Sheffield Cathedral

[Pierre Lauwers]

As far as tracker organs are concerned, it seems difficult

to compare their evolution with car's.

The computer technology may help at drawer's desk level

and speed up the design process, but not many more.

Of course a 1966 built organ is different from a 2000-2005

one, but there are lots of them in excellent state today, be

them tracker or electropneumatic ones.

So I think something must have happened at Sheffield.

Why bother?

Here again I think like a (former!) Marketing man: to throw

a Mander in the bin after 39 years is bad publicity for the

british organ-building business. At least, if it must happen,

then anyone with a sense of responsibility should widely

explain why (water damage, for instance, as it recently happened

to a recently built organ in Auxerre Cathedral). If it is a question

of taste, better to say so than "does not fulfill the needs any more".

I would never dare put a link to a page like that on a non-UK forum.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

[Anthony Poole]

I read your whole post with interest but was not quite sure exactly what inferences to draw from this final paragraph and thought it might be worthwhile asking for a little clarification, before I (and perhaps others) start reading in criticisms that were never intended. I assume it to be correct that Manders have in more recent times had more opportunities to build biggerorgans from scratch than they did then. (The Moderator of this site is ideally placed to provide authoritative information on this). But are their organs now also better built than they were then, which seems to me a possible inference. I have no doubt that they will be differently built : there is very little built now, or recently, which is constructed in the same way as it was then, from cars to TV sets, and we have available technologies now, particularly in terms of computer electronics, unheard of then. It is hardly surprising if a modern Mander organ bears the same similarities to one built then as a modern Ford does to a Mark 1 Cortina . But if I am correct (and again the moderator is ideally placed to correct me) in the early sixties the firm had already undertaken some important restorations of historically significant instruments eg Adlington Hall, St Mary's Rotherhithe, and would within a fairly short period of time secure the contract to rebuild St Paul's Cathedral, another fairly significant instrument . One would have assumed therefore that their work was "state of the art" for then : of course what was so then would not be so now !

 

I hope you will not mind me asking these questions but I do not want our host to accuse us of abusing his hospitality and throw us all off the site.

 

The rest as I said was fascinating, but leaves us as perplexed as ever as to how a properly looked after instrument could have declined so swiftly into a state where economic repair does not seem a feasible option.

 

Brian Childs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let me clarify. I did not mean to suggest that the quality of Mander's workmanship in the 1960s was in anyway inferiror to what it is now. I am not qualified to make such a sweeping statement and I have no reason to suspect that it was the case. That is all the more reason why I am astounded that a Mander instrument of 1960s vintage should have deteriorated to a state that it is no longer useable.

 

All I meant to say is that the type of organs Mander built in the 1960s and 1970s bear little resemblance to the significant organs that have been built by the company in the last 10 to 15 years.

 

As a sidebar to Pcnd's last contribution, I thought the 32ft pedal reed at Sheffield was there in 1981 when I saw the organ, but my memory may not be that good.

[pcnd5584]

As a sidebar to Pcnd's last contribution, I thought the 32ft pedal reed at Sheffield was there in 1981 when I saw the organ, but my memory may not be that good.

 

Thank you - I was not sure either way!

 

It will be interesting to see what transpires. If the cathedral authorities do decide to dispense with the old instrument, I hope that it can be salvaged and go to a good home. Perhaps it can be used to replace a toaster somewhere....

[Brian Childs]

Let me clarify. I did not mean to suggest that the quality of Mander's workmanship in the 1960s was in anyway inferiror to what it is now. I am not qualified to make such a sweeping statement and I have no reason to suspect that it was the case. That is all the more reason why I am astounded that a Mander instrument of 1960s vintage should have deteriorated to a state that it is no longer useable.

 

All I meant to say is that the type of organs Mander built in the 1960s and 1970s bear little resemblance to the significant organs that have been built by the company in the last 10 to 15 years.

 

Thank you for clearing that up for me, although I did not think that you actually meant to make such a comment. Nevertheless, you have been inside the organ and I have not, so it is conceivable, although not likely, that you saw something which would have supported it.

