Jump to content
Mander Organs
JERRY

Pneumatic Actions

Recommended Posts

Here is another Roosevelt's example, where he did indeed use

the Leclanché batteries.

This was 1883, so even the cell's trick isn't H-J's.

 

http://www.sover.net/~popel/GBroosevelt.html

 

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

 

 

I don't expect that they knew each other at the time, but in any event, H-J was probably dabbling with more electricity than any organ-builder had ever seen at the time......you know....telephones.

 

H-J great contribution to the world was in the use of telephone signalling as a means of controlling the logic required of extension organs, and in making sea-journeys a tad safer. Not many inventions last quite so long in regular use as these, but the Jacquard loom must be included also.

 

It's interesting to realise that a textile-engineer made the fair-organ possible, and a telephone-engineer gave a fair-organ maker a whole new industry.

 

I wonder how many people know that the Wurlitzer company had a history which could be traced back to the 16th century, as highly respected violin-makers in Germany, and that the Wurlitzer approval of authenticity is still recognised at all major auction houses and musical-instrument dealerships?

 

Who knows, Bach may have played a Wurlitzer. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

Let's be clear: for me, evidences are many Hope-Jones copied Hilborne Roosevelt

lavishly.

Try to do that with any US firm today...

 

The true contributions of H-J to the organ are:

 

-The combination logics (not to forget double touch etc)

 

-Above all, his tonal ideas.

 

About the last, we could discuss at *some*(more!) lenght, but fact is, do we like it or not, a sufficient number of examples should ( have been?) be preserved, and I mean not

theatre organs only.

 

But even there H-J does not stand alone. As voicer, or chief voicer, he had a certain Whiteley working with him, who might have been responsible for many a beautiful H-J's stop.

(And later, indeed, worked on some rather important organs in the US).

 

Whiteley had worked with a builder that was quite less known -and still is- than Hope-Jones, but was a favorite of Audsley (contrarily to H-J, who seems to have been for Audsley like a red flag in front of a bull):

William Thynne!

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It still does not solve the problem that several of the instuments which I mentioned do not have a mechanical action such as that at Girton. Even Bath is fairly heavy if everything is coupled through.

 

In fairness, it must be said that the superb organ at Chichester is quite comfortable, even with the Solo Sub Octave drawn.

 

However, each to his own! :P

 

 

I would recommend tyring the action at St Ignatius Loyola, New York. I think you would be pleasantly surpriised. It is very mannageable with all four manuals coupled and it is a big instrument - 68 speaking stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The true contributions of H-J to the organ are:

 

-The combination logics (not to forget double touch etc)

 

-Above all, his tonal ideas.

 

About the last, we could discuss at *some*(more!) lenght, but fact is, do we like it or not, a sufficient number of examples should ( have been?) be preserved, and I mean not

theatre organs only.

 

 

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

 

I think a discussion about Hope-Jone's tonal ideals would be utterly pointless. They could be summed up with one word, which is mono-syllabic, and they bounce!

 

The Hope-Jones ideals found their perfect conclusion in the field of light entertainment, which is where they firmly belong, to the further pleasure of all.

 

I'm sure he would have been delighted to note that nowadays, the more adventurous entertainment-organists have managed to rig-up all sorts of sequencers and computerised controls as a means of rendering a far more accurate synthesis of the orchestra and the big-band.

 

Give me a fresh Pizza, a bottle of "Bud", dancing cats (electro-pneumatic of course), pre-programmed percussions and music by Mancini and I'll show you a different version of heaven, stalking along with the "Pink Panther."

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a guy dealing with history I don't believe in breaktroughs that would be the

grande oeuvre of unique people.

You may of course prefer H-J's ideas as applied to the Wurlitzer theatre organ,

which is a worthwile instrument, and very well done with that,such organs are true masterpieces of workmanship.

 

But this organ isn't a "new" one, born in isolation; it is a part of a big chain, some elements of whom may please less.

