Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Bach Organ At Dordrecht


Nick Bennett

Recommended Posts

I suspect that few of the good citizens of Dordrecht who hear this will ever hear a real Silbermann, and those who are lucky enough to do so may hear a demonstration, perhaps a couple of recitals and, if they are really lucky, may be able to play one for ten minutes.

 

An accessible local copy of a Silbermann, even if imperfect, would be of far more use to most organists and audiences than a real instrument in Freiberg.

 

I think David has a valid point here. It's difficult to form a proper impression of an historic organ from the sort of brief and superficial encounter he describes - and, let's face it, this is all most of us ever get.

 

I've been extraordinarily fortunate in having a slightly longer acquaintance - say 3 or 4 hours - with historical instruments such as Naumburg, Jakobi Hamburg and Freiberg. I've come away humbled by the experience but I'm sure I hardly scratched the surface on any of these occasions. What knowledge or insight I may have gained is surely inadequate. It takes years to appreciate the genius of such works of art.

 

Modern German builders have produced some creditable copies of (smaller) Silbermann instruments. I'd like to see one of our seats of musical learning have the courage to commission one for themselves instead of another boring modern compromise organ.

 

JS

 

JS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

An accessible local copy of a Silbermann, even if imperfect, would be of far more use to most organists and audiences than a real instrument in Freiberg.

 

I absolutely agree, David. And the question is, is it a good instrument or not. The evidence of my ears (and those of the other seventeen in the party) is that it is a superb instrument. I could have stayed there all evening listening to it, cold and hunger notwithstanding.

 

Dutch organbuilders seem to have got rather a lot of practice at building in historical styles after the war. A lot of organs were badly damaged during the occupation and the missing bits had to be reconstructed in the style of the surviving portions. Half of the churches seem to have a corner with photographs of the roofless, smoking shell of the buulding. It is amazing that anything survived at, say, Oirschot or Nijmegen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think members of the board will know that I like going to the Netherlands more than anywhere else; not least for the superb organs, which come in a variety of styles and which are usually beautifully restored. No other country on earth takes restoration quite so seriously, or gets the same quality of musical results.

 

That stated, I wonder why there has been a broad reluctance to embrace forward movement for the most part?

 

I am reminded of a superb article written by the late Larry Phelps, in which he makes the following general statement as a prelude to the script:-

 

The main problem which progress in practical tonal design has served to clarify is the seeming incompatibility of the North German and French Classical concepts of the organ. At one time, I was primarily interested in the North German Werk-principle concept because I felt it represented the only logical scheme for building the tonal fabric of an organ with suitable polyphonic clarity. However, I have discovered through my growing interest in the French Classical approach to tonal design that, through proper scaling, voicing and structural design, what is essentially a new type of instrument can be produced which in fact does equal justice to both of these great schools of organ literature. As a very welcome by-product, I found that, with only very slight modifications to an otherwise strict adherence to Classical principles, such an instrument also performs the Romantic works in a manner much more appropriate to their nature than has been possible with any other formula conceived in this century.

 

 

If I cast my mind back to the 1960's, and the wave of interest in "Bach organs," inspired and guided by such organists as Dr Francis Jackson, Peter Hurford and Geraint Jones, the practical response to this included the revision of many cathedral organs, (of which York was a good example), a number of excellent foreign imports, which in the right buildings brought a whole new sound to English ears (such as the Frobenius at Queens College, Oxford), and of course, a fairly radical and new style of organ-building from the then front runners, Harrison & Harrison and later, J W Walker & Sons.

 

Of course, with just a few exceptions, British organ-builders didn't exactly replicate the severity of the baroque style, and very few organs used, for instance, mechanical-action throughout. Rather, the response was more tonal than anything else.