 

Brian Childs

[Anthony Poole]

Thank you for clearing that up for me, although I did not think that you actually meant to make such a comment. Nevertheless, you have been inside the organ and I have not, so it is conceivable, although not likely, that you saw something which would have supported it.

 

Brian Childs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It was a long time ago, but nothing I saw led me to believe there was anything other than a high standard of workmanship.

[Colin Harvey]

Well, some interesting comments...

 

My question with Sheffield's old organ would be: did they get the design right in 1966? The main body of the organ is shoved right into a corner of the church- sorry, Cathedral, blocked by the choir organ's "resonating box" along its main axis towards the choir (the effect is rather like a swellbox painted white without any shutters - really, quite ugly). They added a nave division in 1969 - did the original organ not accompany the congregation effectively? There's a horizontal reed atop the choir's box in copper - I am told orignally to be a spanish Trompette en chamade, which eventually evolved into a tuba-en-chamde.

 

Looking at this organ, with its neo-baroque scaled pipes in the nave and choir divisions and some alarminingly fat open diapason pipes with huge cut-ups under the swell box - I assume pedal pipes (they must need about 10' wind in copious volumes to speak at all), I cannot but help think that this was an organ designed by comittee without any real agreement on the principals of the organ's aesthetic, role and how it should work. It is a result of compromised thought, vision, what they could do on the budget, etc.

 

I haven't heard or played it. I understand it has its nice bits (mostly the old Willis stuff) and some really nasty bits.

 

I remember the old organ of Portsmouth RC Cathedral - a Mander of similar vintage. It, too, has been replaced. It's easy to critise these organs (well, they've got masses to critise, let's be frank) but they were built at a difficult time, where architecture and the arts were becoming more challenging, reducing the profile of aesthectic stastifaction (the thought seeming to be that anyone coudl draw something pretty... let's do something challenging - but it was needed to inject some life into the arts) on post-austerity Britain budgets. I'm sure they did the best they could in these jobs, waiting for another Adlington Hall to come up...

 

Sheffield Cathedral's got a significant amount of modern architecture and it plays a pivotal role in the building. I, for one, would be delighted to see a new organ which is successful in every respect and role, in a convincing modern style.

 

I know of no concrete plans for a new pipe organ yet - it will require much thought to get it right. But the time will soon be right for the people at Sheffield to start considering it in earnest (ie. when they've got their new community centre built). Exciting times could lie ahead.

[Colin Harvey]

You may well ask! Presumably it was 'worn-out' - just like Worcester....  !

 

Surely, it was not as simple as that instrument being considered unfashionable?

 

Any scheme for a replacement organ would need carefully to consider the fact that the cathedral has two points of axis, being, I believe, L-shaped. Consequently, in order to be effective in as many parts of the building as possible, the organ would need to speak clearly in at least two different directions.

 

Of course, any scheme conceived without reference to the acoustic properties of the building, the musical requirements and available space will be unlikely to succeed. However, armchair designing does pass the time pleasurably - it also costs nothing!

 

Here are my proposals (which, of course, ignore the caveat above!)

 

PEDAL

 

Sub Bourdon (Emp.) 32

Contra Bass (W) 16

Violone (M) 16

Sub Bass 16

Octave (M) 8

Stopped Flute 8

Fifteenth 4

Open Flute 4

Mixture (22, 26, 29) III

Contra Trombone (Emp.) 32

Bombarde 16

Trombone (W) 16

Trumpet 8

Bassoon 8

Shawm 4

 

CHAIRE

 

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Prestant 4

Nason Flute 4

Nazard 2 2/3

Recorder 2

Tierce 1 3/5

Larigot 1 1/3

Twenty Second 1

Cimbel (29, 33, 36) III

 

GREAT

 

Contra Salicional 16

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Harmonic Flute 8

Gamba 8

Octave 4

Principal 4

Wald Flute 4

Fifteenth 2

Furniture (19, 22, 26, 29) IV

Cornet (1, 8, 12, 15, 17: TG) V

Bass Trumpet 16

Posaune 8

Clarion 4

  Great and Chaire Exchange

 

SWELL

 

