Starting From Scratch

[Pierre Lauwers]

Sorry, Pierre, but that's just silly.

 

Hills, Father Willises and Harrison & Harrisons do not sound like each other. Do they miss their goal because of this? If not, why not?

 

 

That's simple: because none of these builders had any pretension to build universal

organs. They did not even imagine such a claim would exist.

Should an organ do justice to Bach, Couperin and Franck, then it should

sound like a Trost, a De Joyeuse and a Cavaillé-Coll. Oder?

 

Pierre

[pcnd5584]

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.

 

Stop!

 

Couperin?

 

Together with Walond and Stanley?

 

On an 'early Engilsh organ'?

 

David, I think that this is an unhelpful example. Aside from the fact that I find anything by Couperin somewhat more engaging than anything which I have heard by Walond or Stanley, one of the main points about François Couperin's* music is that it continued the French Baroque custom of writing pieces for particular stops or combinations of stops; therefore to suggest playing any of his music on a single present-day Open Diapason is to introduce a red herring into the discussion. Couperin was also known as a keyboard virtuoso (although the blind Stanley also had a similar reputation). Couperin's music seems to me to be rather more inventive and harmonically interesting than that of either Stanley or Walond.

 

Personally, I find that it works extremely well on my 1664 Hayward / 1764 Seede / 1867 / 1898 / 1965 JWW Walker; although it must be admitted that the instrument does possess its own form of random unequal temperament tuning - largely as a result of the layout on the soundboards and the 1960s experimental winding.

 

 

 

 

* I assume that you refer to 'Couperin le Grand'.

[Vox Humana]

I'm sorry, Pierre, but I think you miss the point. An all-purpose organ doesn't have to sound like a Trost, a Cavaillé-Coll or indeed any specific historical type. It needs only to have its own integrity and be capable of projecting any repertoire musically.

[pcnd5584]

I agree, Vox.

 

Pierre - I know that on a number of occasions, you have disagreed with those contributors who place emphasis on repertoire - with regard to what a particular [type of] instrument can or cannot do effectively. However, I am not sure what point there would be in designing and building an organ purely from either a historical aspect or from the individual whim of an organ builder. In the case of the former, these tend to have limitations in the type of repertoire which can be performed effectively. In the case of the latter, one could very easily be left with a scheme in a vacuum - one which was pleasing to its creator, but of very limited practical use.

 

Besides which, if we are not to consider repertoire (in some form or other) - or perhaps the accompaniment of a particular style of Divine worship - then exactly what purpose would there be in such an instrument?

 

I freely admit that I have little interest in historical copies - which can never be more than simply that. They may be musical, they may have beautiful single stops, but there is usually a rather restricted repertoire which can be played upon them. I am aware of some notable exceptions - for example, MM's favourite organ at Sint Bavo, Haarlem. However, this instrument is quite large and in any case, it has certain tonal anomalies - the many ranks of pipes added by Marcussen at the time of the last restoration and the rather Hill-like chorus reeds which give the tutti a type of Victorian Romantic fulness and dignity. These certainly go a long way to enabling the player effectively to perform large-scale Romantic works. Well, these and two professional registrants. Then there are a few instruments by William Drake. I know that David Coram is particularly fond of certain examples of Drake's work. I have yet to play any recent instruments by this builder - however, whilst as Cynic reminds us, it is folly to judge an instrument by its paper specification, I have yet to see anything which would induce me to part with my 'eclectic' Walker organ, for all its perceived failings.

 

For that matter, what is so wrong about a so-called 'eclectic' organ? Why should this be any less 'acceptable' than a historical copy of an eighteenth century instrument (which is arguably artistically dishonest)? If the instrument in question is voiced by an artist - which is the case with the Minster organ - and is a musical instrument in its own right, I fail to see why the fact that it can handle many different types of repertoire, spanning several centuries with a fair degree of success, should be regarded as a detriment to its character. To say that such an organ 'has its place' smacks rather too much of condescension.

[David Coram]

Stop!

 

Couperin?

 

Together with Walond and Stanley?

 

On an 'early Engilsh organ'?

 

No; the right instrument for the right music. Take the music away from its instrument and try and make it fit on an all-purpose job and it won't do the music any favours because the sounds are so essential to the character of that music, as you observe.

[pcnd5584]

No; the right instrument for the right music. Take the music away from its instrument and try and make it fit on an all-purpose job and it won't do the music any favours because the sounds are so essential to the character of that music, as you observe.