Within a very short time indeed, not only had organ-builder embraced or started to embrace a sort of tonal "werkprinzip" (whatever the actual physical disposition or key-action), they created something quite new. I always think that New College, Oxford, (Grant, Deegens and Rippen) is a supreme example of quasi neo-classicism, with more than a hint of the experimental and the innovative, built by people who were not afraid to carve a niche for themselves. Whatever one thought about the organ of the Royal Festival Hall (as was), there is no doubt that it played an important role in the development of a new in-house Harrison style, of which Coventry Cathedral was the best known example, and St.George's Chapel, Windsor, the most successful re-build/re-working of a previously fairly ordinary instrument.

 

I find it astonishing, that within only a few years, English organ-building had rid itself of the romantic war-horse, and moved onto a new and more exciting style, and I would still regard Blackburn Cathedral as the most significant instrument built in the latter half of the 20th century. It was utterly ground-breaking, and remains a unique tonal testimony to its creators.

 

(What actually fascinates me, since the fall of the iron-curtain, is just how close the Blackburn concept was to the sort of instruments being built in the Czech Repiblic by Rieger-Kloss; but that is another story!)

 

So to return to the question of organs in the Netherlands (and also elsewhere, no doubt), why should anyone seek to create "new" historical replicas?

 

It seems to me, that if one likes German baroque music, German romantic music, French baroque music or French romantic music; Blackburn (and an organ such as the Michael Engler/Rieger Kloss organ at Olomouc, CZ), is more than capable of doing full justice to all that music, and without unacceptable compromise.

 

It seems to me, that there is an essential difference here, which if anything, inhibits progress in the Netherlands organ scene, and which has led to a certain stagnation.

 

I'm sure it hasn't always been like that!

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(What actually fascinates me, since the fall of the iron-curtain, is just how close the Blackburn concept was to the sort of instruments being built in the Czech Repiblic by Rieger-Kloss; but that is another story!)"

 

Gosh, is this supposed to be a compliment?

 

:unsure:

 

"So to return to the question of organs in the Netherlands (and also elsewhere, no doubt), why should anyone seek to create "new" historical replicas?"

 

I think the most exciting reason is the one I stated this afternoon, which no-one has chosen to discuss further. ;)

 

"It seems to me, that there is an essential difference here, which if anything, inhibits progress in the Netherlands organ scene, and which has led to a certain stagnation."

 

This is simply not true. It is simply that in the liturgical context organs here don't have to do very much compared to in the UK, with the result that the pressure from the organist who 'has' to have this and that and the sequencer doesn't happen here. Don't forget that the Netherlands dabbled with the big eclectic thing in the early 70s, have you seen that Marcussen in Rotterdam? It has never found many friends, unsurprisingly. Marcussen were already past their best even then.

 

A quick glance and simplified breakdown at the recent activities of some firms in NL shows a wider range of knowledge, expertise and quality (above all) than almost anywhere else in Europe:

 

i) Flentrop, the finest restoration portfolio on earth, everything from Van Covelens 1511 in Alkmaar, to the Walcker in Riga and the Cavaillé-Coll in Haarlem. Modern organs with suspended action, sometimes with swell boxes, even these days with sequencers if you ask nicely. The basic premise of their work remains unchanged. In Fritz Elshout they have one of the best reed voicers around.

 

ii) Verschueren, we touched on them already, fascinating house style borrowing from König (very eclectic!), also essayed Cavaillé-Coll, Silbermann etc

 

iii) Reil, interesting house style borrowing from many things, especially since the Zutphen restoration, Westphalian influences. New, important reconstruction as we now know in Ansbach (Wiegleb 1739)

 

iv) Van Eeken, exclusively style copies combining Müller and Schnitger elements. You might not like the idea but the quality is so high is doesn't need to be justified. One of the greatest 3 or 4 builders in the world, (with an organ going to Ireland soon!)

 

The Netherlands even has smaller builders doing interesting things who aren't known (far) outside the borders, briefly I should mention:

 

i) Adema, building French-inspired romantic organs, (much as they always have).

ii) Elbertse, fantastic ability to restore and reconstruct pneumatic action organs.

iii) Steendam, developing a little bit the Witte tradition. Organs intended to accompany massed congregational singing, with low mixtures, 6' Quints, swell boxes. Very interesting idea!