There would be no Wurlitzers had it been no Roosevelt,Thynne,Lewis, Schulze

and all the german tradition that's behind Schulze.

(I should add all what's behind Roosevelt: Walcker, etc...)

Already many many church organs indeed. But even more: without H-J's church

organs and Cath..., eh, let's say "liturgical organs", there would have been no Wurlitzer too.

 

We cannot be content selecting, in the history, the "good" and scrap the rest, like childs do at dinner, taking the chips while refusing the salad. Up to now, each generation has done just that with organs.

And today we wonder why our instrument does not have the place it deserves in the musical life; for me it's the main reason.

Think of this: how many visitors would have a museum where 80% of the jobs presented would be zig-tents "corrected" ones or bland copies?

 

We won't be able to manage our heritage correctly as long as we cannot appreciate it in all its styles from whatever period and taste.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Newnham writes as if all detached consoles result in problems with delay in hearing what you play. This is clearly not the case. It can of course be a very real problem where there is a significant distance between the console and the pipes, but when they are close together - as in Gloucester for example, there's no problem at all.

 

It has been my experience that the problems in assessing the balance from consoles up-close to the pipework - whether attached mechanical or detached EP - are considerable, especially where the organ is mounted on a pulpitum. One really needs a good understanding of which divisions or ranks speak east or west and if you're just a visiting organist accompanying evensong you don't really get a chance to assess this. I found it very difficult, for example, to have any idea at all what the balance sounded like in the quire when playing in Exeter and Wells last year. Whilst its good to trust the choir director to tell you if its too loud, to soft or whatever I'd prefer to be able to actually hear what it sounds like for myself.

 

Hereford is interesting in this respect too. The elevated, detached organ loft being directly opposite the pipes the organist hears the instrument wonderfully well - but it sounds quite different down in the quire or further away in the nave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would recommend tyring the action at St Ignatius Loyola, New York. I think you would be pleasantly surpriised. It is very mannageable with all four manuals coupled and it is a big instrument - 68 speaking stops.

 

Well, I would like very much to play this instrument - I only know it from articles which I have read.

 

However, apart from not being able at present to afford the air fare to NYC; according to a documentary on the TV last night, the entire eastern seaboard of the US is in possibly imminent danger of annihilation by a mega-tsunami. So, I think that I will pass, until someone has sorted-out a way of assessing the time-scale... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tewkesbury is comfortable, but not light, with swell coupled to great. I think its a bit of a red herring worrying if the action is heavy with all manual couplers drawn - how often should one wish to do this if the great and swell are properly developed?

 

I too like the occasional OTT sound palette available with strings & octave couplers, but on the whole view octave couplers as a bad thing. Its one thing to create additional versatility with octave couplers and "unison off", but quite another to need to use them to boost sound and fill in for otherwise inadequate divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
==================

 

I think a discussion about Hope-Jone's tonal ideals would be utterly pointless. They could be summed up with one word, which is mono-syllabic, and they bounce!

 

 

Give me a fresh Pizza, a bottle of "Bud", dancing cats (electro-pneumatic of course), pre-programmed percussions and music by Mancini and I'll show you a different version of heaven, stalking along with the "Pink Panther."

 

MM

 

With this, I would heartily concur - except the last part.

 

For my money, the naked, clog-dancing sheep and a bottle of Absolut Vodka* do it for me any day - the sheep are sooo cute.... :P

 

*...ummm...sorry, is this advertising?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tewkesbury is comfortable, but not light, with swell coupled to great. I think its a bit of a red herring worrying if the action is heavy with all manual couplers drawn - how often should one wish to do this if the great and swell are properly developed?

 

I too like the occasional OTT sound palette available with strings & octave couplers, but on the whole view octave couplers as a bad thing. Its one thing to create additional versatility with octave couplers and "unison off", but quite another to need to use them to boost sound and fill in for otherwise inadequate divisions.

