Bossi Scherzo

[AJJ]

In which case, perhaps you should have been present at the first concert involving an orchestra to take place after the initial rebuild. I had the task of accompanying the Duruflé Requiem and playing the organ part in Saint-Saëns' Third Symphony. The full organ (used all the way through the loud parts) was completely inaudible - as the 'resident virtuoso' will be able to confirm, since he was present. Towards the end, in sheer frustration, I even got my page-turner to add fistsful of notes, in a vain attempt to get the sound of the organ out. This made no difference, apparently. For the record, the orchesra was composed of students and was not that loud - or particularly large.

I was thinking also of the effect. Whilst practising for the last lunch-time recital which I played at this venue, I experimented with observing how much of the organ I could subtract from the registration before there was an audible difference. To be honest, with the Nave section drawn, little else shone through.

 

More details later - it is now time to teach once more.

 

Me too re teaching. But..I've always wondered why things were so underestimated here in the first place?

 

AJJ

[pcnd5584]

Me too re teaching. But..I've always wondered why things were so underestimated here in the first place?

 

AJJ

 

Perhaps the consultant designed the instrument to play the opening recital. Having written that, even then, it sounded as if he was playing on the Swell for most of it - which he was not.

[john carter]

Do you remember that splendid recording of Arnold Richardson doing the Reubke at the RFH? Despite the organ it remains one of the finest performances I have ever heard - just as you describe, con fuoco.

 

His performance of the Brahms' Fugue in A flat minor on the other side is terrific too; Richardson captures the beauty and intensity of the writing. I wish they would reissue that LP as a CD.

 

Barry Williams

Absolutely! How can we persuade companies to re-issue these gems? Perhaps Gary Cole can explain the process?

 

JC

[Guest Cynic]

Absolutely! How can we persuade companies to re-issue these gems? Perhaps Gary Cole can explain the process?

 

JC

 

 

The guy to ask is Martin Monkman (of Amphion) who already has a huge list of important re-issues to his credit. I think the problems are usually

 

1. Issuing any CD is a question of capital outlay, so one has to be pretty sure of a market!

2. Having permission to re-issue is an absolute requirement. This may be tricky to track down and/or costly.

3. If you want a good product, either access to the original tapes or a virgin copy of the original LP are vital.

 

These requirements have been the effective limit upon what has come out so far. I would second the opinion that Arnold Richardson's playing was outstanding and should be available to a new generation of listeners. As a youngster I found his BBC broadcasts completely inspiring. [They were not on particularly wonderful instruments either!]

 

Generally, if any of you have suggestions of this kind to make, I suggest you go ahead. I know for certain that precisely this sort of lobbying produced the Germani reissues on Amphion.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Could download services such as iTunes provide a way past point 1, at least?

[Guest Cynic]

Could download services such as iTunes provide a way past point 1, at least?

 

 

I may be misunderstanding this new technology, but I thought the whole attraction of downloading is that you frequently don't have to pay for it. On that basis, it is easily possible that very few record labels who produce minority interest CDs (such as ours) will stay in business.

 

I have noticed (by Googling etc.) that some of my (copyright) tracks are now downloadable on websites and by organisations I've never had dealings with. Unethical or what? It tickles the ego a little, but annoys too. Apart from anything else, anyone listening to a downloaded track (or requesting and then copying it off an American Radio Station broadcast) gets no background understanding of the track and how/why the recording was made.

 

Of course, this is a strong reason for making CD booklets as full of detail and interest as possible, along with charging only a reasonable amount for the CD. I still maintain: what can you buy these days for £10 and enjoy more than once?

 

A CD actually costs less than a pound to produce, but you do have to cover other costs:

Facility fee (can easily run into hundreds)

Mechanical copyright fee (I've had this as high as £800 for a 1000 copy run)

Fee to performer (if given!)

Editor's time

Art-work Editor's time

Percentage cut to stockists.

Advertising

 

Even so, I'm still very keen to produce CDs. I love the whole concept of planning a performance, having

* adequate time to rehearse it (this is rare in live performances)

* often the ideal instrument for the material chosen

* the opportunity to tidy up the messy moments so that what results is a near-perfect concert that will be 'out there' for ever.

 

Immortality? well...sort of. Just don't expect to make a profit.

[Davidb]

I think paul you have a slightly misunderstood view of downloading. On ITunes for example, a track costs 79p , and is legal (unlike the free downloading you mention, which is ILLEGAL) or other services such as napster or rhapsody where you pay a set fee per month, which gets distributed between record companies (as i understand it.)

 

Nowadays, most record labels have opened up their material to these sites, but the quality is lower than on cd (an MP3 is 128-192 thousand 'bits' of information per second, wherease a cd can be up to 1411,,) though it is reguarly argued that the material cut out is of little worth. Is this the reason (Especially put to Gary) that comapnies such as Regent, Priory and Hyperion (to name three that i would love to be avalible on these services:)) haven't as yet put their materials online. Is there likely to be a market for them to do so in the near future?