 

Is this really stagnation? Or did I misunderstand MM? And where do the thoughts of Larry Phelps fit here? Was Phelps ever seriously interested in historic organ building? Aren't his views and (biases!!) however interesting, rather typical for his time?

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Try this one also - you can download a podcast (via the music section on the left) of music by a whole gamut of composers. A very significant instrument!"

This site is well worth looking at. It has an exceptional amount of technical information available about Pasi's op13 and op14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might not like the idea but the quality is so high is doesn't need to be justified.

This reminds me of the time that Rolls-Royce insisted on retaining drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - because they knew best! Why do you strive to stifle innovation in the apparent belief that what is historically authentic must be better?

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Was Phelps ever seriously interested in historic organ building? Aren't his views and (biases!!) however interesting, rather typical for his time?"

(Quote)

 

I tend to think so.

Like Norbert Dufourcq in France, Phelps was a good historian. But strangely,

they seem to have been in search of something else while claiming "going back

to the ancient organs".

Same thing with Helmut Bornefeld in Germany (among others).

 

The troubles began to be quite serious when followers of these people implemented

their ideas as "Holy Truths", not least in Belgium, where quite dicatorial guys imponed

this "Neo" conception, presented like if it were historical, while I knew perfectly well

(being able to understand german and english sources...) they simply copied Phelps,

Bornefeld et al.

This is why I said "we were sold chips for fish".

Only now, in 2008, we have an organ-builder in Belgium who is capable to build a credible organ for Bach.

After Trost etc model, not too much of Silbermann, who was an exception in the Bach organ

world with his frenchified mean-tone tuning Bach abhorred and many french features (Mixtures,

Cornets, Tierces, Voix humaine) which will only be "naturalized german" from Silbermann's

Pupil Joachim Wagner time, that is, when they will be integrated in the whole.

 

Or we build a baroque organ, or we build a romantic one, or we build a modern organ, that is,

in the "post-romantic" vein (1890-1930 approximatively, first "reform" tendancies excluded),

neo-classic (ecclectic, but intended for Messiaen etc then, not the "all-purposes" thing nobody

in the field still believes in) or experimental (like Jean Guillou did for example). But we need to stop

dreaming. An organ isn't a Meccano toy; there I can build a car with six steering wheels and three

wheels -two steerings a wheel-, no problem.

But if I intended to build a real one that way, I'd soon encounter slight problems on the road, or rather,

(very quickly) outside the road...

So let we build whatever we want, fine, let us have the splendid diversity of our instrument cherised,

praised, and well represented.

But please let we make that credibly. If we'd build a Post-romantic organ, it would not be the time

to commence to discuss about "Oh, we could add a Sesquialtera on the III for Buxtehude". NEIN!

If we build an organ for Bach or Grigny, why should it have a Swellbox ? (Of course, if the organ is

a baroque english, no problem with the Swellbox...)

 

So I cannot agree with this:

"t seems to me, that if one likes German baroque music, German romantic music, French baroque music or French romantic music; Blackburn (and an organ such as the Michael Engler/Rieger Kloss organ at Olomouc, CZ), is more than capable of doing full justice to all that music, and without unacceptable compromise."

(Quote)

Of course the instruments can be excellent, no doubt. And in a Recital that might go reasonably well,

but never fully, like you won't succeed ever to have a roadster's steering feel engineered into a

Mercedes Actros, 20 tons...

And this is also dangerous to believe that, becauses it discounts the urgency that obtains to protect

the ancient organs from all styles, periods and areas.

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This reminds me of the time that Rolls-Royce insisted on retaining drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - because they knew best! Why do you strive to stifle innovation in the apparent belief that what is historically authentic must be better?"

