Warning! Red Flag

[Guest Cynic]

The cognitive faculties are very interesting, and to think in colour requires an extraordinary amount of brain-power. I think it is possible to have brief flashes of colour in thought, but an extended full colour virtual video is not, I think, possible.

 

I asked the question about musical recognition because I don't actually know the answer. I can sort of re-create a few organ sounds in my head, but trying to "think" a whole organ-work I find just about impossible unless I have the dots in front of me.

 

It is, I suspect, one thing to recognise a familiar sound, but quite another thing to be absolutely exact in "thinking" a particular sound.

 

I shall have to dig out my psychology books, and see what they say about cognition and recognition.

 

MM

 

I don't know whether I dream in black and white or colour - things always seem natural at the time - story lines amounting to utter nonsense, of course, excepted!

 

On the question of whether anyone can really hear individual tones and blend them in one's head I am 100% certain that I can. I can do this better than I can recognise human faces! Whether this means there is something seriously wrong with me or my scale of values is for others to say.

 

I cannot visualise friends even, rarely even being able to answer questions about height, hair colour etc. unless these are sufficiently 'way off' but I can bring sounds vividly to mind and (usually) remember them pretty well from one very occasional visit to an instrument to another.

 

I know this doesn't help, MM!

[kropf]

Stepping in after a longer time of just watching (or beeing busy), I'd like to point out that many here quickly went from the 1844 Walcker at Schramber to talking about e.g. Berlin Cathedral and other instruments, by Sauer or Walcker, but being some 50, 60 years younger. It is definitely not the same category of organ style. On the other hand, I can agree with most of the comments. Playing a large instrument containing much voicing in the style of the beginning of the 20th century, but having also four newer reed stops (which replaced free reeds in 1982...!! and were intended to add power, using french shallots...), there is a general observation, when guest organists or I myself put (post)Cavaillé-Coll music onto the music desk:

 

The treble is "too flat", I mean, the belcanto style which makes a gain of volume when moving towards the right end on the keyboard (as one would encounter it on a CC instrument with its carefully designed wind pressures), is missing.

So, playing Bach on such instruments is maybe still more rewarding than, say, in Notre Dame d P, but it is less rewarding than on a somewhat baroque organ.

But when you visited such an instrument, did you try the super ovtave coupler? It offen appears to me like opening the door to the real thing. Clarity and brightness do return (frequently, at least). Regarding Bach on those organs, registrating just the same manner "like anywhere else" really gives poor results.

[Vox Humana]

Stepping in after a longer time of just watching (or beeing busy), I'd like to point out that many here quickly went from the 1844 Walcker at Schramber to talking about e.g. Berlin Cathedral and other instruments, by Sauer or Walcker, but being some 50, 60 years younger. It is definitely not the same category of organ style.

This was probably my fault, but I did admit that I was not sure that early Romantic instruments were quite like late Romantic ones. So I thank you for your observation. I would be interested to learn more about how early and late instruments differ tonally.

 

Can we actually "imagine" how an organ sounds once we have left the console, or do we merely delude ourselves into thinking that we can?

 

Recognising a familiar sound is not quite the same as re-creating it in our heads, which is good, because live-music survives because of that.

It must be possible to retain sonorities in the head. Without this facility, how would a composer ever be able to orchestrate? They have to be able to remember the tone colours of the instruments, how they will balance each other in different parts of their registers and a whole host of things. That is not to say that everyone will have the ability.

[Pierre Lauwers]

"I would be interested to learn more about how early and late instruments differ tonally."

(Quote)

 

It may be a matter of proportion.

If we accept, for one moment, to forget that "Romantic" and "Baroque" were

decreted "completely different things" by some "Big chiefs", we could begin to listen

"late baroque" and "early romantic" organs in a different, rather dissident way, and

realize they may share something, like if we had an *evolution* rather than a *revolution*

between them.

But prepare yourself to an exile in the Falklands islands first.

