Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Recommended Posts

I guess, though, in some years you will hear precisely that in the majority

of Bach's recordings, since it becomes clearer everyday that Bach had just such mixtures!

 

Another interesting video: a presentation of a 1920 swedish post-romantic organ

of first magnitude:

 

 

Pierre

This is a rare and glorious beast. ALL organists must hear van Oortmerssen's Brahms disc on the smaller 1906 Setterquist organ of the Kristine Church, Falun, Sweden. Heart melting and uplifting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now here is a bit of really heart-warming Bach to savour......grand, stately and played on one of the most historic and superb sounding instruments in Europe.

 

I should have written it down, but like all Polish place-names, they are instantly forgettable!

 

How refreshing to hear an organist who understands Bach.

 

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, this is well played. But the organ is actually a modern one....

 

see here (to be read with a pint of salt and carefully):

 

http://www.baroqueorgan.com/organ.html

 

" I have yet to see anything conclusive regarding tierce mixtures on organs Bach would have known. The only instrument (Mülhausen) which he was known to have played, for which I can find contemporary records of the mixture intervals shows that all the chorus mixtures contained unison and quint ranks only."

(Quote)

 

Since some time already, I am no more alone with that Mantra. Quint Mixtures were very rare in Central Europe

during the baroque period, and where there were some, it was following a french (Silbermann) or italian

influency (little Ripieni on secondar manuals in Casparini or his follower's organs).

The last restored Joachim Wagner, the little one in Sternhagen, has a "Mixtur 3 Fach" whose treble is

2 2/3'- 2'- 1 3/5' ! yes, exactly the same as in the Walcker organ....I learned it two days ago...

 

See here:

http://www.wagnerorgel-sternhagen.de/Baugeschichte.html

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, this is well played. But the organ is actually a modern one....

 

see here (to be read with a pint of salt and carefully):

 

http://www.baroqueorgan.com/organ.html

 

" I have yet to see anything conclusive regarding tierce mixtures on organs Bach would have known. The only instrument (Mülhausen) which he was known to have played, for which I can find contemporary records of the mixture intervals shows that all the chorus mixtures contained unison and quint ranks only."

(Quote)

 

Since some time already, I am no more alone with that Mantra. Quint Mixtures were very rare in Central Europe

during the baroque period, and where there were some, it was following a french (Silbermann) or italian

influency (little Ripieni on secondar manuals in Casparini or his follower's organs).

The last restored Joachim Wagner, the little one in Sternhagen, has a "Mixtur 3 Fach" whose treble is

2 2/3'- 2'- 1 3/5' ! yes, exactly the same as in the Walcker organ....I learned it two days ago...

 

See here:

http://www.wagnerorgel-sternhagen.de/Baugeschichte.html

 

Pierre

 

We have been here many times before. There is evidence that a number of instruments from the Baroque period contained predominantly quint mixtures.

 

In any case, as John Carter has suggested, it would be informative to read of any evidence that Bach used or liked tierce mixtures.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
"There is evidence that a number of french, northern german and castillan instruments from the Baroque period contained predominantly quint mixtures. "

 

(in the case of the french organs: all of them.)

 

Pierre

 

Except that you have altered my quote.

 

I am unconvinced that it is possible to say, with certainty, that some of the instruments you quote have not been altered tonally since the time of Bach. Two hundred and fifty years, give or take a few, is a long time. Documentation can be lost or destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am unconvinced that it is possible to say, with certainty, that some of the instruments you quote have not been altered tonally since the time of Bach. Two hundred and fifty years, give or take a few, is a long time. Documentation can be lost or destroyed."

 

Oh please. :blink:

 

"Die Mixturen werden oekonomisch und sparsam eingesetzt. Ohnoe ausnahme beinhaltet jedes Werk nur eine (tertshaltige) Mixtur."

 

"Hingegen haeufen sich bei allen Instrumenten die Terzen sowohl als einfach disponierte Sesquialter ODER ALS BESTANDTEIL DER MIXTUREN" [capitals mine].

 

"Mit dieser Betonung der Terz erzielt Trost einen weichen und farbigen Mischklang."

 

(Felix Friedrich - 'Der Orgelbauer Heinrich Gottried Trost').

 

Can we agree that Bach knew at least one organ of Trost? And that it still exists for us to learn from?

