' all those things makes far more sense to me.
Gosh! Try it at a dignified pace and not the modern "Songs of Praise razzmatazz" speed.
As for the words - the rhythm of the original is FAR better to my ears. It's like comparing BCP Gloria to Common Worship Gloria.
Stephen Barber
-
I take it you haven't come across the version in HON then...
Certainly have. It's the only good thing about the dreadful book - although the harmonies are not to my taste.
Stephen Barber
-
As for altered/amended hymn tunes - the one I really can't stand is the abbreviated Slane, with the missing upbeats.
NO! The "proper" Slane (i.e. the original adaptation of the Irish Ballad) does NOT have the awful, silly upbeats. It was originally used for the wonderful Be thou my vision as translated by Mary Byrne and versified by Eleanor Hull.
However it had the upbeats added to fit the words of the ubiquitous Lord of All Hopefulness. Bad enough, you might think. But worse was to come: someone had the bright idea of bastardizing the words of Be thou my vision to fit the newly-bastardized tune. So the word "be"was added at the beginning of no fewer than 8 lines, and various words added in other places. Ugh! Sing Be thou my vision as originally written or not at all!
Stephen Barber
-
This sounds fine, very principled - is this really what you would do with the printed rhythm in Nun Danket?
I'd be very surprised if like me you haven't felt it necessary to add an extra beat (over and above the printed text) in order to give a congregation room to breathe.
I think adding time for the congregation to breathe is different to halving notes in a printed tune (which was what I was complaining about in Abide with me).
In any case, my copy of Riemenschneider has pauses in bars 4 and 8 and I have no compunction in adding extra time here. (Although, before someone makes the point: I don't always observe pauses in chorale melodies and I ignore those on the dotted minims. And I am aware that some modern hymn books either leave out all the pauses (AMNS) or only put some in (NEH)).
Stephen Barber
-
Hang on a mo! I might only be a part-time amateur hymn player, but has anybody thought to ask the composer or arranger before changing things? When so often in these pages we are encouraged to respect the composer's intentions, why is this different?
JC
I quite agree. I hate it when hymn tunes are changed by local congregations - like Abide with me without the semibreves etc. etc. Do the hymn as written or leave it alone.
I think that if the tune of Lord for the Years is smoothed out the first line seems very banal (although I must admit that, I play the lower parts of the "offending" bar of this hymn in crotchets, so some inconsistency there!).
Mp3 Portable Recorders
in Nuts and bolts
Posted
If I wanted to buy mics for my R-09, what would I have to spend to make a worthwhile improvement and what should I buy?
Stephen Barber