The British And North German Baroque Organs After Ww Ii

[MusingMuso]

Regarding the guestbook of the Hamburg-Neuenfelde Schnitger Organ, starting in 1954:

 

We have several entries from Arthur Howes, starting in 1954, visiting us with his Organ Institute (Andover?), and we have entries by Edward Power Biggs, who made his first recordings here in 1955.

I found out, that Fritz Heitmann, Cathedral Organist of Berlin (who grew up with playing the Schnitger Organ pf Hamburg-Ochsenwerder as a teenager and then studied with Karl Straube, Leipzig), toured through the US in 1939 and in 1950. It is documented that in 1950 he met E. P. Biggs and A. Howes, was privately invited by each of them. Maybe that he told them about the still preserved character and beauty of the countryside instruments listed in the start of this topic ("Altes Land" region)? Heitmann was in close contact with Hans Henny Jahnn either, and with Rudolf von Beckerath, who made, as a consultant before 1941, suggestions for rebuilding the large Sauer Organ of the Berliner Dom (as did Jahnn before - Jahnn "baroqueized" the small Ruckpositiv division).

A question to the readers: When did Arthur Howes start his important organ study tours to Europe? What or who influenced him?

 

many thanks, KBK

 

 

=========================

 

 

I'm still sleuthing about a bit, and certain things have crept out of the woodwork.

 

What amazes me is the early-date of the various attempts to create a more "baroque" style of instrument in America; except that it possibly wasn't an attempt to do that at all.

 

I've mentioned the words of Albert Schweizer, and the Germanic bias of American academia, and also the melting-pot of ideas at the Peabody Institute (which also included the "arch-rival" in the form of Virgil Fox).

 

I think it would be fair to suggest that von Bekareth plays an important part in all this, for wasn't it the case that he first took up organ-building in France, but due to the anti-German stance of the French establishment after the war, he moved to Berlin? Even there, he had to establish his credentials before being allowed to work in Germany; but satisfy them he obviously did. (He had been a prisoner-of-war for quite some time, I believe).

 

Now an important link in those early days was when von Bekareth worked on the organ at Steinkirchen, because I seem to recall that he was assisted by one John Brombaugh, who became one of the very finest organ-builders in the neo-classic style in America. (Now retired I believe, there is a fascinating interview with him as the organ-works are being dismantled, which if you search under "organ" on U-tube, you can watch on video.....it is quite a moving mini-documentary of a great artist looking back on his life and work).

 

I assume that he is still alive, and now that he is retired, he may know an awful lot which he might be willing to share.

 

However, back to the 1930's and those early forays into "baroque" organs.

 

I think it is actually quite unlikely that any American organ-builder went across to Germany in those early years, but obviously, musicians have a habit of travelling around, and may have brought tales of these great instruments across to America. Helmut Walcha is possibly a pivotal figure, apart from Schweitzer, but to what extent I have yet to establish. However, there were many German organists working in America; among them Wilhelm Middelschulte, who taught Virgil Fox among others.

 

What I cannot establish is a clear link between Walter Holtkamp and Germany, and it may be that there isn't one. The fact that he favoured functional-displays and electro-pneumatic action, does tend to suggest that he was possibly just "having a go" at a new (older?) style of organ-pipe voicing, and hit upon a good formula. Certainly, no-one ever suggests that Holtkamp was an organ-builder who followed the strictly neo-classic model, but he did develop a style of organ-building which was altogether fresher and lighter than what others were doing, and which at least acknowledged the baroque style. In fact, I don't think he used slider-chests initially, but stuck to familiar Pitman chests so favoured by American builders.

 

In a previous post, I mention William Leslie Sumner, who certainly DID know of the old baroque organs in Germany, and was probably well known to G.Donald-Harrison. Even before the 2nd World War, Sumner had travelled extensively through Germany, and was very aware of both Schnitger and Silbermann, and this may be what sparked the initial interest of G.Donald-Harrison in the pursuit of a "neo-classic" style of voicing.

