Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Starting From Scratch


Malcolm Farr
 Share

Recommended Posts

In other current threads, MM has asked what materials would we use if we were to re-engineer the organ using technologies available today, and comments have been made regarding the nature of the English organ as a machine for hymn accompaniment and as a one man orchestra. Yet another thread is devoted to the preservation of the (existing) British organ heritage.

 

My questions are these: If we were to start completely afresh, what features would we include on the new British organ? What native repertoire would we regard as sufficiently significant to ensure that the new instrument were capable of rendering convincing performances?

 

For my part, I would certainly want an instrument that would do justice to Whitlock's Sonata in c, Fantasie Chorale No. 1, the Plymouth Suite as well as some of the shorter works, and, assuming that we are entitled to reclaim him from Canada, Willan's Preludes & Fugues in b and c, the Introduction, Passacaglia & Fugue in e flat, and the Five Preludes on Plainchant Melodies.

 

Rgds,

MJF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for the british organ, of course, but I can give you some hints about what

we would do in Belgium, should the organ be build for the young generation of organists:

 

1)- Forget about "Repertoire", the refererence would be an organ style, which could

go from Niehoff to experimental trough all the others.

 

2)- Synthesis organs would be designed "organically" -like they always were in historical

examples, which are countless in Europe-, no more like a pile of bits accumulated

like in a buffet in which one picks what Prof Van Degeenediebeterweet noted you need

to play Partita Op 238 of Jaak van Geefmijbier (1712), and then Infernum Musicum

from a young composer who asks for Bombarde 16', Psalterium, Septième and neuvième;

 

3)- The ecclectic organ seems to be a transition one. It is a mirror of the "Néo-classique" organ

like Gonzalez or Klais made; the coming fashion is a kind of neo-romantic one.

 

4)- That trend leads towards a growing interest for all romantic styles.

First to come in favor was Cavaillé-Coll, now the german styles (Walcker, Ladegast, Sauer,

Weigle will follow...), and....guess who's next, just behind the door?

 

5)- Don't like too much fashions? So let us present interesting alterenatives, that is:

 

A- Recognize the fashion has its grounds and accept it. Don Quichotte never won...

 

B- Work for diversity. An interest for, say, romantic english? Ok, we shall build some.

But why not have some english baroque as well ?

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for the british organ, of course, but I can give you some hints about what

we would do in Belgium, should the organ be build for the young generation of organists:

 

1)- Forget about "Repertoire", the refererence would be an organ style, which could

go from Niehoff to experimental trough all the others.

 

2)- Synthesis organs would be designed "organically" -like they always were in historical

examples, which are countless in Europe-, no more like a pile of bits accumulated

like in a buffet in which one picks what Prof Van Degeenediebeterweet noted you need

to play Partita Op 238 of Jaak van Geefmijbier (1712), and then Infernum Musicum

from a young composer who asks for Bombarde 16', Psalterium, Septième and neuvième;

 

3)- The ecclectic organ seems to be a transition one. It is a mirror of the "Néo-classique" organ

like Gonzalez or Klais made; the coming fashion is a kind of neo-romantic one.

 

4)- That trend leads towards a growing interest for all romantic styles.

First to come in favor was Cavaillé-Coll, now the german styles (Walcker, Ladegast, Sauer,

Weigle will follow...), and....guess who's next, just behind the door?

 

5)- Don't like too much fashions? So let us present interesting alterenatives, that is:

 

A- Recognize the fashion has its grounds and accept it. Don Quichotte never won...

 

B- Work for diversity. An interest for, say, romantic english? Ok, we shall build some.

But why not have some english baroque as well ?

 

Pierre

 

 

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

 

 

We don't need to build "English Baroque" organs. There are many examples of them scattered around, and all built 100 years later around 1840, because nothing much had changed in that time.

 

What repertoire do we play?

 

Nares, Croft, a few fragments of Purcell, John Stanley, Walond and the Handel organ-concertos?