 

I'm really sorry, but I've explained why already. To be able to judge an organ's merits you must be able to do so independently of its style. Innovation has nothing whatsoever to do with quality. The chronocentric view of instrument making is a thing of the past!

 

Pierre's commentary is spot-on I think.

 

Bazuin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the time that Rolls-Royce insisted on retaining drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - because they knew best! Why do you strive to stifle innovation in the apparent belief that what is historically authentic must be better?

JC

 

 

Why have instrument makers started to make viols and harsichords again? Surely the modern violin in infinitely superior to the viol and the pianoforte to the harpsichord? Shouldn't they simply be concentrating on making ever better violins and pianos?

 

And if a church like the Grote Kerk, Dordrecht, wants to have a "Bach" organ in the north aisle in addition to the romantic slush bucket at the west end, why shouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have instrument makers started to make viols and harsichords again? Surely the modern violin in infinitely superior to the viol and the pianoforte to the harpsichord? Shouldn't they simply be concentrating on making ever better violins and pianos?

 

And if a church like the Grote Kerk, Dordrecht, wants to have a "Bach" organ in the north aisle in addition to the romantic slush bucket at the west end, why shouldn't they?

I have no objection to the Grote Kerk choosing to do whatever they wish, if they believe it is appropriate for their mission.

 

Yes, I do believe instrument makers should concentrate on making better violins and pianos, because that is what our children will play. Harpsichords and viols are and will remain a minority interest. If the organ is to survive it has to become more affordable and more playable or the Classic FM wedding music CD will become the norm. Is that what we want to see? For the organ it is a matter of innovate or die.

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of a superb article written by the late Larry Phelps, in which he makes the following general statement as a prelude to the script:-

 

The main problem which progress in practical tonal design has served to clarify is the seeming incompatibility of the North German and French Classical concepts of the organ. At one time, I was primarily interested in the North German Werk-principle concept because I felt it represented the only logical scheme for building the tonal fabric of an organ with suitable polyphonic clarity. However, I have discovered through my growing interest in the French Classical approach to tonal design that, through proper scaling, voicing and structural design, what is essentially a new type of instrument can be produced which in fact does equal justice to both of these great schools of organ literature. As a very welcome by-product, I found that, with only very slight modifications to an otherwise strict adherence to Classical principles, such an instrument also performs the Romantic works in a manner much more appropriate to their nature than has been possible with any other formula conceived in this century.

 

This reminds me of the Riepp Ottobeuren organ which is said to be a successful combination of German and French styles and tonalities (although I always thought it sounded more French than German).

 

How successful a combination of these apparently two very different styles of organ do readers consider this instrument to be?

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the Riepp Ottobeuren organ which is said to be a successful combination of German and French styles and tonalities (although I always thought it sounded more French than German).

 

How successful a combination of these apparently two very different styles of organ do readers consider this instrument to be?

 

John

 

It is successfull.....As a synthesis of french and southern german organ -already influenced by french and

italian styles.

The next step was J-N Holzhey.

 

Here is a beautiful example of Holzhey tone:

 

http://www.orgelbau-link.de/assets/multimedia/Schiessen.wma

 

The next one was....Guess who ?

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the time that Rolls-Royce insisted on retaining drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - because they knew best! Why do you strive to stifle innovation in the apparent belief that what is historically authentic must be better?

JC

I'm not sure the analogy between the car's technical development and building organs today is valid.

 

The car is still developing technology - car manaufacturers are still finding better ways to do things today, improving the next generation of cars' performance and efficiency by developing better technology.

 

There isn't the same driver to improve the organ's technology. It's already reached its maturity: given enough money and time, an organ builder could build an organ of any size and performance, controlled from a remote console in space, if necessary. But what would be the point?

 

I think there must have been a realisation that organs were no longer constrained by the limits of their technology but a brief comparison of the great old organs of the early 18th Century and a technically advanced Robert Hope-Jones organ left no-one in any doubt which was better.