 

The interesting thing about G.Donald-Harrison, is the fact that he went so far, but no further, and whilst he certainly experimented (successfully) with electro-pneumatic "baroque" organ at Busch-Reisenger, Harvard, it was not the path that he followed subsequently: instead, blending his knowledge of Cavaille-Coll and Willis, with his own style of light pressure "quasi-baroque" chorus-work. The Methuen Hall organ is a classic example of exactly that style, which really marks the start of the "American Classic." That stated, he was a fantastic organ-builder by any standards.

 

I think this explains why Jimmy Biggs (E.Power-Biggs) lost faith in G.Donald-Harrison and fell out with him; his interest then more directed towards continental european organ-builders such as Dirk Flentrop. So really, those early American overtures came to nothing, and it fell upon people like von Beckareth and Dirk Flentrop to show the American organists what a true european neo-classical instrument was; which in turn inspired people like Charlie Fisk and another American organ-builder, Noack. The other exponent of the art was Brombaugh; previously mentioned above.

 

So I would suggest that in the period from, say, 1933 through to about 1950, that whilst there may have been an awareness of the great German baroque organs (and of course the magnificent Schintger organs in the Netherlands), it seems unlikely that American organists went across to Germany in their thousands to hear them for themselves.

 

I suspect that it was simply what I suggested; the existence of the "Fulbright scholarships" which made foreign study and foreign study-tours a possibility immediately after the war, and may well have followed the usual academic path of "cultural interchange," (as per the British Council) with German organists going to play in America. (There is superficial evidence to this effect in the form of Arthur Le Mirande; one of the Peabody Institute graduates who studied with Arthur Howes, and who became a leading exponent of Schmidt's organ-works).

 

I think "the missing link," if such exists, is going to come from the period before 1950 rather than afterwards, and whether anyone travelled to Germany from America.

 

However, let's see if I can contact Arthur Le Mirande and John Bromborough, as well as one or two of the elder statesmen at C B Fisk, who knew not only Charlie Fisk himself, but people like Holtkamp and Arthur Howes.

 

I suspect we have almost nailed this!

 

MM

[kropf]

=========================

I'm still sleuthing about a bit, and certain things have crept out of the woodwork.

 

What amazes me is the early-date of the various attempts to create a more "baroque" style of instrument in America; except that it possibly wasn't an attempt to do that at all.

 

I've mentioned the words of Albert Schweizer, and the Germanic bias of American academia, and also the melting-pot of ideas at the Peabody Institute (which also included the "arch-rival" in the form of Virgil Fox).

 

I think it would be fair to suggest that von Bekareth plays an important part in all this, for wasn't it the case that he first took up organ-building in France, but due to the anti-German stance of the French establishment after the war, he moved to Berlin? Even there, he had to establish his credentials before being allowed to work in Germany; but satisfy them he obviously did. (He had been a prisoner-of-war for quite some time, I believe).

 

Now an important link in those early days was when von Bekareth worked on the organ at Steinkirchen, because I seem to recall that he was assisted by one John Brombaugh, who became one of the very finest organ-builders in the neo-classic style in America. (Now retired I believe, there is a fascinating interview with him as the organ-works are being dismantled, which if you search under "organ" on U-tube, you can watch on video.....it is quite a moving mini-documentary of a great artist looking back on his life and work).

 

I assume that he is still alive, and now that he is retired, he may know an awful lot which he might be willing to share.

[.....]

 

MM

 

Of course he is! We had last contact some months ago, and he was even on a visit to Neuenfelde two years ago. We could not really examine our organ then, because it was wrapped in as we had the restoration of the ceiling paintings... Brombaugh was in Germany to collaborate with Harald Vogel after his retirement. Together with him he did a sort of "remake" of von Beckerath's Documentation tour in 1946, when he was asked to research all historic instruments of the then Hannover Landeskirche, the "lutheran diocese" of Hanover, later extended to "Niedersachsen" (the province of Lower Saxony).