Quintatön 16

Open Diapason

Rohr Flöte

Salicional 8

Vox Angelica (AA#) 8

Geigen Principal 4

Suabe Flöte 4

Flageolet 2

Mixture (15, 19, 22) III

Sharp Mixture (22, 26, 29) III

Hautbois 8

  Tremulant

Fagotto 16

Trumpet 8

Clarion 4

  Sub Octave

 

SOLO

 

Viole de Gambe 8

Voix Célestes (CC) 8

Flûte Harmonique 8

Flûte Traversière 4

Cor de Basset (73 pipes) 16

Voix Humaine 8

  Tremulant

Tuba Magna 8

Trompette Harmonique 8

Clairon Harmonique 4

  Sub Octave

  Unison Off

  Octave

 

NAVE

 

(Pedal)

Bourdon 16

Violoncello (M) 8

 

(Manual)

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Octave 4

Spitz Flöte 4

Fifteenth 2

Mixture (15, 19, 22, 26, 29) V-VI

Trompeta Réal 8

 

Naturally, I have just ignored my own advice, but it was an interesting exercise. Any serious scheme would of course need a site survey and take into account available space for soundboards. Incidentally, all soundboards in my instrument would be new and, no, it will not have mechanical action!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi pcnd, this organ would work in just about any cathedral... but there you go, the nature of the exercise, as you clearly understand...

 

just a few things:

 

why no 15th in the pedal mixture?

Why a salicional 16 on the Great? I would expect a 16' double diapason. Not of wild scale but something firm with plenty of definition and gravitas...

Why a separate octave and principal at 4' on the Great. I'd expect that sort of chorus structure with 3 8' Open diapasons, etc...

Which way would the chaire organ point? Why are there no reeds on the chaire organ?

With 8'+4' principles on the chaire, why the jump to 2/3' for the first rank in the mixture?

what's the purpose of a great/chaire exchange on this organ? The chaire is hardly a C-C positif!

Trompeta real on the nave organ - I take it this isn't a chorus reed?

And, forgive my lack of understanding, whats emp on the 32' ranks?

[pcnd5584]

Hi pcnd, this organ would work in just about any cathedral... but there you go, the nature of the exercise, as you clearly understand...

 

just a few things:

 

why no 15th in the pedal mixture?

Why a salicional 16 on the Great? I would expect a 16' double diapason. Not of wild scale but something firm with plenty of definition and gravitas...

Why a separate octave and principal at 4' on the Great. I'd expect that sort of chorus structure with 3 8' Open diapasons, etc...

Which way would the chaire organ point? Why are there no reeds on the chaire organ?

With 8'+4' principles on the chaire, why the jump to 2/3' for the first rank in the mixture?

what's the purpose of a great/chaire exchange on this organ? The chaire is hardly a C-C positif!

Trompeta real on the nave organ - I take it this isn't a chorus reed?

And, forgive my lack of understanding, whats emp on the 32' ranks?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pedal Mixture - I can think of more British organs with a Pedal Mixture composition of 19, 22, 26, 29 than, for example, 15, 19, 22. Since most Pedal Organs which contain a Mixture also contain a separate Fifteenth, I can see little point in including it in the compound stop.

 

GO Salicional - I do not believe that it is always necessary to have a diapason as the sub unison on the GO, particularly if the building is not very large. The Salicional would afford a good compromise - adding depth and colour, without obscuring musical textures or being too ponderous.

 

The GO Octave and Principal - acoustic coupling. It is a well-proven fact that a well-designed and voiced octave rank can enhance the power of a unison rank. This expedient was adopted recently at Exeter Cathedral on the GO, to good effect. I had mentioned this idea to the Sub Organist about fifteen years ago. It is pleasing to note that the exchange was worthwhile! I believe that Renatus Harris and his contemporaries were also in the habit of adding octave-pitched 'helpers' to certain ranks in order to amplify the unison. There have also been other, more recent examples.

 

Chaire Organ - I do not know which way it would face. The scheme is hypothetical and I stated that a full site survey would also be needed! The Recorder is voiced to fulfil a dual role as a flute and a diapason - at St. Alban's Abbey, Downes specified the Choir Wald Flute to perform similar tasks - a fact not always appreciated by any visiting organists who are used to registering theroetically, rather than by aural judgment. The Twenty Second is, in any case, a principal-toned rank.