 

To be honest, in my own church, it is necessary not just to couple the Swell to the GO (for the hymns, at least) but also the third clavier. If I am playing the music of JSB, I still prefer to couple the Swell chorus to the GO. The building is quite dry acoustically and the sound is actually better thus. This is true from various places in the nave and aisles - not just the console.

 

Yes, it is possible to be gauche in the use of octave couplers; however, for quiet effects of etherial beauty, I would not part with them. The Swell Sub Octave is also useful in the last sections of pieces such as Tu es Petra and the Choral from Vierne's 2me Symphonie. This is one of my favourite movements and I use the Sub Octave coupler to provide the necessary gravitas in the final page-and-a half. Without it, on my instrument, the sound is thin and top-heavy. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We cannot be content  selecting, in the history, the "good" and scrap the rest, like childs do at dinner, taking the chips while refusing the salad. Up to now, each generation has done just that with organs.

And today we wonder why our instrument does not have the place it deserves in the musical life; for me it's the main reason.

 

We won't be able to manage our heritage correctly as long as we cannot appreciate it in all its styles from whatever period and taste.

 

 

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

 

I believe there are two views of the organ which may overlap, but which remain quite separate. One is the view that they are wonderful examples of craft (even art), and the other that they are musical instruments which must serve the needs of music.

 

As Worcester has caught the attention of many, this is perhaps a good example to consider.

 

There are those who would subscribe to the view that the original Hope-Jones instrument should have been left alone, and merely re-furbished. This would be the antiquarian view, presumably.

 

There are those who lament the passing of the Harrison re-build, which would reasonably represent the historical point of view, perhaps due to the association with Herbert Howells and the "tradition."

 

There are those who could not wait to scrap it and get an organ which was different, for entirely understandable musical reasons, but without much regard to either antiquity or history.

 

The organ is unique as a musical instrument, for not only does it belong to a whole gamut of different styles, it is also called upon to be a living, breathing (hopefully!), contemporary instrument in a way that is not required of other instruments. After all, most harpsichords are built much the same; albeit with specific national differences and perhaps additional features. Whilst some prefer the Flemish, the French or the Italian; broadly speaking, the music written for the harpsichord would not suffer dramatically if played on an instrument of a different origin.

 

Square pianos tend to sound like square pianos, concert grands tend to sound like concert grands, and Eb Tubas don't sound radically different now to how they always sounded.

 

Obviously, it is not possible to install a new organ every time music changes, or because liturgy has changed. Otherwise, we would have cathedrals containing nothing but organs nailed to every available stone-pier. There is, therefore, a very long tradition of organs being re-built and "improved" or enlarged and modernised. Only a very few ever survive to ripe old age, and this is how it should be IMHO. Arp Schnitger changed old organs radically, as did Cavaille-Coll, Harrison, Skinner and all the rest (dare we include Mander?)....it is also part of the tradition to do so.

 

Priceless antiquity is what emerges when everybody has done their worst, and that is why it is priceless.

 

Very few things are so good as to be priceless in their own time, but there are a few organs which are; at least tonally. Doncaster is;so too with Armley, Salisbury, Hereford, Liverpool and many others, at home and abroad. For every thousand organs, there is but one Bavo, Ste.Etienne, Alkmaar or Toledo.

 

Worcester was an organ which simply wan't good enough to qualify for perpetual veneration, though Redcliffe certainly is.

 

I think John Mander hit the nail on the head, by suggesting that what was very good should be retained, but that we should have the courage of conviction to start-over again when something is not good. The saddest thing of all is to see a masterpiece destroyed by whatever means, and that can apply to anything, from a burning Wurlitzer bulldozed into a pile, to a war-time bomb dropping on Dresden.

 

It's perfectly clear and straightforward, but the problem is, we all have very diferent views about what constitutes a masterpiece, a piece of history or a truly musical instrument.

