Bach, Heels And Tierce Mixtures

[Pierre Lauwers]

"I have no idea what Howells's own registrational practices were"

(Quote)

 

Maybe it is time to care about it, before all is lost....

 

Pierre

[acc]

.

[Vox Humana]

"I have no idea what Howells's own registrational practices were"

(Quote)

 

Maybe it is time to care about it, before all is lost....

 

Pierre

Well, it's a bit late to ask him now! Anyone know? Cynic?

[Pierre Lauwers]

Well, it's a bit late to ask him now! Anyone know? Cynic?

 

As I said: it's time!!!

 

A dedicate thread maybe ?

 

Pierre

[Vox Humana]

OK, OK!

[MusingMuso]

As I said: it's time!!!

 

A dedicate thread maybe ?

 

Pierre

 

 

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

 

 

Why not a dedicated site?

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

Stephen Tharp apparently wrote about the extremes of performance style:

 

"One is to over-intellectualize the background and specifics of any style and make it elitist and devoid of any musical merit"

 

and since Tuesday I was trying to think of an example of somebody (or a recording or...) who falls into this category. Can someone help me? His point is, in my opinion, true to the extent that bad musicians are bad musicians, but their historical awareness or lack of it doesn't contribute to their badness.

 

Stephen Tharp apparently wrote about the extremes of performance style:

 

"One is to over-intellectualize the background and specifics of any style and make it elitist and devoid of any musical merit"

 

and since Tuesday I was trying to think of an example of somebody (or a recording or...) who falls into this category. Can someone help me? His point is, in my opinion, true to the extent that bad musicians are bad musicians, but their historical awareness or lack of it doesn't contribute to their badness.

 

I’m not suite sure that I can actually think of many really hideous examples of over-intellectualised playing, but I can think of many examples of playing which I would describe as “flat-line,” whether historically informed or not.

 

MM's comments about his experience in Doesburg are not so remarkable as he perhaps suspects. The study of late 19th and early 20th century performance practices of 17th and 18th century music is a fairly common phenomenon in the Netherlands, Germany, and even to an extent in France. I think you could hear some Bach/Straube like MM heard almost every year in a concert in Doesburg. In Britain, because the 'clean break' of the post-war modernist (neo-baroque if you prefer) movement was never fully embraced, (how many people still play from Novello editions of Bach?) the return to playing Bach in the ways which sound well on the British 19th and early 20th century organs still seems strange.

 

I was actually aware that hearing Bach/Straube in the Netherlands is not uncommon, but of course, I was actually there and heard it for myself; that being the significant thing. What struck me as most significant, was the way in which “romanticism” (for lack of a better word), obviously resulted in something very different to what would have been heard in the UK even during Straube’s time. That difference, I would suggest, comes down to the organs and the manner of playing them. It further suggests that the instruments themselves play a key part in interpretation and even performance practice.

 

In a way, I am in a fairly privileged position, in that I actually play an organ which IS part of the “clean-break” of post-war modernism. As Stephen Bicknell used to point out, the influence of the neo-baroque movement was distinctly limited to a very few instruments; and most of them were imported.

 

Of course, in the Netherlands (and elsewhere across Europe), there are instruments which clearly demonstrate the limitations of what is possible in terms of “authentic” interpretation. With the vast majority of old Netherlands instruments, any attempt at “romantic” Bach falls musically flat on its face, but with an organ like that at Doesburg, it is possible to be very indulgent; perhaps even self-indulgent. Take this to the extremes of expressionism, and include some of the great American instruments, and much of what Virgil Fox (the best known example) did, was entirely down to the fact that it was possible to play the way he did on such instruments. (Very fast, light actions and the ability to change sounds instantly).

 

So I suspect that the nature of the instrument is a vital component in performance; even to the point that it affects almost all aspects of interpretation.

 

I think it is important to distinguish between the first generation of the reform movement, (both in terms of playing and instrument making) which was resulted primarily in dogmas ("the 20th century as the era of theories") such as open toes, low wind pressures, 'detached articulation' (huh?) etc, and the subsequent generations which set out far more to find answers from historical evidence.