 

Since the most obvious reed to put on the Chaire is a Cromorne (or similar), I chose to place such a rank on the Solo, in order better to facilitate the playing of Couperin, de Grigny, Marchand, etc. These composers sometimes call for a dialogue between a Cromorne and a Cornet séparé.

 

The Chaire/GO exchange - this was included to enable the more accurate performance of certain French works in which the English order of claviers would become a hindrance to realising the prescribed registrations. For example, the end of the Prelude from the Suite (Op. 5), by Duruflé. There are others, but it is now 01h05 and I am tired!

 

Trompeta Réal - God, no! A sexy fanfare stop for, well, fanfares....

 

Emp. - Empruntée - this signifies the borrowing of a part of one rank in order to complete the compass of another.

 

I hope that helps to clarify my intentions!

 

It was a fun exercise, though!

[DaveHarries]

Hi.

 

An interesting sounding scenario.

 

I am not sure what I would do for a case and pipe layout, but the specification I would use would be the same as, if not similar to, the organ of Clifton College Chapel, Bristol.

 

The organ was originally built by Harrison & Harrison in 1911, incorporating pipework by Father Willis. H&H rebuilt it in 1976-8 and restored it in 1994. Here it is:

 

 

Photo from BDOA (Bristol & District Organists Association) website

Web Address: http://www.bdoa.fsnet.co.uk

 

Whilst a pupil of Clifton College preparatory School (1989 - 1995), I had lessons on this organ and was, by permission of H&H themselves, also allowed to put a couple of mornings work in during the 1994 restoration. A nice organ to play.

 

Specification (after 1994 restoration) consists of 4 manuals, 46 stops and about 2768 pipes and is as follows:

 

Pedal:

Open Wood 16

Open Diapason 16

Geigen 16

Subbass 16

Octave Wood 8

Octave Geigen 8

Flute 8

Fifteenth 4

Mixture 15-19-22

Ophicleide 16

 

Choir:

Double Salicional 16 12 bass from C

Stopped Diapason 8

Principal 4

Flageolet 2

Nasard 1 1/3

Mixture 22-26-29

 

Great:

Gross Geigen 16

Large Open Diapason 8

Small Open Diapason 8

Hohl Flote 8

Octave 4

Wald Flote 4

Octave Quint 2 2/3

Superoctave 2

Tierce 1 3/5

Mixture 19-22-26-29

Tromba 8

Octave Tromba 4

 

Swell:

Open Diapason 8

Salicional 8

Vox Angelica 8 Full compass

Lieblich Gedeckt 8

Gemshorn 4

Lieblich Flote 4

Fifteenth 2

Mixture 12-19-22

Double Trumpet 16

Trumpet 8

Oboe 8

Clarion 4

Tremulant (Flues & Oboe only)

 

Solo:

Viole d'Orchestre 8

Harmonic Flute 8

Concert Flute 4

Orchestral Bassoon 16

Clarinet 8

Tuba 8 (unenclosed)

Tremulant (not to tuba)

 

The speakers either side of the case on the gallery are nothing to do with the organ. It might, for the benefit of people with no earshot of the organ, be possible to amplify it through the cathedral's speaker system?

 

I am not much good at thinking up specifications without some kind of influence.

 

Dave

[Guest Leathered-Lips]

You may well ask! Presumably it was 'worn-out' - just like Worcester....  !

 

Surely, it was not as simple as that instrument being considered unfashionable?

 

Any scheme for a replacement organ would need carefully to consider the fact that the cathedral has two points of axis, being, I believe, L-shaped. Consequently, in order to be effective in as many parts of the building as possible, the organ would need to speak clearly in at least two different directions.

 

Of course, any scheme conceived without reference to the acoustic properties of the building, the musical requirements and available space will be unlikely to succeed. However, armchair designing does pass the time pleasurably - it also costs nothing!

 

Here are my proposals (which, of course, ignore the caveat above!)