 

It is possible to play this music very successfully on the neo-baroque organ I play, so what would be the point of a neo-Snetzler?

 

Are we to just become antique dealers and restorers?

 

MM

 

For my part, I would certainly want an instrument that would do justice to Whitlock's Sonata in c, Fantasie Chorale No. 1, the Plymouth Suite as well as some of the shorter works, and, assuming that we are entitled to reclaim him from Canada, Willan's Preludes & Fugues in b and c, the Introduction, Passacaglia & Fugue in e flat, and the Five Preludes on Plainchant Melodies.

 

 

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

 

 

How very interesting that Willan should be mentioned, because the defintive performance of Willan's "Intro, Passcaglia & Fugue" is STILL that recorded at York Minster by Francis Jackson in the 1960's, on an organ which had been drastically re-worked by J W Walker & Sons.

 

The same performer was also quite an expert on Whitlock's music, and recorded most of that at York also.

 

Lo and behold, this is English music I have NEVER heard attempted on the Bavo Orgel; though I did once hear a thinned-down version of Cocker's "Tuba Tune," which lacked a certain "something" in the solo reed department!!!!!!

 

(Some of us were chewing at our knuckles and quietly sobbing with laughter, much to the annoyance of other members of the audience)

 

:)

 

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

We don't need to build "English Baroque" organs. There are many examples of them scattered around, and all built 100 years later around 1840, because nothing much had changed in that time.

 

MM

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

 

Not sure I agree with this, MM. The number of English organs remaining from the eighteenth century in anything like original condition with mostly original pipework is very, very small - possibly only in single figures. For example, there's only one completely original mounted cornet (Blandford) - although I believe there's another one in Gravesend, but that's unplayable at the moment.

 

By 1840 the English organ was very different, and there are probably even fewer (largish) English organs from 1830-1850 that remain in their original condition. I know that when we were looking for organs to do Margaret Philips' Mendelssohn recording we had great difficulty finding anything English from this period that was 'authentic' ie more-or-less exactly as Mendelssohn could have know them and would have recognised tonally, which is why we decided to use German organs from the period - which we know from his own writings he preferred anyway!

 

After the 1850s English organs began to change rapidly and by the beginning of the 20th century most large pre-1850s instruments had been completely changed out of all recoginition, but if anyone knows of any English 3 man organs from 1830-1850 that are still in orginal condition I would love to hear about them......

 

Gary Cole

Regent Records

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Mr Cole !

 

By the way, even if the 1840 organ resembles the 1750 one, how sad it is to put

both in the same, little category !

Your Heritage deserves better....

 

In Belgium too the "post-classic" period extended well into the 19th Century,

with builders like the Van Peteghem dynasty, among others; we still have

"little affairs with no Repertoire", no pedals etc from that period.

We keep both, and be sure the first guy who would try to "better" them

would encounter *slight* problems !

 

A further interesting fact: the neo-baroque people wanted

to play ancient music.....While despising the true ancient

organs at the same time, because "they were not the good ones",

that is, exclusively Schnitger, Silbermann and Clicquot.

As a result the neo-baroque period was exactly as letal for ancient

organs as the 19th century.

 

Now the organists want to play all kinds of music on the same instrument,

and the thing must follow or it will be condemned.

And so we should build the same type of ecclectic instrument everywhere,

with Voix céleste, chamades, Tierces (french), Mixtures (After Silbemann

or Dom Bédos) and some Flûtes harmoniques.

The romantic builders were criticized for having destroyed many baroque organs,

but......Wouldn't the today's players despise those very ancient organs, would

we still have them?

Are we any wiser than the 19th century?

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 1850s English organs began to change rapidly and by the beginning of the 20th century most large pre-1850s instruments had been completely changed out of all recoginition, but if anyone knows of any English 3 man organs from 1830-1850 that are still in orginal condition I would love to hear about them......