 

Bazuin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting play list: 10 contrasting performances of the "Little" fugue in G minor, BWV 578.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/gegenshow#grid...86C4A37D9AFECEB

 

There are others as well

 

Kevin Bowyer:

Ulrich Bohme:

Maurice Durufle:

Marie-Madeleine Durufle:

 

... and I can't be bothered to link to all of the rest of them here. You can see them all here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/gegenshow#g/u

 

There's Jacques van Oortmersson, Peter Hurford (whose recording sounds almost like a caricature of the neo-classical), Christopher Herrick amongst many others.

 

So enjoy this slightly Obsessive-Complusive listing of this piece, which is an interesting survey of different playing styles of different organists and periods. The only thing I'd say is that this piece bears repeated hearing but I doubt I'll ever have the time to listen to them all...

Link to post
Share on other sites
"I am unconvinced that it is possible to say, with certainty, that some of the instruments you quote have not been altered tonally since the time of Bach. Two hundred and fifty years, give or take a few, is a long time. Documentation can be lost or destroyed."

 

Oh please. :blink:

 

"Die Mixturen werden oekonomisch und sparsam eingesetzt. Ohnoe ausnahme beinhaltet jedes Werk nur eine (tertshaltige) Mixtur."

 

"Hingegen haeufen sich bei allen Instrumenten die Terzen sowohl als einfach disponierte Sesquialter ODER ALS BESTANDTEIL DER MIXTUREN" [capitals mine].

 

"Mit dieser Betonung der Terz erzielt Trost einen weichen und farbigen Mischklang."

 

(Felix Friedrich - 'Der Orgelbauer Heinrich Gottried Trost').

 

Can we agree that Bach knew at least one organ of Trost? And that it still exists for us to learn from?

 

Bazuin

 

Not until you post the above in English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should it be, Dear Pcnd ?

 

The data is in german dialects, written in gothic; the organs, while I toured them,

behind a severe border...

My teacher in organ history accepted me because I understood four language

then, and could do with the local variants of the Flanders and Germany.

"A prerequisite for that matter" he said.

 

I believe one cannot understand Bach and his organs without knowing the

german language. See Gerhard Grenzing again:

 

http://www.grenzing.com/pdf/klang.pdf

 

This tierce Mixture question seems to be bounded to languages, save in Britain

where both Quint and Tierce Mixtures are to be found since the 19th century.

 

Let us take, for example, the dutch-speaking area: Flanders, Netherlands and Northern

Germany -the Plattdeutsch being closer to the dutch than to the standard german-. There,

the Sesquialtera obtains absolutely everywhere, and goes in the chorus with the Quint Mixture.

 

In central Germany, the tierce is in the Mixture itself also. But there is a variant: one can find

Mixtures which "turns around" a Sesquialtera!

The Sesquialtera provides the 1 3/5' rank, while the Mixture has the 4/5' rank in the bass, breaking

directly to 3 1/5' in the treble !

Do we need any evidence more those two stops were intended to work togheter ?

 

(etc etc etc. I am researching such things since some years already)

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should it be, Dear Pcnd ?

 

 

Pierre

 

Because this is an English board - common courtesy. On the occasions when I post on the French board, I write in French (however imperfectly), out of courtesy.

 

It should be possible to translate and retain the sense of the original article - presumably as has been done in the piece to which you have linked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe one cannot understand Bach and his organs without knowing the german language.

Far be it from me, but I imagine you need fluency not only in German, but also in Bach's eighteenth-century version of it as well. Surely the precise nuance intended by any foreign writer can only really be understood if you have total comprehension of the original language. Being able to manage a translation is not enough - you need complete mastery, including especially total familiarity with its idiomatic usage.

 

Since I don't have mastery of any foreign language to anything like this level (or any other level, some would say), I am entirely dependent on having foreign texts filtered through a translation, but it's far from ideal. One is always aware that the translator may be distorting the sense, however unintentionally. To cite a well known example, isn't this precisely why we tend not to translate the Gravität so beloved of Bach? He might have meant "gravity", or "solemnity", or maybe even "weightiness", but how can we be sure which - if any - of these English words captures exactly what Bach meant to convey? The whole point is, I think, that no one is really sure exactly what he meant. Unfortunately, if you don't have this total command of the language, it does tend to hamper the validity of any arguments about it that you might want to engage in. Not that that is any reason to stifle debate.