So, Brombough was here and is willing to share - we were even (and still are) considering taking him as a consultant for the Neuenfeldce restoration, which is approaching reality more and more. I will ask him directly about his thoughts on our subject - thank you for that hint, MM! And any help from Brombaugh associates is welcome, too.

 

By the way, a fascinating book on the rediscovery of the classical organ in the 20th century was written some years ago by Roman Summereder, austrian pupil of Anton Heiller and now himself professor of organ in Vienna. The title is "Aufbruch der Klänge" (The departure of sounds), Edition Helbling, Innsbruck. Great stuff, but in German only...

[MusingMuso]

In the hope that this rather fascinating subject can be see to have a little relevance to Board Members,

the following links will prove interesting.

 

The first is a link to a 'YouTube' video about John Brombaugh, who worked with von Beckerath on the organ of Steinkirchen in the "Altes Lande"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_56YpeSLboA

 

The next demonstrates the Schnitger organ at Neunfelde, played by John Scott-Whiteley:-

 

 

The third link is about some organ-builder or other, who also worked with von Beckareth:-

 

 

MM

[mgp]

=========================

I'm still sleuthing about a bit, and certain things have crept out of the woodwork.

 

<snip>

 

However, back to the 1930's and those early forays into "baroque" organs.

 

I think it is actually quite unlikely that any American organ-builder went across to Germany in those early years, but obviously, musicians have a habit of travelling around, and may have brought tales of these great instruments across to America. Helmut Walcha is possibly a pivotal figure, apart from Schweitzer, but to what extent I have yet to establish. However, there were many German organists working in America; among them Wilhelm Middelschulte, who taught Virgil Fox among others.

 

What I cannot establish is a clear link between Walter Holtkamp and Germany, and it may be that there isn't one.

<snip>

MM

MM fascinating stuff and apologies if what follows is a route you've pursued and discarded.

 

Fesperman (1962) credits Holtkamp as being first (positiv at Cleveland in 1933). Ochse (History of the Organ in in the US 1975) suggests Emerson Richards (he of Atlantic City) as an earlier influence. The 1924 Atlantic City High School Organ (5 manuals 165 stops) included a Choir organ on 2" with a full diapason chorus from 8' to IV Fourniture.

 

David Fuller opens an article entitled 'Commander-in-chief of the American revolution in Organbuilding: Emerson Richards' with the following claim:

 

Young Organists! The classic revival in American organ design was not begun by G Donald Harrison. Nor by Walter Holtkamp, nor by Herman Schlicker, least of all by the postwar masters, Noack, Brombaugh, Taylor or even Charles Fisk. The real leader was a New Jersey politician named Emerson L Richards

 

Apparently Richards made several tours to England and Europe and published a string of articles in The American Organ. One, in 1924, included a seven-column history of the European positive and English "chaire" organs as a prelude to describing his design for the High School choir organ. There are other examples from this period, eg a low pressure chorus with 'Schulze mixture' at St Mark's Philadelphia in 1926

 

There's much more about his travels in Europe in 1930 and other designs/articles he produced.

 

The article appears in "C.B.Fisk Organ Builder Vol 1 Essays in his Honour" Westfield Center 1986 pp55-82

[Guest Cynic]

Priory have recently started issuing a complete set of Karg-Elert recordings by Stefan Engels (hope I've got that spelling right). I mention this because volume three was recorded on the very special 1931 Steinmeyer in Altoona Cathedral. I can recommend this disc very strongly, not least for the tone of this large and unusual instrument.

 

http://www.columbiaorgan.com/cow/altoona.html

 

The (now modified) Walcker at Methuen was only one of a number of neo-classical-influenced organs to be imported direct from Germany around this time.

[MusingMuso]

REPLY WITHDRAWN FOR EDIT.....BACK SHORTLY.

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

MM fascinating stuff and apologies if what follows is a route you've pursued and discarded.