 

Gary Cole

Regent Records

 

Couldn't agree more. MM's statement about 'baroque organs' is something of a nonsense. Plenty had changed by 1840, to start with, and as you say alterations (visible, like stop changes, or invisible, like raised cutups, new wind systems and the like) put paid to just about everything else. Some chamber organs escaped drastic alteration of the 'improving' kind but (being typically located in small country churches) received ministrations of an entirely different nature from firms like Osmond and Percy Daniel.

 

To say that because it's possible to play Handel on a neo-baroque box of squeaks there is therefore no point in having, amongst our stock, some examples of early English organs is transparently (um, let's think of a word here) poppycock. Often with early music it's not the notes that you're supposed to listen to, but the sound created by the various combinations of notes, timbre and tuning. Played on a modern Open Diapason in equal temperament, most people wouild be bored to tears by much Walond, Stanley, Couperin etc. Play those same works on an appropriate instrument, and they come alive at once. This is the music and the instrument going hand in hand.

 

There is another fairly original Cornet at Dulwich College, with not too much alteration (one substituted rank and some raised cutups). There is plenty of evidence for what happened, and that is how it will go back.

 

Just outside your 1850 cutoff, but St Anne's Limehouse is a good example of something in original condition, having had only one rebuild by Rest Cartwright who actually did remarkably little other than repair some war damage. I cannot think of a single other instrument for which this can be said - not even including my own at Romsey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with Pierre's and Gary's line of thinking insofar as we are concerned with the creation of instruments for academic study and the recording of old music. However, I feel that it is very different when we consider the viability of the British organ as an instrument of general utility (and at least so long as music by composers such as Nares, Walond et al are consigned to the relative fringes).

 

If the common or garden variety British organ is to have a future, then it must fulfil the functions assigned to it - whatever they may be. For the most part, I expect that the "garden" will still most often be a church or chapel, in which it will retain a significant degree of of hymn machine function. However, this doesn't require, say, the resources and voicing of an Arthur Harrison of circa 1930. On the contrary, in my view new instruments by our hosts and other leading British builders provide excellent accompanimental material.

 

However, we should be thinking beyond this, and hence I raised the issue of repertoire in my original post. In this regard, I would, with respect, disagree with Pierre. If, despite the inherent quality of its manufacture, an Arthur Harrison of circa 1930 is generally considered to be of quite limited utility - and a number of threads in these fora testify to this - it is at least in part because it was not (so far as I know) built to satisfy the demands of any school of composition. True, British composers of the early 20th century seem to come off best on it - and funnily enough, I had mentioned Whitlock and Willan in my original post - but they come off still better on a more rounded instrument. If you have ever experienced their works at the Sydney Town Hall, you will surely know what I mean.

 

If there is to remain an identifiably British organ into the future, it should in my view permit convincing performances of those native British composers whose works are considered to be of sufficient standing - whoever they might be. The choice is obviously a subjective matter, and I readily confess that I am going through something of a Whitlock and Willan phase at the moment - but I do consider them worthy composers whose works will ultimately stand the test of time. It should also encourage a continuing native school of composition (and there is probably no better example than the French school in the wake of Cavaillé-Coll). And finally it should also permit convincing performances of works by significant composers from other schools - Bach (of course!), Reubke, Reger, Franck, Vierne, Messiaen ...

 

Ah, the beast of eclecticism, I hear you protest! Yes and no. I think it is one of the great positives of British organ design as practised by current leading builders that the style of voicing and character of choruses have the potential to offer far better access to many schools than, say, French instruments provide British composers, or German instruments provide French composers. Except when it has been taken to unnatural extremes, history tends to show that the British organ is naturally somewhat "middle of the road" in this respect. This is, as they say, a Good Thing, and should be fostered.

 

Rgds,

MJF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with Pierre's and Gary's line of thinking insofar as we are concerned with the creation of instruments for academic study and the recording of old music. However, I feel that it is very different when we consider the viability of the British organ as an instrument of general utility (and at least so long as music by composers such as Nares, Walond et al are consigned to the relative fringes).