 

That's why we cannot manage our heritage, because it is something we re-discover every time we get down to the last dozen examples of almost anything unique or exceptionally worthy.

 

As for the ogan not having a proper place in music, that is probably more to do with the fact that the organ is regarded as a liturgical instrument, when most people never set foot in a church outside America and Poland.

 

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I follow this line of reasoning but think something could be worth retaining without actually needing to be a masterpiece. But surely anytime a decision is taken to scrap an instrument and replace it this must be seen as a risk. Worcester is indeed a good example - there can be no possible guarantee that the replacement organs will be as good as, or better than, the present instrument. Its a question of trust and hope.

 

I'm sure most of us at some point in our life will have replaced something, perhaps a car, or a television, even a home, only to realise sometime later that it was a mistake and afterall we prefered the old one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - funny how Worcester rears its head in the unlikeliest of topics - perhaps it is just possible that there are many out there who, like me, think that it is a fabulous instrument!

 

Certainly I would concur with nfortin's statement that there is always an element of risk when constructing a new organ. There is a fairly new instrument in a moderate-sized town a few miles from Exeter. Having played it, I would have sent the reeds back to the voicing-shop before signing a certificate of acceptance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, there's no advantage whatsoever of pneumatc or electro-pneumatic over a well-made tracker action. Pure pneumatic action, by the nature of the beast, will always cause some "lag" in response - and particularly when the console is some distance from the pipes (the only reason, except on very large organs) for not using tracker. E-P is better, but I've only played one example that seemed to have a really adequate response - that was a Wurlitzer theatre organ with the action on something like 20-30" pressure, and only a small distance between console and pipes.

 

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

 

A Wurlitzer chest-action could not be simpler, with vertically mounted secondary "exhaust" motors, and small primaries operated from air being cut-off or supplied from a solenoid-operated disc-valve. The vertically mounted secondary pneumatic-motors are connected to the small pipe-pallets via a "spoon" which turns the movement through 90 degrees.

 

Wurlitzer actions are extremely fast, with superb repetition, and only a real speed-merchant can actually beat the response.

 

The "hair-trigger" responses are probably due to the fact that the main pneumatic "secondary" motors are JUST big enough to give the eact amount of torque required to overcome the combined resistance of the pipe-pallet and its' spring, but not so big that they are slow to re-inflate when the key is released. The fact that each pneumatic motor only operates on one pipe at a time, rather than a whole slider-chest full of pipes, is perhaps the reason for the lightning response of the whole.

 

Because the electro-pneumatics key-actions are entirely contained within the individual unit-chests without a seperate wind-supply to the action, it is totally irrelevant as to how far the console is from the pipe-chambers, and on many installations, the pipes can be forty or more feet above the console, and sometimes divided across a whole auditorium.

 

Furthermore, there is often gross over-estimation of the wind-pressures employed on theatre organs. Most Wurlitzer organ flue-pipes such as strings, flutes and the less powerful reeds speak on about 7" wg. The more powerful Diaphonic pipes and Tubas/English Horns seldom exceed 15" wg, but there are certainly higher pressures employed on some of the real monster installations in the USA.

 

So, at an educated guess, the so-called action-pressure is normally no more than 15" maximum; that being the normal top-end of the pipe wind-pressure in the unit-chests.

 

I think the heaviest pressure employed on any theatre organ is that applied to the "Bugle" rank of the St.Fillipo residence-organ in the US.....it's quite a large residence! I seem to recall it to be on 100" wg, but it may be 50" wg. It is, of course loud....very, very loud....in fact, ear-splitting!! (I'd like to guess that there are no pneumatic motors involved in that particular rank, but I don't know for certain.

 

Lastly, whilst I've never actually seen an example stripped for inspection, I believe that the thumb-pistons actuate PNEUMATIC motors which control the movement of the stop-tabs on the console rails. That is the ONE THING which can be slow to respond on a well-worn Wurlitzer. Compton used a much more elegant system of far freater reliability, which I think was entirely electro-mechanical.