 

Fesperman (1962) credits Holtkamp as being first (positiv at Cleveland in 1933). Ochse (History of the Organ in in the US 1975) suggests Emerson Richards (he of Atlantic City) as an earlier influence. The 1924 Atlantic City High School Organ (5 manuals 165 stops) included a Choir organ on 2" with a full diapason chorus from 8' to IV Fourniture.

 

David Fuller opens an article entitled 'Commander-in-chief of the American revolution in Organbuilding: Emerson Richards' with the following claim:

 

Young Organists! The classic revival in American organ design was not begun by G Donald Harrison. Nor by Walter Holtkamp, nor by Herman Schlicker, least of all by the postwar masters, Noack, Brombaugh, Taylor or even Charles Fisk. The real leader was a New Jersey politician named Emerson L Richards

 

Apparently Richards made several tours to England and Europe and published a string of articles in The American Organ. One, in 1924, included a seven-column history of the European positive and English "chaire" organs as a prelude to describing his design for the High School choir organ. There are other examples from this period, eg a low pressure chorus with 'Schulze mixture' at St Mark's Philadelphia in 1926

 

There's much more about his travels in Europe in 1930 and other designs/articles he produced.

 

The article appears in "C.B.Fisk Organ Builder Vol 1 Essays in his Honour" Westfield Center 1986 pp55-82

 

 

==================================

 

 

This seems reasonable enough as to appear absolutely correct, and our research has arrived at much the same conclusion. However, on the basis that the best-ever soprano was a man; things are not always quite what they seem.

 

In fact, one of the less obvious links is the one which Paul Derrett mentions, in the form of the great Steinmeyer Organ at the church of the Blessed Sacrament, Altoona, first installed in 1931 and now restored.

 

Lawrence Phelps suggested that (State) Senator Emerson Richards was the man who knew more about organs than any other non-organbuilder he ever knew, and I do not doubt this for a moment. On the other hand, John Brombaugh makes the equal claim that E.Power-Biggs was THE most important figure of all in the American so-called "Baroque Revival." (Possibly more anti-heroic than pro-classical in the early days).

 

I would argue that Senator Emerson Richards was a child of his time, and prior to his sorties into Europe, he was more fascinated with English things. Indeed, the Americans had a bit of a love-affair with all things English, and there was not only a very strong relationship with the Willis firm, but of course the various rambling of that potty Englishman, Audsley.

 

Audsley described in detail the work of Schulze, but probably never understood it, even though he included drawings of cylindrical wooden flutes in his tomes. Senator Emerson Richards, in the building of the organ for the Convention Hall, Atlantic City, New Jersey; really follows the Audsley concept which has been described as "the temple of tone"........some temple!

 

In the creation of that particular instrument, there were various experiments, which were later discarded; but one of them was the inclusion of a "Schulze Chorus," which was described as "absolutely shattering." The idea was not left in the completed instrument.

 

I do not for one moment doubt the abilties or genuine enthusiasm of Senator Emerson Richards, but was he only ever a great mouth-piece and pseudo-baroque salesman?

 

This is why I tend to favour the view of John Brombaugh, because in E.Power-Biggs, and his early association with G.Donald-Harrison, there are the practical fruits of musical and artistic collaboration, and because Harrison was a modest man, it fell upon the more vocal and more high-profile communicators to spread the creed of organ-reform, onto which carousel Holtkamp was happy to leap, being a very good businessman, unlike most of his colleagues.

 

Even long before the "classical revival," there had been the splendid Walcker at Methuen, which remember, was not that far removed from the Silbermann stable when it arrived in America. It was an instrument which had a powerful effect on American organ-building; especially when G.Donald-Harrison got his hands on it and added more powerful (Cavaille-Coll style) reeds. The end result was a pre-cursor to the American Classic, and of course, in the light of current speculation, Arthur Howes was one of the advisors in that project.