 

Of course, if you really want to be helpful, what you do is give both the original text and a translation (which is what the best scholarly journals do). Then the knowledgeable can judge for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, Vox,

 

But there is another point beyond the strict meanings of the words: the sounds!

And this is what Mr Grenzing's talks about in his article.

We have a chance in Belgium in that we have dialectal forms here aplenty

with flemish, brabanter, limburgs, frankisch and german dialects, many of which

close to the ancient ones.

Pcnd, Organagraphia is well a french-based Forum. But it is litterally crammed

with links in all european languages, a thing which became accepted with time.

And its founder is not even a native french-speaking !

 

I can understand the wish for some academic rigor, this is sound. But to have all translated

in one language, for a belgian at least, seems like "I shall eat whatever you offer me,

provided it is beef".

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

only one reply from me.

My native language is German. So I never post only in German, because this would be impolite (unhöflich) on an english board. I go with pcnd5584 that only posting the german text is not helpful.

 

"Die Mixturen werden ökonomisch und sparsam eingesetzt. Ohne Ausnahme beinhaltet jedes Werk nur eine (terzhaltige) Mixtur."

"Hingegen häufen sich bei allen Instrumenten die Terzen sowohl als einfach disponierte Sesquialter oder als Bestandteil der Mixturen.

 

(Felix Friedrich - 'Der Orgelbauer Heinrich Gottried Trost').

The text from Felix Friedrich is not clear. In the first phrase he says, that the mixtures are used economically and sparse(!) The next phrase is not clear, because of the word "Werk". Does it mean every manual or does it mean the whole organ? It translates to "Without exception every 'Werk' has only one mixtur (with third)". Also not clear is the brace (with third). Does the brace means the third is optional? Or is it a reminder (Don't forget, it has a third)?

The next is also not a real argument for the third in mixtures, because he says: "On the contrary in all instruments there are many thirds as sesquialter or as part of a mixture." So he says the third was in a mixture or (!) in a sesquialter. So we can conclude, that there where mixtures without third, built by Trost!

 

My conclusion (and Pierre, don't forget, German, native language, ok): in middle germany, the third-mixtures existed, but also the mixtures without thirds.

 

Cheers

tiratutti

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the mix a little further, I would be a little cautious about concluding upon the sound of the thirds in mixtures, regardless of district, and perceived or understood use. I draw upon what appears to me to be a strong argument for any application, namely that builders integrate the tierce, in Mixture or Sesquialter sometimes in similar, and sometimes in different ways, even when they have come from similar traditions and in similar periods. Indeed the same builder, if skillful will not always go down the same route. A simple listen to a Tierce mixture in original form dated about 1860 or so from Bishop, Walker, Hill or Willis will illustrate my point. Were our German organ building brethren so limited and didactic that the same would not apply?

 

Further to this, I would add the caveat that I have added before. 'This organ is untouched from when ..... (insert name of famous composer) knew it'. Is it?, Really? How do you know? Are you unequivocally confident in your statement? If so, I admire your confidence. With, for example, 300 years of history there, temper the statement with a recognition of reality and likelihood, not a fond and likeable idea. Even the pipes can hide a lie if the lie was told long enough ago.

 

AJS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself understand this:

 

Phrase one: The Mixtures were sparingly specified.

So one for each Manual -the Pedal Mixture was borrowed from the HPTW, aka Hauptwerk,

aka Great organ-.

(An this is indeed so in the reality)

 

Phrase two:

There are no Trost Mixtures without tierce ranks, despite the presence of Sesquialteras.

(Again, it is so in the three Trost organs we have!)

 

About Quint Mixtures in central Germany: they were introduced by Gottfried Silbermann

back from France.

 

Those Mixtures were obviously not intended to be used the neo-baroque way, that is,

90 % of the time, for complete Preludes and fugues, but rather for climaxes. These stops

crown registrations close to the full organ.

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think perhaps there is a socio-historical point which I had overlooked, related to the time point in history. Both what you say, and what I say are valid I think. The difference is one of about 150 years of development in society, thinking, definition of population, and related migration and so on. That is to say, external influences changing the way the organ builder approached a given 'known fact', or the way in which something 'should' be done. I don't suppose there was any difference in attitude to speak of, certainly none of any significance related to the topic under discussion, of which I am aware, in early 18th Century Britain.