 

This I find interesting, because I don’t think we ever had a first and second generation of organ reformists. Yes, there was Ralph Downes and his experimental work in America, which ultimately led to a sort of not quite neo-classic eclecticism at the Festival Hall, but I would suggest that the work of Grant, Deegens and Rippen was the first manifestation of an English neo-classical style, followed of course by J W Walker and some useful work by Noel Mander. Another interesting builder was Hill, Norman & Beard, and especially with the organ built for Lady Susi Jeans, with pipework by Eule (?). The main thrust of neo-classical style came from imported organs from Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, while UK organ-builders tended to re-build instruments in a new Anglo/German/French eclectic style.

 

When I grew up in the 1960’s, there were certainly very scholarly organists around, such as Francis Jackson, Peter Hurford, Geraint Jones and James Dalton; to name but four. Each of them made many fine recordings of baroque works, which have stood the test of time. I’m not even sure that “detached articulation” was ever much a feature in UK organ-playing, but it was certainly a part of harpsichord wisdom, at a time when Kenneth Gilbert was making quite a name for himself as a scholar in Canada.

 

We no longer (thankfully) talk about "authentic" performances, but rather "historically informed" performances which always leaves some space for what we, the human element in the performance, can bring to the table. But if one doesn't have the thirst to find the answers, be aware of the sources, the techniques, the tuning systems etc etc, what is left? Bradley Lehmann (who contributes here) has suggested some titles for the resulting style:

 

Now this is where I reach a point of departure, in spite of the fact that I play the perfect instrument tp make “historically informed” performance a valid exercise. To one of the most fascinating recordings of Bach is attached the name Carlo Curley, but before mentioning that, let us consider a question.

 

Why does the music of Bach come alive in very different ways when performed on very different instruments?

 

My own conclusion would be, that because Bach is “pure” music, and lays at the very foundation of western music, it will translate, transmute and even transcribe very successfully. Some of my favourite Bach recordings are the Brandenburgs played on the Moog Synthesiser, while easily the most stunning 48 Prelude & Fugue performance I ever heard, was played very romantically on a Steinway Grand, in which lycricism and expression featured strongly. Bach could never have anticipated either rendition of his own music, but I suspect that he would have approved.

 

Carlo Curley recorded the opening movement of the 6th Trio Sonata. The choice of instrument could not have been further from anything remotely “historically informed”. Bach would never have known a tangy 8ft string-bass, or heard high pitched tuned percussion registers, yet in recording this work on a cinema organ, Carlo Curley took Bach’s music into uncharted waters.

The registration used seems to have been 8ft string bass (A Wurlitzer Cello), 8ft Kinura (reed) with 4ft Flute, and then what sounds like 8ft Flute and a Wurlitzer tuned percussion known as a Chrysoglot (just a set of tinkly bells really). Add to this swell pedals and quite a bit of rubato, and the performance could not be further away from the category of “historically informed.”

 

Like the Moog recordings, Carlo’s performance just grips the listener from the first note, and the clarity of line is outstanding throughout; real musical drama creeping in with carefully gradiated use of the expression pedals.

 

It is when you start to compare things as diverse as Moog, Steinway, Walcker, Trost,

Schnitger and Wurlitzer, and then add the names Schweitzer, Stokowski, Fox, Curley, Hurford, Walcha and Koopman, (et al) that you begin to realise that there is no such thing as “definitive” Bach. Each instrument and each performer brings something new to the music, and possibly even diminishes the original intentions of the composer to some extent, but this in itself is utterly fascinating. The astonishing thing I find, is that with all those various permutations, it is still possible to hear music of integrity, no matter how confused or changed the aesthetic.

 

As I have often said, I love to hear Bach played in the Netherlands, where there is a very conscious effort to re-create, as far as possible, performances which are not only historically informed, but authentic to the point that they are often utterly convincing and feel absolutely natural to the music and the instruments being played. It is an almost unique experience, which is probably repeated across Germany in appropriate places.

 

That doesn’t prevent me from taking delight in “disturbing” Bach, where both instrument and performer conspire to present a very different style of interpretation.

 

The most significant consequence of this haphazard cross-fertilisation is reflected in the organ building and restoration culture in the UK since the war. Many fine romantic organs were rebuilt beyond recognition (even now electrifying the action of a 100 year old pneumatic organ is seen as acceptable), historic instruments still have (uniquely in Europe) no state protection...