 

Except that, as I also observed, Couperin can sound pretty good on the Minster organ, with its low-pressure reeds, French-style Crumhorn* and its rich, creamy, wide-scaled Cornet composé.

 

For that matter, I have played one or two pieces of Walond and Stanley on the Minster organ (being careful to use certain older ranks). The result seemed to me to be quite successful - compared to old recordings of the Byfield instrument at St. Mary's, Rotherhithe (recorded on the Oryx label, with the late Nicholas Danby playing). It is true that there was not quite that gentle 'breathy' sound from the GO Open Diapason, but it was not that far removed from the Rotherhithe organ.

 

 

 

* Yes, I know that it should be spelled 'Cromorne' - but this does not stop it sounding like one. If I could find matching draw-stops, I would have it re-named.

[Pierre Lauwers]

"I am not sure what point there would be in designing and building an organ purely from either a historical aspect or from the individual whim of an organ builder. In the case of the former, these tend to have limitations in the type of repertoire which can be performed effectively. In the case of the latter, one could very easily be left with a scheme in a vacuum - one which was pleasing to its creator, but of very limited practical use. "

(Quote)

 

The point is quite simple: with such ideas, nor the Walcker at Paulskirche Frankfurt, nor the Casparini of

Görlitz, nor The Cavaillé-Coll at St Denis would ever have existed.

(Maybe we would still play Snetzlers, or their equivalents...)

 

To me an organ is a work of art. Not a practical, disposable device.

Absolutely all builders have a dream -to be allowed to build what they feel would be

the "best" instrument- an artistic achievement.

The great builders of the past -who casted that "Repertoire" after their creativity- are those

who had the chance to be allowed just that.

 

And now the builders of today must obey to people whose training is "pure paper", and must restrict themselves to a hotch-potch of the "best" (whaterver this may mean, again) ideas of past builders,

mandatorily, without the right to try something for themselves?

 

I'd prefer have both historic copies, without any pretension to "better" the past, and experimental modern organs.

 

Pierre

[David Coram]

Except that, as I also observed, Couperin can sound pretty good on the Minster organ, with its low-pressure reeds, French-style Crumhorn* and its rich, creamy, wide-scaled Cornet composé.

 

For that matter, I have played one or two pieces of Walond and Stanley on the Minster organ (being careful to use certain older ranks). The result seemed to me to be quite successful - compared to old recordings of the Byfield instrument at St. Mary's, Rotherhithe (recorded on the Oryx label, with the late Nicholas Danby playing). It is true that there was not quite that gentle 'breathy' sound from the GO Open Diapason, but it was not that far removed from the Rotherhithe organ.

* Yes, I know that it should be spelled 'Cromorne' - but this does not stop it sounding like one. If I could find matching draw-stops, I would have it re-named.

 

Fetch Professor Liebstraum!

[pcnd5584]

"I am not sure what point there would be in designing and building an organ purely from either a historical aspect or from the individual whim of an organ builder. In the case of the former, these tend to have limitations in the type of repertoire which can be performed effectively. In the case of the latter, one could very easily be left with a scheme in a vacuum - one which was pleasing to its creator, but of very limited practical use. "

(Quote)

 

The point is quite simple: with such ideas, nor the Walcker at Paulskirche Frankfurt, nor the Casparini of

Görlitz, nor The Cavaillé-Coll at St Denis would ever have existed.

(Maybe we would still play Snetzlers, or their equivalents...)

 

Pierre

 

I disagree - none of these organs is a conscious historical copy of an existing organ; neither are they schemes in a vacuum. It is true that, without the Cavaillé-Coll instrument at S. Denis (and those later instruments of which it was the progenitor), Widor may not have written his symphonies - at least, not in the form which we know today. However, they each stand as practical instruments in ther own rights - and upon each I am fairly certain that it is possible to perform much standard repertoire.

 

In the case of the Casparini (1703), even by German standards, it did have a particularly complete Pedal division (twenty-one stops, including twenty-three ranks of mixtures). However, whilst it is true that it included some forward-looking ideas, it was not so radical as to render the scheme merely a curious experiment.

 

I agree entirely that an organ should be a work of art - but it should also be a practical, working entity.