 

However this does not detract from my approach suggesting caution, even in circumstances where the obvious seems prominently so. As you know, so many things go undocumented in this field, and human recollection can be far from accurate. Indeed, people often only know what they are told, and we have very little way of testing the source.

 

AJS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Pierre,

 

I don't like to have to correct you, but you stress this point to an extent which allows no fault.

I myself understand this:

 

Phrase one: The Mixtures were sparingly specified.

So one for each Manual -the Pedal Mixture was borrowed from the HPTW, aka Hauptwerk,

aka Great organ-.

(An this is indeed so in the reality)

The only almost-Trost organ we have are Großengottern, Waltershausen, Altenburg. The one with a pedal-transmitted mixture from the Hauptwerk is Waltershausen. The organ in Großengottern has no pedal transmission and no pedal mixture, the organ in Altenburg also not. Großengottern has one mixture per manual. The organ in Altenburg has one mixture per manual. Waltershausen has one at the Hauptwerk and one at the Brustwerk. The Obermanual has no mixture. And no sesquialter. And no third. What is your conclusion: that Trost has not built Waltershausen?

Please, don't think I am against thirds in mixtures. But your point is that they have to be in middle germany. And that is not provable.

 

Cheers

tiratutti

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a page about the Waltershausen organ:

 

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel_der_Sta...altershausen%29

 

There is no Mixture on the third manual. But let us avoid cutting hairs in four

in their diameter; there is maximal one Mixture pro Manual, and when there is a Pedal Mixture,

it is borrowed from the HPTW.

I myself do like Quint Mixtures as well (Nebensache!). Maybe the most important point is

such stops aren't bearable for 10 minutes at a time. What these organ question are two

neo-baroque Holy Truths:

 

-There is no color at all permitted in a "true" organ, only "polyphonic textures";

-Mixtures stop knobs are to be nailed open .

 

Those central german organs are color boxes, they leave nothing to the romantic organs

for that matter. They were a big surprise in the 70's when I visited them. From Angermünde

to Waltershausen.

Had they been "west from the iron curtail", no doubt they would have been neo-baroquised

and we would not have this debate -this would be more confortable, but the Bach sound would

have been lost forever-.

When you hear Bach in Waltershausen, Altenburg, Grossgöttern, Angermünde, what you have

is the Cantate's orchestra; there is no need for a 20 years bureaucratic study to realize that.

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear: German isn't my native language (nor my second language). In fact I couldn't do much with it beyond reading about organs...

 

I understood it like this:

Mixtures were used economically and sparingly. Each manual contained never more than one (tierce) mixture. The next sentence qualifies the first by mentioning that Trost didn't make secondary mixtures ie cymbals or scharffs.

 

The instruments all feature tierces either in the Sesquiatera, or as part of the mixtures (he goes on to mention them also in the Tertia and Cornet stops).

 

The third quote states that Trost's use of the tierce was an important part of his colouful sound-world.

 

I'm not aware of any quint mixture in Trost's work, so I take the brackets in the first quote to merely clarify the kind of mixture used by Trost.

 

Another quote, this time from Dietrich Wagler, characterising the organs known by Bach:

 

"In his youth, Bach became acquainted with the organs of his own region, i.e. the Thuringian organ in the transitional period at the end of the 17th century, and the beginning of the 18th. Mostly, these organs featured an open Violonbass 16’ in the pedal, string stops (speaking rather slowly), colourful flute stops and, after 1720, tierce mixtures."

 

Pierre wrote:

"Those Mixtures were obviously not intended to be used the neo-baroque way, that is,

90 % of the time, for complete Preludes and fugues, but rather for climaxes. These stops

crown registrations close to the full organ."

 

What strikes me from personal experience is the enormous difference in the character of the mixtures on the organs of Silbermann and Trost. Bach complained about the weak mixtures of Silbermann's organs - something I can't comprehend (nor Dietrich Wagler incidentally!). Trost's mixtures (at least in Altenburg) add only colour to the plenum - almost no power. I think it's perhaps too easy to dismiss the use of those mixtures in the plenum pieces of Bach just because the sources about (specifically named) plenum registrations come from Hamburg...