[Guest Cynic]

I think paul you have a slightly misunderstood view of downloading. On ITunes for example, a track costs 79p , and is legal (unlike the free downloading you mention, which is ILLEGAL) or other services such as napster or rhapsody where you pay a set fee per month, which gets distributed between record companies (as i understand it.)*

 

Nowadays, most record labels have opened up their material to these sites, but the quality is lower than on cd (an MP3 is 128-192 thousand 'bits' of information per second, wherease a cd can be up to 1411,,) though it is reguarly argued that the material cut out is of little worth. Is this the reason (Especially put to Gary) that comapnies such as Regent, Priory and Hyperion (to name three that i would love to be avalible on these services:)) haven't as yet put their materials online. Is there likely to be a market for them to do so in the near future?

 

 

The reason is much more likely to be financial.

Sales are already weakish, add the chance that people can get something essentially the same for substantially less elsewhere......

 

*Your description sounds correct in theory, but does it work in practice? As far as I'm concerned, I haven't seen cent one and don't expect to.

[wolsey]

Nowadays, most record labels have opened up their material to these sites, but the quality is lower than on cd (an MP3 is 128-192 thousand 'bits' of information per second, wherease a cd can be up to 1411,,) though it is reguarly argued that the material cut out is of little worth. Is this the reason (Especially put to Gary) that comapnies such as Regent, Priory and Hyperion (to name three that i would love to be avalible on these services:)) haven't as yet put their materials online. Is there likely to be a market for them to do so in the near future?

 

Some Priory material can be purchased and then downloaded at www.theclassicalshop.net. I have on my iPod Graham Barber playing Fleury's Prelude, Andante and Toccata...

[Guest Barry Williams]

Nor are several other things if we are both thinking of the same establishment.

 

To be fair, some significant improvements have been made since official 'completion'; all of them down to the dedication, expertise and sheer doggedness of the present organist who has refused to accept 'no' from the organ-builders as an answer.

 

 

This is Christchurch Priory.

 

I understand that:

 

1. The organ builder was required to rebuild the instrument to the detailed requirements of the church's own organ adviser. (Not the DAC's organs adviser.)

 

2. The Lottery Fund insisted that a tracker action console was installed. This was a condition of Lottery Funding.

 

3. Subsequent alterations have been made at the request of the new organist and have been paid for by the church.

 

Barry Williams

[Guest Cynic]

This is Christchurch Priory.

 

I understand that:

 

1. The organ builder was required to rebuild the instrument to the detailed requirements of the church's own organ adviser. (Not the DAC's organs adviser.)

 

2. The Lottery Fund insisted that a tracker action console was installed. This was a condition of Lottery Funding.

 

3. Subsequent alterations have been made at the request of the new organist and have been paid for by the church.

 

Barry Williams

 

 

I have no reason to doubt your word, Barry. So... if it were not (as I had assumed) the church's own adviser who asked for the tracker action console, who was it?

 

I don't suppose for a moment that your general committee-types administering Lottery Funds would have given two hoots for a specific action type, so this requirement must have been set down by an organ adviser... now, I think we'd like to know who this was!! High-principalled or not, their personal fancy/totem/obsession has cost The Lottery, PCC and donors money and taken the church down an unecessary blind alley.

 

The idea of an organ in a loft having to have a mechanical action console is even more dubious when one recognises that the organ was previously electro-pneumatic, the console has always been downstairs thoughout living memory, and the whole of the Nave Section is on a sufficiently high pressure to be impractical for tracker touch.

 

Somone is now going to observe that this would be one possible reason why the Nave Section was initially softened at this rebuild. Actually, I believe I am right in saying that the Nave Section has not ever been playable from the upstairs console.

[Guest Barry Williams]

My understanding is that the Lottery Fund insisted that a tracker action console was installed and that this was a condition of Lottery Funding for the whole project.

 

I did not state that the church's own adviser wanted, or did not want, a tracker action console, merely that it was a condition of Lottery Funding that a tracker action console was installed.

 

I do not know whether or not the Nave Section can be played from the tracker action console.

 

Barry Williams

[Guest Cynic]

My understanding is that the Lottery Fund insisted insisted that a tracker action console was installed and that this was a condition of Lottery Funding for the whole project.

 

I did not state that the church's own adviser wanted, or did not want, a tracker action console, merely that it was a condition of Lottery Funding that a tracker action console was installed.

 

I do not know whether or not the Nave Section can be played from the tracker action console.

 

Barry Williams

 

 

Sorry! You miss my point..

put plainly...... exactly who (on behalf of The Lottery) insisted?

[Guest Barry Williams]

Sorry! You miss my point..

put plainly...... exactly who (on behalf of The Lottery) insisted?

 

 

I did not miss your point, for I did not state that it was a person, merely a condition of funding. You may be able to get the information you require from the Lottery Fund.

 

As I understand it, the Lottery Fund gives corporate decisions on applications, in much the same way that DACs advise intending applicants for faculties.

 

Barry Williams