 

No, I think we are confusing two issues. Yes there was a great interest in earlier things and even in German organ-building, but neither Holtkamp nor G.Donald-Harrison ever moved away from romantic organ-building, and the techniques associated with Willis, Lewis (via Schulze) and even Cavaille-Coll.

 

Were any of these people aware of Schnitger organs at this early stage?

 

Thus far, I haven't found an obvious link, but that is not to say that there isn't one, but with Silbermann there are many, and in the company of Carl Weinrich in 1936, G.Donald-Harrison went to see the great masterworks of that particular organ-builder. (Freiburg?)

 

Perhaps it is important to understand the significance of Albert Schweitzer and the work of the orgelbewebung, which I mentioned previously. Academically, the strength of German Scholarship soon outclassed the American love of all things English, and that possibly continues to-day. I don't think we should underestimate the importance of this, because in the midst of heroic-romantic excess and imperialism, there were other voices to be heard. Indeed, one of the earliest such voices was that of Carl Weinrich (Columbia), who ventured into the realm of "authentic" Bach performance long before Biggs arrived in America. (Lynda Landowska was doing much the same on that grand-piano style harpsichord built by Pleyel)

 

When "Jimmy" Biggs strode onto the stage, he would immerse himself in THAT particular line of progress, and NOT the more direct-line established later.....very much later.

 

For a start, the Wall Street crash of 1930 can't have done much to assist "progress," and when "Jimmy" Biggs got the ball rolling at Harvard (1937), it was in collaboration with G.Donald Harrison, who in turn, was greatly influenced by the travels of Senator Emerson Richards, and his own Silbermann pilgrimage. What G.Donald Harrison evolved was his own modification of Silbermann, and one man's ideas of a "modern baroque" instrument, complete with pitman chests and EP action.

 

Was this all that different from what Roger Yates was doing at Oakham Parish Church, here in England in 1940? (What an astonishing stop-list THAT was. Does it still exist, or have they recently replaced it?)

 

As wars have a habit of stopping people dead in their tracks, organ-building ceased even in America, between maybe 1940 and 1945. In the interim period, G.Donald Harrison was the best man at Senator Emerson Richards' wedding, when he bagged his very pretty secretary and made a respectable woman of her!

 

Herr Kropf has asked specifically about the connection between Steinkirchen and "the English speaking world," and as usual, it was a case of "people being in the right place at the right time."

 

It's very easy to get side-tracked into believing that the "organ reform movement" in America follows a recognisable continuum, but with so many men lost, so much poverty and so little work, everything had been thrown into chaos, and some organ-builders in America effectively went the way of the Dodo. When things started-up again, they started up differently; with many new names and faces.

 

After the war, as the American economy got back into top-gear. it was very much the age of the "American Classic" and the work of Aeolian-Skinner which dominated American organ-building; at the same time acknowledging a certain debt to the precedents set by 19th century German organ-building at Methuen, and the Steinmeyer at Altoona, plus whatever tentative connections with Silbermann as may have remained.

 

The interesting thing is, that had G.Donald-Harrison lived and worked longer, he would probably have been sidelined by new developments; not only from American contemporaries, but from the European organ-builders who brought important instruments to America.

 

This explains the post-war schism which took place between a then static-thinking G.Donald-Harrison, and the arch "true baroque-salesman," E.Power-Biggs, who was then the doyen of "historically informed" performance; even if he never was. Biggs moved among academic circles which included the likes of Melville Smith; director of the Longy School of Music and organ-tutor at Wellesley College. Smith was not only a fine organist, he championed early-music performance. Biggs, on the other hand, was never an academic or a scholar, but he lived at the very heart of top-level academia, in the area of Boston/Harvard/Connecticut; still somewhere near the top of the academic heap internationally.

 

By this time, “Jimmy” Biggs, along with the student organists studying under the “Fulbright Scholarships” had seen and heard for themselves the authentic, historical instruments such as Steinkirchen, and this is exactly why Herr Kropf raises the point, because it really marks a complete break with the “revisionism” rather than the so-called “organ-reform" which had swept gently through American organ-building, and which owed at least as much to Walcker and Schulze, as it did to Silbermann.