 

And now the builders of today must obey to people whose training is "pure paper", and must restrict themselves to a hotch-potch of the "best" (whaterver this may mean, again) ideas of past builders,

mandatorily, without the right to try something for themselves?

 

It depends on who you mean. My own training is not 'pure paper', Pierre. It also works the other way. I am fortunate in being able occasionally to play many instruments in Britain and continental Europe. There have been a few occasions when I am confronted with the type of instrument where the builder has apparently 'won' the argument regarding its design - and I have had to cope with silly compass claviers, odd actions, bizarre voicing and stop-lists which may have made sense to the builder, but are devoid of much practical application for much ordinary repertoire - or, for that matter, unable effectively to function as an accompanimental instrument. I would be interested to know, if these are discounted, what is left for it to do? Standing around staring at it, or acknowledging it as a work of art was not an option. Neither was improvising for the entire concert.

 

An organ needs a practical purpose or, if one prefers, a raison d'être - without this, it may look pretty, or be a collection of interestingly-voiced stops but without the ability to cope with the performance of at least some part of the repertoire (or function in an accompanimental capacity) you have not yet explained what it is for, Pierre.

 

Certainly, organs are much too expensive to own simply as works of art - to be admired and treasured in much the same way as one would a Rembrandt, a Michaelangelo or even a Hockney.

[Vox Humana]

"I am not sure what point there would be in designing and building an organ purely from either a historical aspect or from the individual whim of an organ builder. In the case of the former, these tend to have limitations in the type of repertoire which can be performed effectively. In the case of the latter, one could very easily be left with a scheme in a vacuum - one which was pleasing to its creator, but of very limited practical use. "

(Quote)

 

The point is quite simple: with such ideas, nor the Walcker at Paulskirche Frankfurt, nor the Casparini of

Görlitz, nor The Cavaillé-Coll at St Denis would ever have existed.

(Maybe we would still play Snetzlers, or their equivalents...)

Of course they would have existed. All these organs you cite were built to meet the requirements of the organists of their day. And so it continues today. Why should we re-invent the wheel? Should composers spend their time writing more Mozart symphonies? Building historical replicas has its place, just as completing unfinished or defective compositions by past masters has its place, but let's not confuse this with the thrust of contemporary progress. And naturally there is no reason on earth why an all-purpose instrument cannot be a work of art. The challenge to the organ builder is to make it so - and many of them meet that challenge successfully.

 

I'd prefer have both historic copies, without any pretension to "better" the past, and experimental modern organs.

That's fair enough; you are entitled to your preferences - but you'll never have a business. A business has to supply what its customers want if it wants to survive.

[pcnd5584]

Fetch Professor Liebstraum!

 

Firstly - who?

 

Secondly - I thought that you had guests today?

 

[Pierre Lauwers]

And Though.....A Rembrandt can be as expansive as an organ -not when it was done, yes-.

 

The Görlitz organ may summarize the whole point; it is interesting you

do not find it revolutionnary.....Because I myself find it the most

revolutionnary organ of all periods, if we consider it was build

in 1703.

It introduced:

 

-First juxtaposition of aequal voices with different strenghts. (ABSOLUTE breaktrough!)

 

-Two celestes !

 

-Suppression of the Regal stops

 

-Suppression of the Rückpositiv

 

-Extended stops at the Pedal

 

-First Registerkanzelle (Pedal)

 

A true "GMO" (genetically modified organism) in the organ History, it combined the two

branches of the organ tree (as said elsewhere, the northern and the italian).

To me, as an organ historian, I consider it as the most important milestone in the

history of the organ.

AND IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL, though......Bach criticized its heavy touch, calling

it "an horse's organ".

 

(Any interest with a Casparini thread, guys? Let me know)

 

Pierre

[pcnd5584]

And Though.....A Rembrandt can be as expansive as an organ -not when it was done, yes-.

 

The Görlitz organ may summarize the whole point; it is interesting you

do not find it revolutionnary.....Because I myself find it the most

revolutionnary organ of all periods, if we consider it was build

in 1703.

It introduced:

 

-First juxtaposition of aequal voices with different strenghts. (ABSOLUTE breaktrough!)

 

-Two celestes !

 

-Suppression of the Regal stops

 

-Suppression of the Rückpositiv

 

-Extended stops at the Pedal

 

-First Registerkanzelle (Pedal)

 

A true "GMO" (genetically modified organism) in the organ History, it combined the two

branches of the organ tree (as said elsewhere, the northern and the italian).