 

PEDAL

 

Sub Bourdon (Emp.) 32

Contra Bass (W) 16

Violone (M) 16

Sub Bass 16

Octave (M) 8

Stopped Flute 8

Fifteenth 4

Open Flute 4

Mixture (22, 26, 29) III

Contra Trombone (Emp.) 32

Bombarde 16

Trombone (W) 16

Trumpet 8

Bassoon 8

Shawm 4

 

CHAIRE

 

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Prestant 4

Nason Flute 4

Nazard 2 2/3

Recorder 2

Tierce 1 3/5

Larigot 1 1/3

Twenty Second 1

Cimbel (29, 33, 36) III

 

GREAT

 

Contra Salicional 16

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Harmonic Flute 8

Gamba 8

Octave 4

Principal 4

Wald Flute 4

Fifteenth 2

Furniture (19, 22, 26, 29) IV

Cornet (1, 8, 12, 15, 17: TG) V

Bass Trumpet 16

Posaune 8

Clarion 4

  Great and Chaire Exchange

 

SWELL

 

Quintatön 16

Open Diapason

Rohr Flöte

Salicional 8

Vox Angelica (AA#) 8

Geigen Principal 4

Suabe Flöte 4

Flageolet 2

Mixture (15, 19, 22) III

Sharp Mixture (22, 26, 29) III

Hautbois 8

  Tremulant

Fagotto 16

Trumpet 8

Clarion 4

  Sub Octave

 

SOLO

 

Viole de Gambe 8

Voix Célestes (CC) 8

Flûte Harmonique 8

Flûte Traversière 4

Cor de Basset (73 pipes) 16

Voix Humaine 8

  Tremulant

Tuba Magna 8

Trompette Harmonique 8

Clairon Harmonique 4

  Sub Octave

  Unison Off

  Octave

 

NAVE

 

(Pedal)

Bourdon 16

Violoncello (M) 8

 

(Manual)

Open Diapason 8

Stopped Diapason 8

Octave 4

Spitz Flöte 4

Fifteenth 2

Mixture (15, 19, 22, 26, 29) V-VI

Trompeta Réal 8

 

Naturally, I have just ignored my own advice, but it was an interesting exercise. Any serious scheme would of course need a site survey and take into account available space for soundboards. Incidentally, all soundboards in my instrument would be new and, no, it will not have mechanical action!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally I like this scheme. I think it looks very enterprising and most delicious, although I would also have to question whether Mr. M's organ has actually worn out already? Isn't it fun as an arm-chair organ designer, although I think I'm a little past it to be doing such things really ..really I should have resisted I suppose.

 

I would however make one or two arm-chair amendments to this specification, in that there is simply not enough solid diapason tone and far too much upperwork in places. There are rather a lot of reeds on the pedals, but nonetheless, it'd be lovely to have the choice. A couple of diaphones with the octave extensions might be a more economical alternative? (Hope-Jones, where have you gone)? I would prefer an Oboe and Double Trumpet on the Swell rather than a "Hautboy" and Fagotto. Although M-CA may mutter, "Trop grand pour la chambre de l'eglise", from beneath her moustache?

 

There seems to be insufficient foundation tone on the Great. The Contra Salicional would be too quiet and better as a Gross Double Leathered Diapason which would add more mud and thickness to the tone, it's also missing a manual 32'. The two flutes are nice but rather a luxury on the Great, perhaps one could be dispensed with in the interests of ecomony and a beautiful Dulciana put in its place to add more variety? It would require at least 3 Open Diapasons 8' on the Great to build a firm enough foundation, but the pedal mixture is good for Bach, and that's ok because we won the war. The "Chaire" organ has rather a lot of bling in it, but I suppose it could be voiced nicely for Rutter. Does it really require anything above a tierce..this is England afterall. Might not our great English Victorian and Edwardian composers would have viewed anything so mutacious with caution, and apart from the odd bit of Cesar Franck why do we need to bother playing anything French? I suspect Stainer may have been appaled, but I will happily stand corrected. I'd personally scrub the larigot and the cimbel substituting a nice gentle flute mixture or something like that which might be more elegant and more refined. The Cor de Basset (or basset horn), I presume, might be better as a Clarinetttttta 8', but I did recently hear an exquisite example of the aforementioned. Get rid of the Swell sharp mixture, we don't like those and neither do we like mechanical action apart from in a Baroque organ...it just won't do. I do however think this mooted instrument should be adorned with a cymbelstern...they're nice and remind me of Christmas and kittens. Opps!!!!!! I just remembered that I have to get the Great Mixture out the dishwasher, Walter's shouting from downstairs with his brasso at the ready. If it's not one thing it's another, I'm going to have to get Phyllis to do that funeral for me tomorrow.