 

Pierre

[Pierre Lauwers]

From the Falklands:

 

http://www.walckerorgel.de/gewalcker.de/Sc...den_Heiland.mp3

 

[Guest Cynic]

From the Falklands:

 

http://www.walckerorgel.de/gewalcker.de/Sc...den_Heiland.mp3

 

 

 

Thanks for that, Pierre.

Pardon my ignorance, but I couldn't be quite sure what was being used as the (very effective) solo stop.

Please could you help?

[Pierre Lauwers]

This is a free-reed Hautbois.

 

Pierre

[gazman]

And very pleasant too!

[Pierre Lauwers]

Even more daring:

 

http://www.walckerorgel.de/gewalcker.de/Sc..._tiefer_Not.mp3

 

Here we discover what soft stops are made for, a *kind of Dulciana Mixture* included

(Harmonia aetherea)

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

It must be possible to retain sonorities in the head. Without this facility, how would a composer ever be able to orchestrate? They have to be able to remember the tone colours of the instruments, how they will balance each other in different parts of their registers and a whole host of things. That is not to say that everyone will have the ability.

 

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

 

 

Before shooting off on an unexpected trek across Europe, I was going to read-up on all this.

 

However, if others wish to consider this fascinating subject, then perhaps we should distinguish the difference between "cognition" and "recognition".

 

I'm not foolish enough to make any statements at this stage, but there is a considerable difference between (for lack of a better term) "flash" memory (both aural and visual) and actually hearing or seeing the real thing. The problem is, we "know" something instantly the moment we see or hear it, but that is not quite the same as replicating an exact visual "thought" or some created sound thought.

 

I'm not sure that I know quite how to put it, and that's why I need to read-up on the science first.

 

However, here is an interesting challenge.

 

Is it possible to "think" what an organ-case looks like once we are away from the actual object?

 

Do we envision it in full colour or in black & white?

 

Do we envision it to precise scale and in context?

 

Could we draw it from memory?

 

The only example I know of instant replication was that young lad who drew, from memory, the facade of St Pancras Station in London, and who was autistic.

 

Again, as a general rather than a specific or scientific statement, I very much doubt that we "hear" something in our heads to any degree of accuracy, but if we hear something we've heard previously, we can recognise it instantly. Learning, I would assume, is the process of linking what we hear, with what we think we hear and with what we have actually heard previously.

 

So broadly speaking, I guess (and it is a guess), that we have learned what works and by what mechanism, and hear vague sounds or see snapshot black & white images of things, which then enable us to transfer that into creative patterns.

 

All the above is a bit of a teaser really, but it's something to consider while I (and others if they so wish) have a dig around, and see (or hear ) what the psychologists have to say about it.

 

Final thought: If people go blind in later life, why do they walk into things or need a guide-dog?

 

I feel sure that Beethoven is going to feature in this somewhere!

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

This is a free-reed Hautbois.

 

Pierre

 

 

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

 

 

Do we know which organ this is, and whether it is an instrument by Schulze?

 

If it is a Schulze, I wonder who made the free-reed, because it is doubtful that Schulze would have made it.

 

Those gorgeous strings sound, on the other hand, VERY much like Schulze.

 

 

MM

[Pierre Lauwers]

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

Do we know which organ this is, and whether it is an instrument by Schulze?

 

If it is a Schulze, I wonder who made the free-reed, because it is doubtful that Schulze would have made it.

 

Those gorgeous strings sound, on the other hand, VERY much like Schulze.

MM

 

Well, it is the Walcker organ in Riga Cathedral.

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

Well, it is the Walcker organ in Riga Cathedral.

 

Pierre

 

 

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

 

Ah! That explains it.

 

I was wondering what the refernce to Schulze was on the link, but I assume it must be the organist or something.

 

I DO like those lovely free-reeds, and I was very upset when we lost an Annessens "Clarionet" locally, when the organ was discarded and scrapped. If I'd have known at the time, I'd have grabbed that rank and stored it in the loft.

 

We should start a campaign to revive the free-reed.

 

MM

[Pierre Lauwers]

No problem, MM,

 

Free reeds are made again. You can order them in Germany

and in Switzerland yet.

(Next step: to build ****** and ***** again. It would be better,

the english to shot first!)

 

Pierre