 

It must have then become clear that building a good organ is more to do with how well the technology is applied (in other words, the craft and skill of the builder) rather than the level of technology used.

 

That is probably why builders like Henk Van Eeken, using centuries old technologies and processes, build better organs than some builders (who had better remain nameless) who buy in the latest design of electric action and pipes to modern specifications. It's to do with the craft and knowing how to apply their chosen technology so it fits with their artistic concept and craft. I find Van Eeken's concept and craft very appealing.

 

I found this article very interesting on the philosophies of making historical copies of instruments, which sums up what I'm thinking much better than I know how to word it:

http://www.bavington.nildram.co.uk/copies.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Van Eeken's concept and craft very appealing.

So do I. I also find Savile Row suits and handmade shoes very appealing, but I can't afford them. Fine craftsmanship is also expensive to maintain. My church recently faced a bill of over £7000 to refurbish our old Broadwood grand piano.

It's all very well having our heads in the clouds, but if the organ is to live on, other than in Cathedrals and Concert Halls, innovation is the only answer.

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have instrument makers started to make viols and harsichords again? Surely the modern violin in infinitely superior to the viol and the pianoforte to the harpsichord? Shouldn't they simply be concentrating on making ever better violins and pianos?

 

And if a church like the Grote Kerk, Dordrecht, wants to have a "Bach" organ in the north aisle in addition to the romantic slush bucket at the west end, why shouldn't they?

 

For the record - it's not so much the 'church' wanting this 2nd organ, it were more or less 'outsiders' who eventually found the new (current) organist at there side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do I. I also find Savile Row suits and handmade shoes very appealing, but I can't afford them. Fine craftsmanship is also expensive to maintain. My church recently faced a bill of over £7000 to refurbish our old Broadwood grand piano.

It's all very well having our heads in the clouds, but if the organ is to live on, other than in Cathedrals and Concert Halls, innovation is the only answer.

JC

Is that all that's driving technical innovation in organs? Just to keep the costs of an item that is intrinsically bespoke in line with the prices offered by mass production and exploitation of cheap labour in poorer parts of the world?

 

I know it is very difficult for people in today's consumer society with cheap goods everywhere to grasp why something like an organ costs as much as it does.

 

But nobody has yet had the temerity while looking at my piano or organ to suggest a clavinova could do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Harpsichords and viols are and will remain a minority interest."

 

This is the minority opinion of an embattled modernist! For a really excellent and thought provoking discussion of the early-music movement, and its relevance in 21st century musical culture, can I suggest you read the following book:

 

"The End of Early Music, A Period Performer's History of Music for the Twenty First Century"

Bruce Haynes

Oxford University Press

 

This is a wonderful book, with much of importance for organists if only because what happens in our world never happens in the isolation we sometimes imagine.

 

"If the organ is to survive it has to become more affordable and more playable..."

 

Sorry, this argument simply doesn't stack up. Look at the organ builders on both sides of the Atlantic who have gone to the wall in the last decade or so, Schlicker, Moller, HNB, Rushworths. If they have one thing in common it is perhaps that they tried to do exactly what John Carter suggests, only to find that the market didn't exist, (eaten by the toaster-brigade!). On the other hand, the best organ builders, many of whom build historic copies or even wonderful 'modern' organs which have grown from the style-copy movement, have long waiting lists. If you want an organ from Paul Fritts now you would have to wait years!

 

To my list of organ builders in the Netherlands I should have added Mr Feenstra who runs a successful business exclusively buying, restoring and installing unwanted (mostly 19th century) ENGLISH organs.

 

http://www.frfeenstra.nl/

Within walking distance of my front door I have an 1875 Father Willis and an organ from around the same time by August Gern! Many of these organs were replaced in their original homes by 'electronicums'. Bad stewardship and the supposed innovation advocated by John Carter are in fact real dangers to the organ culture!

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To my list of organ builders in the Netherlands I should have added Mr Feenstra who runs a successful business exclusively buying, restoring and installing unwanted (mostly 19th century) ENGLISH organs."