 

In addition, hundreds of American students, over a period of years, studied not only with people like Dupre in Paris, as well as Marchand (early French music), but also with the likes of Prof.Fritz Heitmann (a pupil of Straube), the blind German organist Helmut Walcha and, of course, the wonderfully gifted Anton Heiller in Austria. Thus, those who chose the “baroque” path (then of great interest in Germany as well as America), were exposed not only to authentic instruments, but to very scholarly thoughts on early performance practice.

 

Is this the reason why interest switched so suddenly from Silbermann to Schnitger?

 

So, in parenthisis, I would suggest that the schism (inspired by perhaps directly be organs such as Steinkirchen) were the real start of organ-reform proper in America, to which all before had been but a prelude, in the same way that Roger Yates pointed the way towards Ralph Downes.

 

This is further strengthened by the importation of continental organs to America; first as a trickle of small instruments from Glatter-Gotz under the Rieger banner, but then in a more red-blooded, full-blown neo-baroque style from Rudolph von Beckerath at Trinity Lutheran, Cleveland, Ohio (under the very nose of Walter Holtkamp), and with the superlative beauty of the Busch-Reisenger Museum, Flentrop organ of 1958, which “Jimmy” Biggs paid for and made so famous with his recordings.

 

So my final conclusion would be to agree with John Brombaugh, that E-Power-Biggs was the outstanding influence rather than Senator Emerson Richards; at the same time acknowledging the latter’s contribution to the classical movement, along with that of G.Donald Harrison. Of one thing we can be virtually certain, and that is the fact that Sentaor Emerson Richards, whilst happy to sing the praises of the 1937 G.Donald-Harrison organ at Harvard, did not demonstrate the same enthusiasm of response to the Flentrop. His ego was presumably dented by the superior character of the Flentrop, and the schism between Biggs and Harrison.

 

It could therefore be, that the key to all this, may well indeed be Steinkirchen. and the other Schnitger organs close by.

 

(Of course, the Canadians were ahead of the Americans, but they didn’t make quite so much fuss about it! Check out Kenneth Gilbert, von Beckerath, Larry Phelps and Casavant).

 

Of course, all this pales alongside the business of music-making. What was it Sir Thomas Beecham said?

 

"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it!”

 

I'll second that!

 

MM

[mgp]

==================================

This seems reasonable enough as to appear absolutely correct, and our research has arrived at much the same conclusion. However, on the basis that the best-ever soprano was a man; things are not always quite what they seem.

 

In fact, one of the less obvious links is the one which Paul Derrett mentions, in the form of the great Steinmeyer Organ at the church of the Blessed Sacrament, Altoona, first installed in 1931 and now restored.

<mega snip>

It could therefore be, that the key to all this, may well indeed be Steinkirchen. and the other Schnitger organs close by.

 

MM

No question that US builders were seriously rattled by the Great Depression (as were organ builders elsewhere) - but one suspects the threat in the US was more from Mr Hammond's products than from stylistic differences.

 

I think you are allowing a romantic committment to a belief (much promoted in retrospect by its proponents) that American developments all happened in the 1930's (ie post the Hamburg conference of 1926). This seems to be blinding you to the messages from the early 1920's - and don't forget that lots of US musicians went to Paris soon after WWI and took their experiences back - eg read Witford (writing in TAO in 1925) after study with Vierne & Widor. And the Estey Co established a scholarship at Fontainbleu in 1924. Of course the uptake was patchy, and builders went up several cul-de-sacs whilst trying things out. And, of course, those early 1930's European instruments were a shock - but it wouldn't be the first time that a 'fast follower' was given the credit for the work of unlikely pioneers would it?

 

Widor/Schweitzer were a great champions of Andreas Silbermann (eg Marmoutier and Ebermunster) and not of the Ostfriesland school (had they heard it??). No question that the latter was the main post war focus - including the misperception that they were 'natural bach organs'.