 

If the common or garden variety British organ is to have a future, then it must fulfil the functions assigned to it - whatever they may be. For the most part, I expect that the "garden" will still most often be a church or chapel, in which it will retain a significant degree of of hymn machine function. However, this doesn't require, say, the resources and voicing of an Arthur Harrison of circa 1930. On the contrary, in my view new instruments by our hosts and other leading British builders provide excellent accompanimental material.

 

I agree and go a bit further, in two ways.

 

1) Any musical instrument voiced for its surroundings is an excellent accompanimental instrument. If it suits the building, it will suit whatever else goes on in there. The trend seems to be for organs to be far too loud.

 

2) We can only pin the tail on the 'contemporary British organ' donkey when we have a full and uncluttered understanding of its origins, and this means studying the development of the organ from 1750 to 1900 and disregarding some of the side avenues and extremes. It might be possible to debate whether we can better keep ourselves on the 'straight and narrow' by restricting our field of vision to mechanical organs. Like you say, reference has to be made to the repertoire and any serious musician who wishes to have an instrument to play, rather than to look at or read/write/think about, will refer in some way to the music.

 

A good example of someone who has done this is Bernard Aubertin, whose work is of a contemporary style which has plainly obvious roots in the past but is also, without doubt, a modern product for a modern age.

 

For a modern British organ, it would be interesting to look here - but not just on paper. Don't make any value judgements based on what you see in writing. Yes, it's incredibly small, but it would be worthwhile for all to make the call and make the journey, and when they arrive to draw only the 2' and the Tierce to play a solo at the top of the keyboard against the two Flutes. Now, if this scheme were logically expanded to include an enclosed division, a second chorus, some more reed colour and so on, you would have a modern British organ whose roots and influences clearly run right through the last three centuries. Surely it has to be logical to start from here, rather than to start with Celestes and an Open Wood before adding other things which may be useful from time to time, such as choruses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree and go a bit further, in two ways.

 

For a modern British organ, it would be interesting to look here - but not just on paper. Don't make any value judgements based on what you see in writing. Yes, it's incredibly small, but it would be worthwhile for all to make the call and make the journey, and when they arrive to draw only the 2' and the Tierce to play a solo at the top of the keyboard against the two Flutes. Now, if this scheme were logically expanded to include an enclosed division, a second chorus, some more reed colour and so on, you would have a modern British organ whose roots and influences clearly run right through the last three centuries. Surely it has to be logical to start from here, rather than to start with Celestes and an Open Wood before adding other things which may be useful from time to time, such as choruses?

 

A Drake/Aubertin collaboration would be interesting!

 

AJJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is to remain an identifiably British organ into the future, it should in my view permit convincing performances of those native British composers whose works are considered to be of sufficient standing - whoever they might be. The choice is obviously a subjective matter, and I readily confess that I am going through something of a Whitlock and Willan phase at the moment - but I do consider them worthy composers whose works will ultimately stand the test of time.

Well, yes, I think it does all depend on which British composers you think are worth preserving. To be honest, I can't see either Whitlock or Willan among the greats. I've certainly known non-organists sneer at Whitlock on purely musical grounds; Willian just isn't on their radar at all. One of the problems is that neither of them wrote any genuine organ music as far as I know. What they did write was instrumental/orchestral music straight into organ arrangements. So too, of course, did the contemporary French and Germans - for much of the time at ay rate - and I think it fair to suggest that this whole period was not organ music's finest moment.

 

In my book the French never quite succumbed in the way the British and Germans did because, whilst some of their works could easily be orchestrated (Guilmant symphonies, anyone?) by and large they accepted the orchestral nature of the organ and wrote idiomatic music for it. For example, Franck's Choral no.3 is never going to sound more effective anywhere other than on an organ.