To me, as an organ historian, I consider it as the most important milestone in the

history of the organ.

AND IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL, though......Bach criticized its heavy touch, calling

it "an horse's organ".

 

(Any interest with a Casparini thread, guys? Let me know)

 

Pierre

 

Let us look at each of your points in turn, Pierre.

 

Actually, I wrote:

 

However, whilst it is true that it included some forward-looking ideas, it was not so radical as to render the scheme merely a curious experiment.

 

This is not the same as stating that I did not find it revolutionary, Pierre!

 

1) First juxtaposition of aequal voices with different strenghts.

 

I am not entirely certain what you mean here, Pierre. Do you refer to the juxtaposition of both wide- and narrow-scale flue ranks on each division? If so, it is worth considering the rebuild (by Z. Thayssner) of the organ in St. Wenzelskirche, Naumburg, in 1695 - 1705. This organ has been cited as an instrument in which the changes in design also showed major developments - and it may be that Görlitz has been given too much credit. In fact, the contract specification differs in several aspects from the instrument as actually built.

 

2) Two celestes !

 

Undulants were to be found in sixteenth century Italian instruments (and, at the same time, instruments on the Iberian peninsula) - the provision of two may be considered a small luxury - but not radical. Incidentally, the contract specification for the Görlitz organ gives the Hauptwerk undulant as a Fiffaro (8p) - however, as actually built it was, as you say, a Vox Humana*. In addition, in the contract specification the Oberwerk undulating rank is called simply Prinzipal - Ondamaris being again a later alteration.

 

3) Suppression of the Regal stops.

 

For that matter, this organ contained a paucity of any type of reed stop - personally, I do not regard this as either a positive or a radical move.

 

4) Suppression of the Rückpositiv.

 

It is true to say that in this Casparini influenced Gottfried Silbermann - who also never placed the Positiv division anywhere but inside the main case. (Althoug Andreas Silbermann never placed it anywhere but in a rückpositive case. Furthermore, Lawrence Phelps states that 'Note first of all that this does not represent a large departure from the Werk-principle concept.'

 

5) Extended stops at the Pedal.

 

Again, I am not entirely certain what you mean, Pierre. It is true that the Görlitz organ (as rebuilt by Casparini) had a particularly complete Pedal division - as I mentioned in my previous post; however, he also decreased the number and ranks of the compound stops on the claviers - something in which Gottfired Silbermann did not follow his example. Then there is the matter regarding the distinct lack of clavier reed stops - to which I previously referred.

 

6) First Registerkanzelle (Pedal).

 

The contract specification reads: "Ventils to Hw, Ow and Bw (6 more added 'to change the stops in a hurry')" I can find no reference to any other type of registration aid. Neither am I able to find a reference to JSB playing this instrument - only Johann Krieger (organist at Zittau), who was one of the examiners. However, I am quite happy to believe you, Pierre! At least Cavaillé-Coll largely overcame problems of weight of touch, with the help of Charles Speckman Barker.

 

Whilst it is an important transtitional instrument, to say that it is 'the most important milestone in the history of the organ' is perhaps a little strong. The same could be said of the Cavaillé-Coll instrument at S. Denis - in which there were arguably just as many innovative ideas. This instrument certainly did stimulate and shape a new generation of organ composition.

 

 

*Some sources give this as a Voce Umana.

[Pierre Lauwers]

5) Extended stops at the Pedal.

 

I mean: ranks playable at several piches (borrowings existed since the 17th century),

dédoublement also

 

 

 

6) First Registerkanzelle (Pedal).

 

By "Registerkanzelle", I mean Windchests in which the grooves feed stops, not notes.

This was derived from the Spring-chest, a construction Casparini encountered in Venetia,

with inverted commands (the stop control became note control and vice-versa). The result

was the ancestor of the Kegellade.

 

I could write a bit more about the Aequal voices, but that is enough for here, we are going

more and more off-topic; as I said, I shall open a thread if there are people interested

with this kind of historical stuff.

 

Pierre

[David Coram]

A business has to supply what its customers want if it wants to survive.

 

I am not convinced this is necessarily the case where things which are not strictly commercial are concerned - i.e. they involve an element of craftsmanship, individuality and personal vision, rather than a mere product.

[pcnd5584]

6) First Registerkanzelle (Pedal).

 

By "Registerkanzelle", I mean Windchests in which the grooves feed stops, not notes.