 

The question is: what sounds/experiences/ideals (including early editions of Buxtehude and Bach by Tournemire and Widor - or even Dupre) were these Americans taking back in the late 20's??

 

Anyway - back to the key desk and some real music (thanks Tommy!)

[MusingMuso]

No question that US builders were seriously rattled by the Great Depression (as were organ builders elsewhere) - but one suspects the threat in the US was more from Mr Hammond's products than from stylistic differences.

 

I think you are allowing a romantic committment to a belief (much promoted in retrospect by its proponents) that American developments all happened in the 1930's (ie post the Hamburg conference of 1926). This seems to be blinding you to the messages from the early 1920's - and don't forget that lots of US musicians went to Paris soon after WWI and took their experiences back - eg read Witford (writing in TAO in 1925) after study with Vierne & Widor. And the Estey Co established a scholarship at Fontainbleu in 1924. Of course the uptake was patchy, and builders went up several cul-de-sacs whilst trying things out. And, of course, those early 1930's European instruments were a shock - but it wouldn't be the first time that a 'fast follower' was given the credit for the work of unlikely pioneers would it?

 

Widor/Schweitzer were a great champions of Andreas Silbermann (eg Marmoutier and Ebermunster) and not of the Ostfriesland school (had they heard it??). No question that the latter was the main post war focus - including the misperception that they were 'natural bach organs'.

 

The question is: what sounds/experiences/ideals (including early editions of Buxtehude and Bach by Tournemire and Widor - or even Dupre) were these Americans taking back in the late 20's??

 

Anyway - back to the key desk and some real music (thanks Tommy!)

 

 

============================

 

 

With due respect, I'm not quite sure what point(s) is being made here.

 

Surely, I hinted at the earlier writings concerning European organs and the adherence to the Schweitzer-Widor editions (which could extend just as readily to the Dupre editions), but of course, if one goes back to that earlier generation, then you start bumping into the influence of the German derived school of Middelschulte; an arch contrapuntist if ever there was one. You are then very firmly into the era of romantic Bach, and the offshoot of that in the form of Virgil Fox, and the pianistic influences on his style.

 

I also mentioned how important that Germanic tradition was, and how seriously Schweitzer was taken.

 

Far from ignoring what occured prior to 1930, I had taken this into consideration, but whether anyone fully understood it at the time is another matter.

 

Scholarship prior to 1930 must have given rise to the pioneering interest in early-music performance from such as Carl Weinrich, who took G.Donald Harrison to hear the Silbermann organs in Germany. I suppose that one may safely deduce that the surge of interest after 1930, which happens to co-incide with the arrival of E.Power-Biggs in America, was largely spawned in the 1920's, but so what?

 

I find little evidence of any real understanding as to the nature of true baroque instruments and voicing techniques; hence the misconception that it was perfectly acceptable not to use slider-chests, when EP action could do the job perfectly well. I may be wrong, but it wasn't until G.Donald Harrison more closely controlled the thickness of pipe-metal and went for pipe-voicing at much reduced wind-pressures, that any proper understanding even started to get underway.

 

I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong, but I have never found evidence to suggest that even a single organ-builder ever applied baroque methods in America, prior to the arrival of the real neo-baroque organs from Europe after 1950.

 

Producing something "lighter and brighter" can be done using even romantic voicing-techniques, as many a John Compton organ testify to in the UK, but that doesn't make them remotely neo-baroque. Therefore, with all respect to what Walter Holtkamp and G.Donald Harrison were doing, I think that the former was more interested in producing a fashionable (but entirely worthy) musical instrument, and the latter was far more concerned with producing a very flexible eclectic instrument, which the "American Classic" represents.

 

Your comment about Ostfreisland is interesting, because of course, it is entirely true in all respects except musical ones!