 

Every good wish. Edna von Klinkerhoffen.

[Pierre Lauwers]

a beautiful Dulciana put in its place to add more variety

(Quote)

 

???

[Guest Leathered-Lips]

a beautiful Dulciana put in its place to add more variety

(Quote)

 

???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed, I'd probably favour a "dulciana mirabilis"

[Pierre Lauwers]

And why not "en chamade", in order to hang your bag?

[MusingMuso]

And why not "en chamade", in order to hang your bag?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

 

 

And a Regal en chamade to hang your.........

 

MM

[pcnd5584]

a beautiful Dulciana put in its place to add more variety

(Quote)

 

???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Does such a thing exist?

[Barry Jordan]

Since the most obvious reed to put on the Chaire is a Cromorne (or similar), I chose to place such a rank on the Solo, in order better to facilitate the playing of Couperin, de Grigny, Marchand, etc. These composers sometimes call for a dialogue between a Cromorne and a Cornet séparé.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They do indeed, but they also assume that the Cromorne will be in the chair case and the Cornet séparé not........

 

Just let's make it a lovely clarinet, OK? And get rid of all that tinsel.

 

Cheers

[Dominic]

Dear members,

 

I spent a weekend playing for services at Sheffield Cathedral. It has an old Mander organ built in the 1960s. It was pensioned off in the late 90s (is now unplayable) and an electronic took over the mantle as a tempory solution.

 

So what do you think is the ideal organ solution at Sheffield? What would you do if you were building a new organ there? Where would you put it - the choir is very dedicated and plays a very important part of the church. It needs to accompany the congregation in the nave effectively. And off to the sides are some very large side chapels, about 2/3 the size of the nave - should the organ be capable of supporting services there? What size and style shoudl the organ be?

 

So, let's play armchair organ designers and let's see what happens... I'll add my own thoughts for what they're worth at some stage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's the usual problem of course. UK likes to have organs that do everything -Liturgy, Concerts etc. Any organ needs to be of the correct size in the optimum place (speaking correctly into the largest space). This is an instrument for organ music. When it comes to accompaniment, then an instrument (a 2nd) needs to be installed which is subservient to the Choir! Making only one 'do' in such important places (and crammed near to the choir) shows a peculiar lack of musical judgement. UK people seem to worship organs in The Netherlands and France. Hasn't the penny dropped?

[Jeremy Dawson]

Dear all,

 

I rather stumbled across this message board, but as a member of Sheffield Cathedral Choir for the last 9 years, I thought I should add to this debate.

 

First, I should declare that I am NOT myself an organist, and therefore the statements I make are based on what I have been told by many people who have played both organs (the 1966 Mander and the temporary replacement), and from what I have experienced myself having heard the organs.

 

The Mander organ was, indeed, in a terrible state. I don't know how it got this way, and don't think it's fair of me to speculate, but the testimonies of everyone I know who played it in the last years of its use would agree with this. To what extent it could have been repaired to its previous condition, I do not know, although I have been told that it would have been uneconomic to do so.

 

However, it was also abundantly clear that the original instrument would not have been satisfactory for its current use. As previous posters have said, most of the organ itself is tucked away in a corner of the north transept/north choir aisle. A nave division was indeed added later, I presume to support congregational singing. But even this did not do the job particularly well.

 

I don't quite know why the organ was designed like this, but it is certainly the case that until around 15-20 years ago, the Cathedral choir operated more along the lines of a parish church choir. Presumably the organ was considered generally satisfactory to support this (although I can't imagine, even then, it would have been particularly helpful as an accompanying instrument due to its location). The choir has changed a lot since the, however, and its role and repertoire are now similar to most English cathedrals. The Mander organ was entirely inappropriate to support this type of choir, both in capabilities and location.

