pcnd5584 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 "it was not considered suitable for the musical requirements of the time. However, I am aware that I have suggested that certain Engilsh organs could be subject to some tonal alterations, in order to make them more musical." (Quote) As I am very weak in english, could you please explain the difference ? There is no difference. I meant by this that I could be considered guilty of the same criticisms which Tournemire made regarding the organ at Ste. Clothilde. However, my comments were directed at a well-known 'vintage' H&H instrument. "An organ is not just a three-dimensional historic document or record"(Quote) An organ is a piece of art like any other, we need to keep them, like the others instruments, or in ten years we shall have to play Bach on synthetizers. I do not believe that your conclusion follows your argument, Pierre. I did not advocate the wholesale destruction (or removal) of any organ(s). However, even 'flûte harmonique' has stated that organs need to evolve. In any case, it is no less logical for me to suggest that if the organ had not changed and developed, we should still be sitting in front of small two-clavier instruments, with nothing more exciting than a Cornet V - oh, and no pedals, either. Certainly, Worcester would never have existed in its late lamented incarnation. . "Each organ has a job to do"(Quote) A fridge too. But I hope you'll agree there is a -however small- difference between an organ and kitchen furniture... Pierre This seems to me to be a rather flippant analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now