 

The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind here. There was a lot of damage done to old organs in the Netherlands, and that has gone on for centuries. Even Schnitger destroyed what went before, unless it was included in a "new" instrument.

 

Do they have state protection in Poland or the Czech Republic? I don't actually know, but there are quite a lot of totally vandalised instruments; especially in the latter country.

 

"There will still be attempts to re-state the now outdated modernist position (the British Isles are sadly peppered with several expensive recent attempts at under-researched and amateurishly eclectic organ schemes. These make little positive contribution to our stock of really good instruments)."

 

I never knew quite what Stephen thought of post-war, modernist organ-building in the UK, let alone his views on cross-fertilisation. I remember that he sort of curled his nose at the mention of the Walker organ of Blackburn Cathedral. He was far more the enthusiast historian, I suspect.

 

MM

[acc]

.

[MusingMuso]

(P.S. MM, would it be possible to choose a colour other than bright red?)

 

 

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

 

 

We can do sickly green,

 

1960's burnt orange,

 

purple prose

 

and seriously camp pink.

 

I promise never to use red again.

 

MM

[bazuin]

Thanks to MM for his post.

 

"I’m not suite sure that I can actually think of many really hideous examples of over-intellectualised playing, but I can think of many examples of playing which I would describe as “flat-line,” whether historically informed or not."

 

Exactly my point.

 

"I was actually aware that hearing Bach/Straube in the Netherlands is not uncommon, but of course, I was actually there and heard it for myself; that being the significant thing. What struck me as most significant, was the way in which “romanticism” (for lack of a better word), obviously resulted in something very different to what would have been heard in the UK even during Straube’s time. That difference, I would suggest, comes down to the organs and the manner of playing them. It further suggests that the instruments themselves play a key part in interpretation and even performance practice."

 

This is one of the great truths of the organ and its relationship to the literature, and one largely misunderstood!

 

"This I find interesting, because I don’t think we ever had a first and second generation of organ reformists."

 

No, the first generation is very slowly developing still..... Actually, there have now been three generations in the rest of the world, to grossly over-simplify:

 

1) The generation of Sybrandt Zachariasson (sp?), Dirk Flentrop et al

2) The generation of John Brombaugh, Jurgen Ahrend, Berhardt Edskes, Charles Fisk

3) The generation of Paul Fritts, Martin Pasi, Henk van Eeken, Martthi Porthan (!) even Bernard Aubertin (!?)

 

In Britain I would say that the writings of Peter Williams at least have second generation tendencies, (admiration for old organs and for historically informed organ building, as long as the inspiration came from before 1800). Stephen Bicknell was the only British writer whose work reflects, to a sublime level of aesthetic awareness, the current state of play in the development of the organ building.

 

"Yes, there was Ralph Downes and his experimental work in America, which ultimately led to a sort of not quite neo-classic eclecticism at the Festival Hall, but I would suggest that the work of Grant, Deegens and Rippen was the first manifestation of an English neo-classical style,"

 

And actually, most of the essential features of their organs were already commonplace in the rest of Europe: low wind pressures, ultra-functional cases, open toes, schwimmer regulators, fractional length reeds etc. And most of it was bought in from European supply houses.

 

"followed of course by J W Walker and some useful work by Noel Mander. Another interesting builder was Hill, Norman & Beard, and especially with the organ built for Lady Susi Jeans, with pipework by Eule (?). The main thrust of neo-classical style came from imported organs from Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, while UK organ-builders tended to re-build instruments in a new Anglo/German/French eclectic style."

 

But the artistic quality of the organs by the builders mentioned was not of the level of the key builders in Europe and the US, and the enormous interest in historic instruments elsewhere has never happened at all, (with the odd exception, William Drake could hold his own anywhere in Europe I think) with the consequences for artistic quality (as opposed to technical quality which the UK is quite sound I think) you see today.

 

"Carlo Curley recorded the opening movement of the 6th Trio Sonata. The choice of instrument could not have been further from anything remotely “historically informed”. Bach would never have known a tangy 8ft string-bass, or heard high pitched tuned percussion registers, yet in recording this work on a cinema organ, Carlo Curley took Bach’s music into uncharted waters.