(Quote)

 

Instruments with character!

 

Some time already elapsed since we are some on this board to wonder

why many british organs see their value multiplied only by crossing

the Channel...

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad stewardship and the supposed innovation advocated by John Carter are in fact real dangers to the organ culture!

Without affordable instruments, fewer young players will have the opportunity to take up the instrument. I think that is the greater danger to organ culture.

 

I note with sadness that in London alone, there is no organ in the Barbican concert hall and a half hearted re-installation in the Royal Festival Hall. Without its "software" i.e. people to play and listen, there is no future for the organ in the UK.

 

Clearly you believe that you alone know what is right for organ culture and I am labelled a danger if I disagree, so I propose to make no further comment.

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that all that's driving technical innovation in organs? Just to keep the costs of an item that is intrinsically bespoke in line with the prices offered by mass production and exploitation of cheap labour in poorer parts of the world?

 

I know it is very difficult for people in today's consumer society with cheap goods everywhere to grasp why something like an organ costs as much as it does.

 

But nobody has yet had the temerity while looking at my piano or organ to suggest a clavinova could do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

Nor would I have the temerity to do so, but the pipe organ probably need not cost as much as it does. It's just that nobody appears to have seriously sat down and worked out how to make savings, perhaps for fear that their product would become less prestigious.

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear John, London is one of the wealthiest cities on earth.

If I sold my (vast) house here -because I would find a job there without

too much problems-, the sum I'd get for it would not pay one single

room in London.

And now the organs are too expansive for London ? Clearly, the problem is

not the prices. I'd guess it is -like elsewhere- that marketing ideology which

perniciously percolates in the cultural life.

"Pile them high, sell them cheap"; if a guy makes money with an electrocuted

guitar, then he is the one who is "right".

Of course then we may W........ze all and play Phillicordas toasters instead, "Oh yeah!"

If I were a londoner, I would not accept the idea we must compromise our instrument

in a City where zig Billions are exchanged -and sometimes binned!- everyday.

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Was Phelps ever seriously interested in historic organ building? Aren't his views and (biases!!) however interesting, rather typical for his time?"

(Quote)

 

I tend to think so.

Like Norbert Dufourcq in France, Phelps was a good historian. But strangely,

they seem to have been in search of something else while claiming "going back

to the ancient organs".

Same thing with Helmut Bornefeld in Germany (among others).

 

 

This was his philosophy, and which he developed at Casavnt, if I recall correctly.

 

 

The troubles began to be quite serious when followers of these people implemented

their ideas as "Holy Truths", not least in Belgium, where quite dicatorial guys imponed

this "Neo" conception, presented like if it were historical, while I knew perfectly well

(being able to understand german and english sources...) they simply copied Phelps,

Bornefeld et al.

 

This is why I said "we were sold chips for fish".

Only now, in 2008, we have an organ-builder in Belgium who is capable to build a credible organ for Bach.

After Trost etc model, not too much of Silbermann, who was an exception in the Bach organ

world with his frenchified mean-tone tuning Bach abhorred and many french features (Mixtures,

Cornets, Tierces, Voix humaine) which will only be "naturalized german" from Silbermann's

Pupil Joachim Wagner time, that is, when they will be integrated in the whole.

 

Or we build a baroque organ, or we build a romantic one, or we build a modern organ, that is,

in the "post-romantic" vein (1890-1930 approximatively, first "reform" tendancies excluded),

neo-classic (ecclectic, but intended for Messiaen etc then, not the "all-purposes" thing nobody

in the field still believes in) or experimental (like Jean Guillou did for example). But we need to stop

dreaming.

 

How can anyone say this, when proper MUSICIANS choose non-Bach organs for Bach recordings, and would not have it any other way?