 

German composers for their part redeemed themselves by returning to the organ's contrapuntal roots (though, again, people like Reger and Rheinberger never actually forgot them). The most infuriating thing about Hindemith's sonatas is that their textures cry out for a classically voiced instrument, yet the dynamics clearly envisage a rollschweller - a dichotomy I personally find unresolvable.

 

And is this not the crux of the matter? The organ is essentially a contrapuntal instrument, not, I suggest, because it cannot sustain chords, but precisely because it so obviously can - it cries out for the movement of counterpoint to keep the interest alive. That is probably a matter for a separate thread, but I would think it more likely that the British organ composers whose music will survive best are those who write contrapuntally. That's why I recently tipped Leighton. I'm sure there are others, but my mind has suddenly gone blank. Francis Jackson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some strong contributions here....

 

I want to add:

 

If there is somebody to fund a historizing new instrument - an as-close-as-possible copy of whatever - then do it! It will allow to:

- Play old music nicely

- Play not really fitting (younger) music quite nicely

- Encourage improvisation and composition of contemporary music within historical limits (tuning, attack, wind characteristics)

....so, it would be really great to have one more place to experience it (as long as another masterly instrument is not sacrificed for it)!

 

But - and here I'd agree with MM - this will hardly propulse the development of the instrument in general.

WITH ONE EXCEPTION:

Organ builders AND players will be forced to match the level of quality -

builders should be able to transfer the QUALITY to other STYLES

- players will be forced to improve their skills to manage e.g. suspended key action and to control the chiff by their touch. [This refers to copies based on 1750 and earlier techniques]

Those improved skills will heighten their levels of judgement of newer and new instruments. They will question the worth of preservation for certain instruments from an expanded horizon.

 

Results - already existing and becoming more and more:

 

- Players get better, listen more carefully to an instrument's colours (as there really are some then!) and learn to search for those qualities in other epoques ("Save the British organ heritage...")

- Composing for the organ gets stimulated, as "limitations" in most cases are more interesting for an artist than to work in ample space ("you can do whatever you want!")

- Building of organs becomes more eclectic. The master quality of a Schnitger, Snetzler, Cliqout or Callido original is beeing tried to be found again in reproductions, and that quality is beeing demanded for new instruments of freelance design.

And here the eclectic style appears, perhaps the most corresponding to nowaday's life:

Aubertin was named, even Jürgen Ahrend has built a Swell division, Kern of Strasbourg could be named, maybe the Reill brothers, Marcussen, Grönlund and other Scandinavian firms, many in Germany (Mühleisen, Winterhalter come into my mind... sorry for the many not beeing named here :) )

 

As David said:

Any musical instrument voiced for its surroundings is an excellent accompanimental instrument. If it suits the building, it will suit whatever else goes on in there.

A fine new organ, be it whatever style, can not be an error!

But me too would like to see instruments, who also open new doors to the future of organ music! The fields of subtle control of wind supply for single notes/pipes might be a way, but it can't be the only one, as the music leaves our tonal system - and herewith our audience, too...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some strong contributions here....

 

I want to add:

 

If there is somebody to fund a historizing new instrument - an as-close-as-possible copy of whatever - then do it! It will allow to:

- Play old music nicely

- Play not really fitting (younger) music quite nicely

- Encourage improvisation and composition of contemporary music within historical limits (tuning, attack, wind characteristics)

....so, it would be really great to have one more place to experience it (as long as another masterly instrument is not sacrificed for it)!

 

But - and here I'd agree with MM - this will hardly propulse the development of the instrument in general.

WITH ONE EXCEPTION:

Organ builders AND players will be forced to match the level of quality -

builders should be able to transfer the QUALITY to other STYLES

- players will be forced to improve their skills to manage e.g. suspended key action and to control the chiff by their touch. [This refers to copies based on 1750 and earlier techniques]

Those improved skills will heighten their levels of judgement of newer and new instruments. They will question the worth of preservation for certain instruments from an expanded horizon.