 

Someone mentioned an independent consultant - yes, there was (at least) one who was used, and this is the conclusion they came to. It made far more economic and musical sense to have (a) new organ(s) built and installed than to pursue the Mander route. As for the new organ: well, it is uncertain when this will happen, as there are financial constraints (the whole Cathedral is undergoing a redevelopment compaign, of which the organ is a part, but it is behind its target); however, I think it is certainly possible, if finances permit, that a west end organ and separate choir organ would be built. I suspect we're talking about quite a few years before anything will actually happen, though.

 

Finally, a word about the temporary organ we have - I'm not a fan at all, and the sooner we can get a proper pipe organ to replace it the better. HOWEVER, in my opinion it is far preferable to have this, than to have continued with the Mander as it was, even if it had not deteriorated further. As a member of the choir it provides far more support, and is far more reliable, than what we had before.

[pcnd5584]

They do indeed, but they also assume that the Cromorne will be in the chair case and the Cornet séparé not........

 

Just let's make it a lovely clarinet, OK? And get rid of all that tinsel.  

 

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry - I have only just read your reply.

 

Surely the specific manual assignations of the Cornet and the Cromorne are immaterial - as long as they are on different claviers!

 

I like tinsel, by the way!

[Barry Jordan]

Sorry - I have only just read your reply.

 

Surely the specific manual assignations of the Cornet and the Cromorne are immaterial - as long as they are on different claviers!

 

I like tinsel, by the way!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, not quite, especially if you are thinking of playing early French music on them, and if not, why have them? Although I am as a foreigner not sure that early French is really a staple of the diet of English cathedrals.....if the cornet is to be banked, as it should be, then there will not be room for it in the PdD case; and part of the point of a big cromorne is getting it nice and close to the people who are listening to it. This is a big sound, historically at any rate.....

 

I think it is a pity to underrate the good British clarinet, I can't understand why anyone would want to put a cromorne or Krummhorn or Henry-Crunhorn on an English cathedral organ instead of one..... which is not me trying to be funny or cantankerous or anything else, it's just a fact!

 

Cheers

B

[Barry Jordan]

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

And a Regal en chamade to hang your.........

 

MM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you know, there really are a few of these? Schuke made one for the tiny Glienecke-Kapelle, where they desperately wanted one of those sticking-out-in -the-front thingies. But the building is so small that it would have reached practically to the altar. So they made it a Regal (more or less) and called it Fanfaro. Sounds like the Intro-music to some Walt Disney cartoon.

 

They repeated the experiment in Spandau, which is a bit of a pity, as the organ is otherwise quite nice.

 

http://www.schuke.com/imglib/Spandau%20sch...lch%2072dpi.jpg

 

Hope that works, never tried this before.

[pcnd5584]

Do you know, there really are a few of these?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You do not even need to leave the country to find one [a chamade Regal]. The weird Mander* at Jesus College Chapel, Cambridge has one on the Choir....

 

* My apologies, Mr. Mander! At least you know that if I say I like a Mander organ, I mean it....

[pcnd5584]

Well, not quite, especially if you are thinking of playing early French music on them, and if not, why have them? Although I am as a foreigner not sure that early French is really a staple of the diet of English cathedrals.....if the cornet is to be banked, as it should be, then there will not be room for it in the PdD case;

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please explain 'banked' - do you mean 'mounted'?

 

Yes, the Cromorne should be a fairly big sound - add a clarinet if you wish. I suppose that it might come in handy for 'lining-out' a verse or two of a Psalm; or the odd bit of Whitlock.

 

Personally, I will stick with my Crumhorn....

[Barry Jordan]

Please explain 'banked' - do you mean 'mounted'?

 

Yes, the Cromorne should be a fairly big sound - add a clarinet if you wish. I suppose that it might come in handy for 'lining-out' a verse or two of a Psalm; or the odd bit of Whitlock.

 

Personally, I will stick with my Crumhorn....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes sorry, I do. My English is getting wonky. It's aufgebänkt in German.

 

Well, Cromornes are lovely too. Let's have both, shall we? They aren't very useful for Howells or even Reger, but then clarinets aren't much use for Marchand either.

[pcnd5584]

Sounds OK to me - how about one of them at 16p? A nice growly one.