 

What, apart from the musical quality, is INcredible about Bach played at Alkmaar. I can't imagine, for one moment, that a copy of a Trost is going to move the musical soul any more than a Schnitger, a Hinsz or even an instrument like New College, Oxford. That is not to say that it would be of no value, but like all quasi-academic exercises, one does have to question the motivation for including only SOME historical elements, when it is perfectly possible to jump on a train and go hear the real thing.

 

I love the bit about "all purposes thing nobody in the field still believes in." Who are these nobodys?

 

Presumably, they are not the ones who make pilgrimages to the Bavo orgel, which is one of the most ecclectic instruments I know. Not many "baroque" (I use the term loosely) organs can deliver the most convincing Bach, Liszt and Reger in equal measure, and with almost no compromises other than those concerned with registration.

 

Are you suggesting that Vierne must automatically be out of place at Coventry or Windsor?

 

I'll tell you something; I'd rather listen to Dupre and Vierne (if I must) at Blackburn, rather than at Notre Dame, for the simple reason that I can actually hear what is going on in the music and I don't go home half-deaf afterwards. Blackburn has been the preferred choice of many outstanding musicians; including David Briggs and Jane Parker-Smith; both of whom have recorded spectacular French programmes there.

 

An organ isn't a Meccano toy; there I can build a car with six steering wheels and three

wheels -two steerings a wheel-, no problem.

But if I intended to build a real one that way, I'd soon encounter slight problems on the road, or rather,

(very quickly) outside the road...

 

Meccano is not a toy....many machines are held together by it!

 

It is small-scale precision-engineering in a cardboard box. I know, because I built a huge crane from it when I was 12, which could lift and deposit the pet hamster with perfect precision.

 

Ken Tyrell managed to build a Fomula One car with four steering-wheels at the front, and some modern cars have four-wheel steering. Some trucks have two steering-axles, with a seperate steering mechanism for the rear axle of the semi-trailer. (This is like having a floating west-end organ division). Heavy haulage low-loaders can have as many as 16 steering wheels; all pointing at different angles around corners. (This is the hydro-pneumatic, all singing and dancing, digitally controlled version of musicom) Some even have front and rear cabs, where the rear-guard driver negotiates the bends manually with his own steering-wheel. (This is the equvalent of the organ duet). Some military or off-road vehicles have no steering other than biased brakes left and right, which must be the neo-baroque of motoring. Some even swim in the water and steer with hydro-jets or rudders (the hydraulus).

 

Steering is quite a complex subject Pierre, and way beyond the technology of the organ-builder.

 

 

So let we build whatever we want, fine, let us have the splendid diversity of our instrument cherised,

praised, and well represented.

But please let we make that credibly. If we'd build a Post-romantic organ, it would not be the time

to commence to discuss about "Oh, we could add a Sesquialtera on the III for Buxtehude". NEIN!

If we build an organ for Bach or Grigny, why should it have a Swellbox ? (Of course, if the organ is

a baroque english, no problem with the Swellbox...)

 

This all sounds perfectly reasonable, except that there are notable exceptions. Play one of the few remaining, original Compton organs, and almost everything sounds perfectly acceptable, even if nothing sounds remotely original. They are a bit like the concert Goble harpsichord: completely wrong, but what the hell? Who cares?

 

So I cannot agree with this:

"It seems to me, that if one likes German baroque music, German romantic music, French baroque music or French romantic music; Blackburn (and an organ such as the Michael Engler/Rieger Kloss organ at Olomouc, CZ), is more than capable of doing full justice to all that music, and without unacceptable compromise."

 

On what grounds do you not agree? Have you visited and heard either Blackburn or Olomouc?

 

Have you heard other instruments, such as the French inspired organs by Angster in Hungary, which nevertheless owe much to German-style choruses. St.James', Prague, is another hybrid sound, (Rieger/Rieger-Kloss based on earlier material) and one could never question it as a musical-instrument, for the simple reason that it was precided-over by organist/composers such as Widermann, Jiri Ropek and Petr Eben.