 

Results - already existing and becoming more and more:

 

- Players get better, listen more carefully to an instrument's colours (as there really are some then!) and learn to search for those qualities in other epoques ("Save the British organ heritage...")

- Composing for the organ gets stimulated, as "limitations" in most cases are more interesting for an artist than to work in ample space ("you can do whatever you want!")

- Building of organs becomes more eclectic. The master quality of a Schnitger, Snetzler, Cliqout or Callido original is beeing tried to be found again in reproductions, and that quality is beeing demanded for new instruments of freelance design.

And here the eclectic style appears, perhaps the most corresponding to nowaday's life:

Aubertin was named, even Jürgen Ahrend has built a Swell division, Kern of Strasbourg could be named, maybe the Reill brothers, Marcussen, Grönlund and other Scandinavian firms, many in Germany (Mühleisen, Winterhalter come into my mind... sorry for the many not beeing named here :) )

 

As David said:

 

A fine new organ, be it whatever style, can not be an error!

But me too would like to see instruments, who also open new doors to the future of organ music! The fields of subtle control of wind supply for single notes/pipes might be a way, but it can't be the only one, as the music leaves our tonal system - and herewith our audience, too...!

 

I think we're getting somewhere!!

 

AJJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question:

 

If we think to how could the british organ project itself in the future, do we really

believe it will work if we think of it as a practical-pragmatic, ecclectic device,

good for Bach, Couperin, Franck, and sometimes a bit of Howells?

 

(As we say in Belgium: "J'dis ça, j'dis rien" I say that, but I say nothing)...

 

I don't want to burn ecclectic organs. But should we build that everywhere ?

We shall soon have the same organs worldwide, like these would-be-Schnitgers

you find from Alaska to South Africa...

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we play organs, Pierre?

 

Certainly not to play the same music everywhere.

When I was in Britain, I would certainly not have attended

a Recital to hear Couperin or Franck.....Exactly like you would

not attend a Howells Recital in Brussels or Hamburg!

The music is part of a whole cultural context, and we have

an exceptionnal diversity of those contextes.

Whatever its style and the music which is played upon, the

first thing I expect from an organ is Character.

It is like with the wines: should we drink always the same ?

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going off slightly at a tangent: A Cathedral organist once said to me in jest ' nowadays, audiences are very discerning - they expect to hear the right music played on the right instrument: German music on German instruments, French music on French instruments, and rubbish on English instruments..." :)

 

Gary Cole

Regent Records UK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly like you would

not attend a Howells Recital in Brussels or Hamburg!

That's an assumption. If I were there I probably would go! :lol:

 

I don't think your wine analogy is altogether valid. Wines (or, more pertinently in my case, single malts) are sufficiently well within the bounds of my disposable income that I can go out and buy whatever happens to take my fancy. I can't change my organ that easily; I'm stuck with it. It is perfectly legitimate for me to want one that can cope with whatever I wish to play. That is how musical taste has evolved in the last 200 years. People are no longer content to play only contemporary music. I suppose there is bound to be someone, somewhere, who only ever plays one type of music, but I'm very confident that few of us are so narrow minded.

 

There are some builders around today who seem interested only in building organs for craftsmanship's own sake; the players can put up with it or go hang. That's possibly grossly unfair, but that's how it seems to me as a player. In my view, if we were to try to define one definitive type of "organ for today" then it must recognise the requirements of today's organists. To build something that fails to address today's musical culture and requirements is, by definition, not building an "organ for today".

 

Now certainly our musical culture acknowledges an important place for historical instruments - no one is suggesting throwing these out - and it is perfectly valid to build replicas of them as an aid to widening our understanding. But the place of these replicas is to enable us to understand the past and in that sense one might argue that they are not organs for today, but organs for yesterday.