 

On the subject of pneumatic-actions, I used to play a Binns organ with the charge-pneumatic system. It had excellent feel, plenty of key-pluck, good speed and very adequate speed of repetition. It was then a mere 80 years of age, and only the primary motors had been re-leathered circa.year 70!!

 

MM

 

"...I think the heaviest pressure employed on any theatre organ is that applied to the "Bugle" rank of the St.Fillipo residence-organ in the US.....it's quite a large residence! I seem to recall it to be on 100" wg, but it may be 50" wg. It is, of course loud....very, very loud....in fact, ear-splitting!! (I'd like to guess that there are no pneumatic motors involved in that particular rank, but I don't know for certain"

 

On a point of information, the sleeve notes to the recent Jelani Eddington CD "Musical Fireworks" give the pressure of this rank as 26"wg - considerably less than the Trompette Militaire, or Tuba Magna at Liverpool for example . However, it is en chamade which I am given to understand effectively doubles the impact, as with the Tuba Mirabilis at York (which used to be on 25" the last time I looked). It seems you need to blow a conventionally disposed tuba at 50" to get the same impact for those "in the line of fire" as a horizontal tuba on 25" will produce. I am no technician and do not have the knowledge to assess whether what I have been told is correct or arrant nonsense, but it would seem that its being true would account for the belief that the 100" pressure Hope-Jones wanted to use for a Tuba at Worcester and which was employed in Atlantic City had now been used in an organ which it is possible to hear played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am no technician and do not have the knowledge to assess whether what I have been told is correct or arrant nonsense, but it would seem that its being true would account for the belief that the 100" pressure Hope-Jones wanted to use for a Tuba at Worcester and which was employed in Atlantic City had now been used in an organ which it is possible to hear played.

 

Well, yes; but if it is not even necessary to be present in the same town in order to hear the stop, perhaps it is possible that we have crossed the line between musicality and sheer noise.

 

(Goodness, I never thought that I would say/type anything that might suggest that an organ could be too noisy... :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dare we include Mander?

(Quote)

 

I don't think so. I think John Pike Mander is maybe one of the first of a new generation or "restaurators" in that matter.

 

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Newnham writes as if all detached consoles result in problems with delay in hearing what you play. This is clearly not the case. It can of course be a very real problem where there is a significant distance between the console and the pipes, but when they are close together - as in Gloucester for example, there's no problem at all.

 

 

Hi

 

That's not quite what I said - althoguh by the nature of things, there MUST be a delay due to the speed of sound propogation between pipes and the console - and inevitably, when a console is detached, the distance is greater, and hence the dealy is greater.

 

I - personally - have found that I am quite sensitive to even relatively small delays, hence I prefer attached consoles. Maybe if I had to accompany Catherdral Choirs from a pulpitum console my views would be different - who knows? Whichever way you go, there are compromises, so, as has been said before, "each one to his own". It depends what your priorities are - and what the function of the organ is. I will hapily play organs with detached consoles (I've played services on 2 within the last few months, as well as an electgronic with the console at the head of the nave and speakers at the west end - but I notice the delay, and I'm far happier with a good tracker action.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
=================

 

 

Square pianos tend to sound like square pianos, concert grands tend to sound like concert grands, and Eb Tubas don't sound radically different now to how they always sounded.

 

MM

 

 

Hi

 

Splitting hairs, maybe, but pianos can be as individual as organs, both in sound and feel. There's a world of difference between the upright in my church, and my favourites - Bossendorfer and Bluthner (and they again are very different) - and modern grands are different again from the probably c.1900 Broadwood Grand that we had when I started learning, may years ago.