 

Bazuin

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Bach criticized "french" Mixtures -that is, the ones he knew, from Gottfried Silbermann-

because they had too many breaks.

Indeed the french Mixture is not meant for polyphony, but for chords.

In a Trost, a Wagner, a Sterzing organ you usually have three breaks, which jump back

one octave deeper.

 

So Silbermann was a complete outsider in the central german scene. But he influenced it

strongly afterwards, up to Schulze in the 19th century with his big Quint Mixtures.

Even people who worked with him, and were influenced by him, turned the french elements

he brought with him to completely different things, the best example being Joachim Wagner,

who turned back to tierce Mixtures while retaining Silbermann's Cornet, reeds and "jeu de Tierce"

(seperate 8-4-2 2/3-2-1 3/5 stops). Even more surprising, those Cornets and tierces were meant

to be added to the Principal chorus as well!!!

Believe me, when you hear that at Angermünde, coming from Belgium or France (where you learn

the Plein-jeu and the Grand jeu are never to be mixed, so you never drawn a Cornet with the

Principals etc...), you fell off your chair, while Bach's music really thrive precisely in such conditions.

 

Another important outsider was Eugen Casparini when he came back from Italy round 1700 with

a style of his own. He introduced Ripienis on secondary manuals -without tierce ranks- while retaining

the traditionnal tierce Mixtures as well. The Scheibe organ of Leipzig university was designed by his son

Adam-Horatio Casparini, and this is another organ we know Bach liked much.

 

Trost, Wagner & al, so different from Silbermann, are closer to the' Casparini school by far; in fact,

the neo-baroque retained only Silbermann in central Germany, while the real reference with Bach's

organ is Casparini.

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand the wish for some academic rigor, this is sound. But to have all translated

in one language, for a belgian at least, seems like "I shall eat whatever you offer me,

provided it is beef".

 

Pierre

 

However, as Tiratutti points out, it is unhelpful to have only the original German (and in the case of some of us, pointless). It is simply that I wish to be able to understand what is being said. As Tiratutti suggests, on an English board, it could be construed as impolite only to provide the orlginal German.

 

There does seem to be a certain amount of condescension (perhaps even pretension) involved here - it is as if you are saying "Ha, the poor chap cannot understand German - how silly. Of course he can never expect to understand what we are saying; therefore his point of view is invalid." Whilst I take the point made by Vox that it is not always possible to find an exact meaning which retains the sense of the original phrase, nevertheless surely a skilled translator should be able to convey the meaning with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Or he should be able to draw attention to the fact that in a particular case, it is impossible to state with certainty the exact meaning of a word or phrase.

 

I note with interest that Tiratutti (a native Greman speaker) says: "I don't like to have to correct you, but you stress this point to an extent which allows no fault." This is also something which worries me. He goes on to examine the passage in detail and points out that in fact, the meaning is imprecise.

 

You state that there are three organs by Trost which are left to us. Porthead states: "Further to this, I would add the caveat that I have added before. 'This organ is untouched from when ..... (insert name of famous composer) knew it'. Is it?, Really? How do you know? Are you unequivocally confident in your statement? If so, I admire your confidence. With, for example, 300 years of history there, temper the statement with a recognition of reality and likelihood, not a fond and likeable idea. Even the pipes can hide a lie if the lie was told long enough ago." Which is also something I have mentioned before. I too am concerned with the veracity you attach to your strong statements.

 

Is it possible that there is an element of wanting something to be the case, because you like the sound of tierce mixtures, Pierre? You seem to regard mixtures as stops to give gentle colour only, whereas I would desire something altogether more robust (and without the jangling tierce rank), to serve as the tonal pinnacle of a chorus. If I wish for gentle colour, I would use a string, a quiet reed or perhaps (as I did last weekend on two rebuilt H&H organs, one of four claviers and one of three) a stop of a different pitch which blended with the other stops I was using, but also provided subtle tonal colouring. I would not wish for a mixture whose main - or only - function was this.