 

As we have discussed before, the organ originally by Michael Engler, at Olomouc, (CZ) is one of the most fascinating instruments in Europe. At the core of the instrument is a still largely preserved 18th century instrument, complete with old console and mechanical action. Around this, Rieger-Kloss added swell-boxes, strings, celestes and even powerful chamades; to absolutely stunning effect. Whatever the merits or de-merits of adding to old organs, at least the Engler was largely left untouched, and the new material fits in to the overall scheme of things almost perfectly. So famous is the instrument, it is the Central European equivalent to the Bavo-orgel, and where there is the most important annual organ-festival which attracts some of the best names and some of the largest audiences. I'm not sure how you could describe this style of ecclecticism, but if Olomouc proves only one thing, it is the fact that baroque and romantic can sit alongside each other in perfect musical congruity, if those who do it are tonal masters of their art. That is what Larry Phelps was saying all along.

 

Another remarkable hybrid is the big instrument at Szeged; based on the original Angster organ. I could certainly live with that on a day to day basis. Similarly, the spectacular sound of the Mattheus Church, Budapest.

 

I suppose, to return to the Netherlands, the best example of this hybrid approach, is the other Bavo-orgel at Haarlem, in the RC Basilica, where the big, romantic, French/Netherlands Adema organ continues to thrill.

 

Of course the instruments can be excellent, no doubt. And in a Recital that might go reasonably well,

but never fully, like you won't succeed ever to have a roadster's steering feel engineered into a

Mercedes Actros, 20 tons...

 

OK Pierre.....next revelation in motoring. Go and watch big truck-racing!! Some of them can be made to really handle very precisely.

 

 

And this is also dangerous to believe that, becauses it discounts the urgency that obtains to protect

the ancient organs from all styles, periods and areas.

 

As for the harpsichord argument propounded by others, how would one play a triple concerto for organ, piano and harpsichord without the real thing? For that matter, what about the delightful theme-tune to Miss Marple? (Even pop-music sometimes includes the harpsichord). As someone who studied harpsichord to some degree, I would suggest that the percussive sound of the pluck-action, is an essential component in the music of Scarlatti and Soler; without which it falls flat on its face when played on a piano. I'm sorry, but it's not about the history; it's about the music.

 

It seems to me, that there are historians, restorers, creative organ-builders, musicians and organ committees; just as there are democrats, communists, despots and nuclear weapons.

 

An explosive mix, if ever there was one!

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without affordable instruments, fewer young players will have the opportunity to take up the instrument. I think that is the greater danger to organ culture.

 

I note with sadness that in London alone, there is no organ in the Barbican concert hall and a half hearted re-installation in the Royal Festival Hall. Without its "software" i.e. people to play and listen, there is no future for the organ in the UK.

 

Clearly you believe that you alone know what is right for organ culture and I am labelled a danger if I disagree, so I propose to make no further comment.

JC

 

 

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

 

 

I know, which is why I mentioned a lovely new concert-organ in Azerbeijan in a previous post.

 

Is there a bus service from Victoria?

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear John, London is one of the wealthiest cities on earth.

If I sold my (vast) house here -because I would find a job there without

too much problems-, the sum I'd get for it would not pay one single

room in London.

And now the organs are too expansive for London ? Clearly, the problem is

not the prices. I'd guess it is -like elsewhere- that marketing ideology which

perniciously percolates in the cultural life.

"Pile them high, sell them cheap"; if a guy makes money with an electrocuted

guitar, then he is the one who is "right".

Of course then we may W........ze all and play Phillicordas toasters instead, "Oh yeah!"

If I were a londoner, I would not accept the idea we must compromise our instrument

in a City where zig Billions are exchanged -and sometimes binned!- everyday.

 

Pierre

 

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

 

 

25% of the entire world's money goes through the City of London every day.

 

There are city traders who could probably rebuild and reinstall the Festival Hall organ on their business expense accounts!

 

Whatever happened to bribery and corruption?

 

MM

Link to comment
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...