 

In an ideal world, you could select a piano top suit the repertoire that you're playing, just as different schools of organ building suit some repertoire better than others.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, it had to happen eventually, something I can agree with you on Tony. I do hope, as I do, that you take all contra arguments in good spirit and on the basis that fair discussion of opposing views is one of the strengths of this discussion board.

 

Of course all pianos are different, and I'm sure we all have our preferences. Equally not all violins sound the same, or all flutes, or all tubas, or any other instrument. The whole early music recording industry has grown up on the obvious reality of these differences and hopefuly most of us would agree that our understanding of music of many periods has gained immeasureably as a result.

 

Whether an authentic sounding "period" organ is a suitable instrument for accompanying the average UK anglican cathedral liturgy is, of course, an entirely different argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course all pianos are different, and I'm sure we all have our preferences. Equally not all violins sound the same, or all flutes, or all tubas, or any other instrument. The whole early music recording industry has grown up on the obvious reality of these differences and hopefuly most of us would agree that our understanding of music of many periods has gained immeasureably as a result.

 

 

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

 

 

I never suggested that all similar instruments sound the same; I thought I had made that point about harpsichords. What I actually implied, was that the MUSIC doesn't generally suffer when (for example) the Grieg A-Min Piano Concerto is performed on a Steinway, a Yamaha or a Bechstein. The same is also true of other instruments which share a similar design and period.

 

Only the organ is expected to cover the period from circa.1450 to the present day, and even accompany choirs. Quite obviously, this is more or less impossible without considerable compromise; thus leaving open the need for "authentic" sounding re-productions of earlier instruments, or actual instruments which have somehow escaped "improvement."

 

I don't know what this has got to do with pneumatic-action, which was the original topic, but let's stick with our gentle meander towards another subject entirely.

 

Irrespective of action-types and organ layout, there seems to be a drift towards an un-healthy "Franglaisism" or even the outright pursuit of Cavaille-Coll revivalism, which really has no place in an English liturgical setting. There are even a few criminally insane, but well intentioned folk, who think that we should revive the Arthur Harrison or Willis type of instruments; though both have enormous musical shortcomings. There was the very interesting experiment at reviving the 19th cenury Hill sound, which Mander re-created splendidly at Holborn, but I suspect this will remain an interesting but worthy diversion.

Exciting though Blackburn and Worcester are (the one being modelled on the other), there is, IMHO, but one instrument which really can do it all, and still stand apart as a wonderful solo instrument in its' own rights.

 

I refer to St.George's Chapel, Windsor, which was "almost" a new instrument when Harrisons re-built it. It is a wonderful blend of the expressive, fiery French type of Swell, the noble English Diapason chorus, the expressive enclosed English Choir Organ, and a "German" Positive. It even has a Solo Organ, and a substantial rather than heavy Pedal Organ, in which the reeds, mercifully, do not rip the varnish off the choir-stalls. In so many ways, it was both a response to modernity AND a development of the traditional Anglican organ, and as such, it has stood the musical test of time.

 

This is why I object so much to the many, generally unsuccessful, imports from Germany and Denmark, which I would regard as tonally inferior to the English organs mentioned above. As for copying Cavaille-Coll, not even the French are doing that,(even if a Dutchman does) and for good reason. The C-C organ is as specialised and regional as any Dutch or German baroque instrument, and it is a style which doesn't travel well within the context of Anglican worship.

 

Now if people would only turn away from French romanticism and the ghastly modern perversion of the baroque organ in Germany, and instead, take a look at some of the better organs of Hungary or the Czech Republic, they may learn something.

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, it had to happen eventually, something I can agree with you on Tony. I do hope, as I do, that you take all contra arguments in good spirit and on the basis that fair discussion of opposing views is one of the strengths of this discussion board.

 

Of course all pianos are different, and I'm sure we all have our preferences. Equally not all violins sound the same, or all flutes, or all tubas, or any other instrument. The whole early music recording industry has grown up on the obvious reality of these differences and hopefuly most of us would agree that our understanding of music of many periods has gained immeasureably as a result.