 

After all, even Arthur Harrison (whose organs you admire) often provided (in addition to his Harmonics) a quint mixture of 15-19-22-26-29* on the G.O. on his larger instruments and also a quint mixture of 12-19-22-26-29 on his Swell organs. Even his smaller instruments usually contained a quint mixture of 12-19-22. For that matter, FHW generally produced similar schemes for his instruments (allowing for differences in size and location). However, whist there is a certain amount of tonal duplication in his stoplists (together with the fact that he never really advanced tonally), even he did not always provide tierce mixtures only. Before Bazuin steps in and takes me to task for discussing English organs instead of those in southern Germany, my point is that surely an organ builder is allowed to change his mind? And, if this is the case, then because there are three Trost organs which contain tierce mixtures, there could well have been others which did not. The point is - we cannot say for certain. On this matter, take an English organ which is comparatively young (1887) - the FHW at Truro Cathedral. It is widely held to be 'untouched' tonally. This may be incorrect. There is documentation available in the public domain which may cast doubt on this statement. For example, in the 1920s Hele & Co. announced (in a national publication) that they had revoiced the reeds [ranks unspecified]. However, no further details were given. Do they mean that they raised the wind pressures, did they provide new tongues, did they open or close the slots and then re-tune the pipes - or did they stuff firewood down the resonators? The G.O. reeds sound different to those at Exeter and Salisbury, so I would not presume to state (with any certainty) that Hele's claim was bogus. Yes, I know Exeter has been rebuilt by H&H at least four times since Willis last left it. However, there is a further documentary account (I will avoid the term 'evidence') that Arthur Harrison left the Exeter reeds well alone. Certainly the pressures remain the same. In addition, whist at the time of the fairly radical 1965 rebuild the Pedal Trombone, the Solo Tuba and some of the Swell reeds were revoiced (on lower pressures, in some cases), the G.O. reeds probably remained untouched. I include these references to attempt to illustrate that, even as recently as the end of the nineteenth century, it is impossible to state anything with absolute certainty - the whole area is a minefield - and not at all clear cut.

 

I remain concerned that there is a lack of conclusive evidence to re-inforce your argument.

 

 

 

* As we know, this was inspired by (but not copied directly from) a famous example by Schulze.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems Bach criticized "french" Mixtures -that is, the ones he knew, from Gottfried Silbermann-

because they had too many breaks.

This is a very precise statement. Please can you tell me where I can find documentary evidence for this claim? Are they Bach's actual words - or are they, perhaps, the words of an organ builder who was trying to claim some celebrity endorsement and criticise his competitor? A marketing technique not totally unknown even today...

JC

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ha, the poor chap cannot understand German"

(Quote)

 

I am quite sorry to have lent you to believe that. :(

 

Apologies,

 

Pierre

 

About Bach criticizing Silbermann's Mixtures:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...lient=firefox-a

 

....Were we find this:

 

"Gerade das, was Bach störte, die relative Schwäche der Mixturen, der so genannten "Klangkronen", die den Orgelklang hell und strahlend machen, gehörte zu Silbermanns Konzept..."

 

What Bach precisely disturbed was the relative weakness of the Mixtures, the so-called "crowning of the tone", that makes the organ tone clear and luminous, that (this weakness also) was part of theSilbermann concept.

 

So the organ was not clear and luminous enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Ha, the poor chap cannot understand German"

(Quote)

 

I am quite sorry to have lent you to believe that. :(

 

Apologies,

 

Pierre

 

About Bach criticizing Silbermann's Mixtures:

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...lient=firefox-a

 

....Were we find this:

 

"Gerade das, was Bach störte, die relative Schwäche der Mixturen, der so genannten "Klangkronen", die den Orgelklang hell und strahlend machen, gehörte zu Silbermanns Konzept..."

 

What Bach precisely disturbed was the relative weakness of the Mixtures, the so-called "crowning of the tone", that makes the organ tone clear and luminous, that (this weakness also) was part of theSilbermann concept.

 

So the organ was not clear and luminous enough.

 

But my reading of the text is that Bach liked the vibrancy and tone of Silbermann organs and this comment came after two hours playing on one new instrument.

 

At some time, all of us have sat down at a new instrument and have commented on the voicing. I am sure, even at Worcester, some of our number might have criticised the sound - some might even have felt nostalgia for its predecessor! Taking this comment to suggest Bach criticised all Silbermann mixtures is unreasonable.

 

It also says that Bach admired the powerful organs of Arp Schitger in Northern Germany - what young organist wouldn't? It doesn't tell us what he would have chosen to live with from day to day.

 

JC

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...