 

I would not go that far, however. With deference to our multi-faceted culture, I would prefer to call them organs for one aspect of today.* And so too are all-purpose instruments - and the latter are more generally useful. If you are tempted to think that that all-purposes instruments will all sound the same, may I suggest that you go to Marborough College and then on to Rochester Cathedral - these are two very, very different instruments.

 

To build nothing but organs suitable for one type of music would be reactionary and would be doing no one a service.

 

* Bearing in mind a comment on another thread currently running, I would suggest that they might have a particular place in small churches where the resources necessary for an all-purpose instrument would be out of the question - but then again, a well-designed small organ can be surprisingly flexible.

 

Going off slightly at a tangent: A Cathedral organist once said to me in jest ' nowadays, audiences are very discerning - they expect to hear the right music played on the right instrument: German music on German instruments, French music on French instruments, and rubbish on English instruments..." :lol:

 

Gary Cole

Regent Records UK

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting points, Vox,

 

1)- Who is the most important ? The organ or the organist ?

 

2)- Have all purpose instruments (they have their place and their interest!)

really hit their goals ?

 

3)- You cannot change the organ every day, but you can go play elsewhere.

 

4)- And yes, I taste organs and music like wines, because the complexity

is comparable.

 

If today's musical tastes are ecclectic -which is true also with myself!-, can we have

just ONE organ ?

From Britain nowadays you can go to France quite easily and cheaply; in Belgium we have

all kinds of hybrid organs -originally built so- so that's not difficult!

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going off slightly at a tangent: A Cathedral organist once said to me in jest ' nowadays, audiences are very discerning - they expect to hear the right music played on the right instrument: German music on German instruments, French music on French instruments, and rubbish on English instruments..." :D

 

Gary Cole

Regent Records UK

 

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

 

That is wonderful! Thank-you.

 

:):lol::lol::lol:

 

 

MM

 

Interesting points, Vox,

 

1)- Who is the most important ? The organ or the organist ?

 

2)- Have all purpose instruments (they have their place and their interest!)

really hit their goals ?

 

3)- You cannot change the organ every day, but you can go play elsewhere.

 

4)- And yes, I taste organs and music like wines, because the complexity

is comparable.

 

If today's musical tastes are ecclectic -which is true also with myself!-, can we have

just ONE organ ?

From Britain nowadays you can go to France quite easily and cheaply; in Belgium we have

all kinds of hybrid organs -originally built so- so that's not difficult!

 

Pierre

 

 

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

 

 

 

These are the type of hypothetical questions which also miss their point.

 

Let's take a look at some "eclectic" instruments, and mentally compare:-

 

Coventry Cathedral

 

Blackburn Cathedral

 

Gloucester Cathedral

 

St.Paul's Hall, Huddersfield Uni

 

New College, Oxford

 

Royal Festival Hall

 

St George's, Windsor

 

(etc etc etc)

 

 

It may be my ears, but they sound very different to me.

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Drake/Aubertin collaboration would be interesting!

 

AJJ

 

Maybe not as far-fetched as it sounds! I know of at least one Drake organ which contains a reed stop made by Aubertin.

 

These two distinguished builders have known one another for years and have regularly visited one anothers' workshops. I had the privilege of joining them both at Courtefontaine last month with a group of organists from Oxford to see work in progress on the new organ for St John's College.

 

JS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a look at some "eclectic" instruments, and mentally compare:-

 

Coventry Cathedral

 

Blackburn Cathedral

 

Gloucester Cathedral

 

St.Paul's Hall, Huddersfield Uni

 

New College, Oxford

 

Royal Festival Hall

 

St George's, Windsor

 

(etc etc etc)

It may be my ears, but they sound very different to me.

 

MM

I don't have first hand of all of these instruments, but I know Gloucester very well. I'm aware that many think highly of it, and many readers of this board will know that I disagree, but I would not think that even its most ardent admirer could describe it as "eclectic". I wouldn't have thought, for all its qualities, that this was the word that sprung most readily to mind with respect to New College either - or that this was what its designers intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...