 

Whether an authentic sounding "period" organ is a suitable instrument for accompanying the average UK anglican cathedral liturgy is, of course, an entirely different argument.

 

 

Hi

 

Glad we agree on something" - and "agreeing to differ" should be part of life. As to the suitability of an organ for Anglican liturgy, there are plenty of organs in the UK, let alone the world, there that just isn't an issue - especially in the Free Churches! Anyway, I assume that it is possible - there are some decidedly "non-liturgical" organs in University Chapels!

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rrespective of action-types and organ layout, there seems to be a drift towards an un-healthy "Franglaisism" or even the outright pursuit of Cavaille-Coll revivalism, which really has no place in an English liturgical setting. There are even a few criminally insane, but well intentioned folk, who think that we should revive the Arthur Harrison or Willis type of instruments; though both have enormous musical shortcomings. There was the very interesting experiment at reviving the 19th cenury Hill sound, which Mander re-created splendidly at Holborn, but I suspect this will remain an interesting but worthy diversion

 

(Quote)

 

Sorry, sorry...

Call me a criminal if you want, but these ideas were already printed fifty years ago, in a series of books called "Le livre de l'orgue français", indeed "from the other side of the classic revival", by Norbert Dufourcq.

He too believed we shoudn't bother with Cavaillé-Coll's "shortcomings" as well as with Clicquot's....The result was that very "Néo-Classique" organ many people would like to trash in the bin today.

He turned an extremely promising organ-builder, Victor Gonzalez -whose first jobs, like Bailleul, are exquisite gems- into a toy for his "truths".

To write today "Arthur Harrison and Willis organs both have enormous musical shortcomings", like in the 1950's, implies you could do better.

This we could discuss for instance on the "Two clavier design" thread, on the basis of

a proposition of yours . Let us see an enlightened design please.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we are going to stick to the size of scheme which I originally suggested (on the other thread) I would suggest:

 

PEDAL ORGAN

 

Open Diapason (M) 16

Sub Bass 16

Quint 10 2/3 (S.B.)

Octave (M)

Flute 8

Super Octave 4

Flute 4

Bombarde (M) 16

Bass Trumpet (Sw.)

Clarion 8 (Ext.)

Shawm 4

 

GO

 

Quintatön 16

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Wald Flute 8

Gamba 8

Principal 4

Nason Flute 4

Nazard 2 2/3

Fifteenth 2

Tierce 1 3/5

Furniture (19, 22, 26, 29)

Corno di Bassetto 8

Orchestral Trumpet 8

Orchestral Clarion 4

Reeds on Swell

 

SWELL ORGAN

 

Open Diapason 8

Lieblich Gedeckt 8

Salicional 8

Vox Angelica (TC) 8

Geigen Principal 4

Harmonic Flute 4

Flageolet 2

Mixture (15, 19, 22)

Bass Trumpet 16

Hautboy 8

Cornopean 8

 

COUPLERS

 

GO-Pedal

Swell-Pedal

Swell 4p-Pedal

 

Swell 16p-GO

Swell-GO

Swell 4p-GO

 

Swell Tremulant

Sub Octave

Unison Off

Octave

 

Great & Pedal Pistons Coupled

Generals on Swell Foot Pistons

 

Eclectic to an extent - many successful schemes are. But also, quite English. However, I have specified a Bombarde on the Pedal. This would be the only real leaning towards France. I just do not like fat, bumbling Trombones or Ophicleides. Yes, I know they suit many organs up and down the country, but I still do not like the timbre - or the attack....

 

Anyone else got a similar-sized scheme? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above looks rather like St Aldhelm, Branksone in Poole (A really quite effective 1990s rebuild by Lance Foy of a 1920s Gray and Davison that had some 'typical of its time' work done to it by Osmond - it also has a Choir to Pub coupler!! - nice church too.)

AJJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...