This was derived from the Spring-chest, a construction Casparini encountered in Venetia,

with inverted commands (the stop control became note control and vice-versa). The result

was the ancestor of the Kegellade.

 

Pierre

 

This I knew - but I was working with an English translation, which did not use the term 'Registerkanzelle'. This was certainly innovative. But then, so was Barker's assisted action at S. Denis - as were certain features of the disposition, although it was modified slightly by Cavaillé-Coll in 1857.

 

Whilst this epoch-making instrument did not possess any type of undulating rank, there were examples of overblown stops - Cavaillé-Coll's flûtes harmoniques. Fortunately, this instrument survives (as you no doubt know) largely intact, after a careful restoration from 1983 to 1987, carried out by Danion/Dargassies (mechanical) and by Boisseau/Cattiaux (voicing). Stops added by Mutin in 1901 were removed at this time. It is interesting to note that, although they were not actually installed, Cavaillé-Coll had planned to add chamade ranks to this instrument. Given the number of instances in which other organs by Cavaillé-Coll either included or intended to include chamades, I am not at all certain that there was not a certain stylistic trend favouring chamades, which Cavaillé-Coll displayed.

 

I am not convinced this is necessarily the case where things which are not strictly commercial are concerned - i.e. they involve an element of craftsmanship, individuality and personal vision, rather than a mere product.

 

But surely, both aspects are in fact true. One can supply what the customer desires and still imbue that product with consummate craftsmanship and great artistry.

[Vox Humana]

I am not convinced this is necessarily the case where things which are not strictly commercial are concerned - i.e. they involve an element of craftsmanship, individuality and personal vision, rather than a mere product.

The principle still applies though, David. What you're talking about is a niche market. There's never been a short queue for Rolls-Royces (so I'm told), even if most of us can't afford them.

[Pierre Lauwers]

Overblown Flutes were already described by....Praetorius!

The original St-Denis project was widely different from the

actual organ; besides the Chamades-with breaks- after the spanish

model ACC was trained in, there were also many free-reed stops

after the Kratzenstein way -and here we deal with german style-.

Halas some "pragmatic" guys went there with some red ink.

The "liberal" ideology -religion?- is as letal for organs as any

other fad...Sell 'em what they want, cash flow gets in, and money

is the end of all things. If you agree with that, Art gets in the bin.

Pierre

[pcnd5584]

Overblown Flutes were already described by....Praetorius!

 

Yes - but did he make any?

 

The original St-Denis project was widely different from the

actual organ; besides the Chamades-with breaks- after the spanish

model ACC was trained in, there were also many free-reed stops

after the Kratzenstein way -and here we deal with german style-.

Halas some "pragmatic" guys went there with some red ink.

The "liberal" ideology -religion?- is as letal for organs as any

other fad...Sell 'em what they want, cash flow gets in, and money

is the end of all things. If you agree with that, Art gets in the bin.

Pierre

 

It is true that the tender specification and the actual specification (as built) of the organ in the Abbey of S. Denis were quite different. I am presently comparing the two side by side (including details of the Pédales de Combinaisons). Arguably, a good case can be made for either instrument being the progenitor of a new style. Both designs show the inclusion of stops which were not common in French organs at the time.

 

Innovations included the free reeds, the harmonic pipes and the placing of the Pédale, G.O. and Bombarde reeds on a higher pressure than the flues.

 

Within a few months the scheme had been reduced from eighty-one stops to seventy-one. As built, I think that the instrument was, on balance, better proportioned and with a more cohesive design. For example, as originally planned, there were to be no harmonic stops on the clavier divisions, only on the Pédale. The number of chorus reeds on the G.O. and Bombarde was also increased (the Pédale gaining a full-length Contre-bombarde at 32p) and their pitches rationalised. On paper, the scheme as realised omitted most of the high-pitched reeds and introduced overblowing ranks into the clavier departments.

 

Either way, I am quite convinced that the resulting instrument was - and is - a work of art, a masterpiece, in its own right. Whilst I have not had the privilege of playing this superb beast, I possess a number of high-quality recordings, many of which feature the Titulaire, Pierre Pincemaille (himself a formidably gifted improvisor). They show the instrument to have a wide range of tone-colours (albeit without undulants), superb reeds and an awesome tutti - with that characteristic Cavaillé-Coll 'crash' already clearly discernable.