 

Maybe Bach never had the privilege, unlike Handel, of sitting at an instrument such as the Muller at St.Bavo, and whilst he may have applied for the position at Hamburg, I doubt that he ever played an organ of that calibre in his native Thuringia. However, Bach's music travels well, and to hear it played on organs so perfect as Alkmaar, Zwolle, Groningen, Norden, Sneek, Enkhuizen and presumably the "Altes Lande" Schnitgers, is to hear the finest of all organ-music presented on the finest of all instruments. We could argue forever about the tierce mixtures, mild string-tone and the colourful and piquant registers known to Bach, but does it make any musical difference which may signifcantly alter our perceptions?

 

Having followed a similar, but different pilgrimage to that made by Geraint Jones and E.Power-Biggs to Steinkirchen, (in my case, to Holland) I can fully understand the feelings which must have knocked them for six.

 

Not only do mouths fall open and tears well up in eyes, you can never be the same again after hearing it, and it really doesn't matter whether the instrument is a Muller, a Silbermann, a Schnitger or some other

work of genius such as an Ahrend masterpiece.

 

So whatever the merits of early American or Anglo-American pioneers, "Jimmy" Biggs was fired up enough to move heaven and earth, and pay out a huge amount of money, just to get a Flentrop to Harvard, and motovation and a sense of mission just don't come any stronger than that. I know just how beautiful that Dirk Flentrop organ at Harvard is, and I can only guess at the impact of the von Beckerath at Cleveland, but those two instruments seemed to fire up a whole new generation of master organ-builders in America.

 

It was very interesting to play the Charlie Fisk organ at Memorial Church, Harvard University, and to hear, first hand, just how well the lessons had been learned in just a couple of decades....a real American achievement in fact.

 

But Werkmeister III tuning?

 

Give me a break!

 

 

MM

[kropf]

I happily received my copy of "The American Classic Organ - A History in Letters" some days ago. Is there any book available, which covers the development of the neo-classical organ (or Orgelbewegung organ or what you would call it) in Great Britain? I learned this and that about Ralph Downes on this forum here, but there might be much more.. Thanks!

[mgp]

I happily received my copy of "The American Classic Organ - A History in Letters" some days ago. Is there any book available, which covers the development of the neo-classical organ (or Orgelbewegung organ or what you would call it) in Great Britain? I learned this and that about Ralph Downes on this forum here, but there might be much more.. Thanks!

Try Ralph Downes' book 'Baroque Tricks - adventures with Organ Builders' and Maurice Forsyth-Grant's 'Twenty-One Years of Organ-Building'. Both are published by Postitif Press.

[Tony Newnham]

Try Ralph Downes' book 'Baroque Tricks - adventures with Organ Builders' and Maurice Forsyth-Grant's 'Twenty-One Years of Organ-Building'. Both are published by Postitif Press.

 

Hi

 

The 3 volumes of "The Classical Organ in Britain" (Positive Press) might also be worth a look. They are an attempt to list all the classical organs built in the UK in the various periods that each volume refers to. It's interesting to trace some of the developments (and possibly dead ends?) that are revealed.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

[MusingMuso]

Hi

 

The 3 volumes of "The Classical Organ in Britain" (Positive Press) might also be worth a look. They are an attempt to list all the classical organs built in the UK in the various periods that each volume refers to. It's interesting to trace some of the developments (and possibly dead ends?) that are revealed.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

 

 

=============================

 

 

I don't think there has ever been a particularly cohesive "history" (report?) of the development of the Classical Organ in Britain, but many things have been written in diverse places; many of which I am aware, and presumably many of which I am not aware.

 

Making sense of it is therefore quite difficult, because as always, England has shown itself to be a nation of individuals and eccentrics; each doing their own thing with varying degrees of success.

 

They didn't come any more individual or eccentric than Ralph Downes, which should not be regarded as a criticism. After all, he was the man who was at the helm of the English "orgelbewegung" whilst others stuck doggedly to what they knew best.

 

I could probably point Herr Kropf towards various writings and articles, and help make some sense of it all.

 

After a while, you begin to understand why no-one has yet written the history!

 

MM