The registration used seems to have been 8ft string bass (A Wurlitzer Cello), 8ft Kinura (reed) with 4ft Flute, and then what sounds like 8ft Flute and a Wurlitzer tuned percussion known as a Chrysoglot (just a set of tinkly bells really). Add to this swell pedals and quite a bit of rubato, and the performance could not be further away from the category of “historically informed.”"

 

Actually, I think Carlo Curley's way of playing (in general) is probably quite closely related to the way of playing the organ in the 1920s in the US. This applies also to Thomas Murray etc. Carlo Curley is much more eccentric than Thomas Murray but the basic playing style has a lot a common. In a sense I have nothing against this way of playing, but neither Murray, nor Curley seek to contextualise it, and both (CC especially) have the habit to ridicule anything which resembles HIP. Shame, because both are such good organists, (regardless of taste) that they don't need to ridicule anyone else. To go back to the point about Doesburg, Thomas Murray's way of playing is also closely tied up with the organ he plays at Yale, an instrument we would now call historic....

 

"As I have often said, I love to hear Bach played in the Netherlands, where there is a very conscious effort to re-create, as far as possible, performances which are not only historically informed, but authentic to the point that they are often utterly convincing and feel absolutely natural to the music and the instruments being played. It is an almost unique experience, which is probably repeated across Germany in appropriate places."

 

I think there is no one national Bach style in the Netherlands. (I am pulling stops for a Bach concert in Haarlem next week, I shall think more about this!). The way of playing in the Netherlands is mostly historically well informed but grows much more from the instruments themselves. The disciples of Radulescu are equally historically informed (from another point of view) but play completely differently, (always extremely well in my experience) even when they come to Holland.

 

"The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind here. There was a lot of damage done to old organs in the Netherlands, and that has gone on for centuries. Even Schnitger destroyed what went before, unless it was included in a "new" instrument."

 

The Schnitger dynasty is noted for including rather large proportions of earlier instruments in their organs. Even if your point were true the organs of Schnitger (and in his era in general) represent, as Stephen Bicknell and Peter Williams and others told us, a much higher artistic plane than the era which we were discussing, namely the period since WWII. But, since you bring it up, let's talk about organs lost in the Netherlands to the 'reformists'. The only really significant organ I can think of was the 1882 Witte in the Grote Kerk in The Hague. This was a very important organ, the largest built in the Netherlands in the 19th century. It was replaced in the early 70s by the big Metzler which is still there (and is, fortunately, one of the best organs of its time anywhere in the world). In the 1970s already the loss of this organ was regretted, even in print. Some other smaller Witte organs were also lost (twice in large churches in Utrecht), and some smaller organs by lesser 19th century builders (Naber for instance). Doesburg was almost lost but survived, Haarlem was, ehhmm, changed somewhat. Given the UK's record on organ conservation, the Netherlands has very little to be ashamed of.

 

 

"Do they have state protection in Poland or the Czech Republic? I don't actually know, but there are quite a lot of totally vandalised instruments; especially in the latter country."

 

I can find out about Poland, I'm 90% sure the Czech Republic does. There are organ advisers from the Netherlands going there regularly (also to Estonia, and many other places in the East) to advise on organ restorations. Compared to Britain, the communist regimes probably did more to protect historic organs (by default) with the result that many historic organs await restoration, unplayable, but also unaltered.

 

"I never knew quite what Stephen thought of post-war, modernist organ-building in the UK, let alone his views on cross-fertilisation. I remember that he sort of curled his nose at the mention of the Walker organ of Blackburn Cathedral. He was far more the enthusiast historian, I suspect."

 

This does him a dis-service. He was the outstanding British organ historian of his generation, but, more importantly, his commentary on everything related to organ building, design and history represents the essential body of writing on these subjects in the modern English speaking world. He was the only (English speaking) writer for instance who could, and did, publish objective assessments of new organs. Compare this with what was (and still is) printed about new organs in Organists Review.... Its a shame more people didn't listen. (Oh, and he designed St Ignatius...) I am hoping that his collected writings in the magazines, BIOS journals, and even PIPORG-L will be published together, though the brilliance of his work is, at the moment I fear, too under-appreciated to make this possible. Does anyone know otherwise?

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

[AJJ]

Thomas Murray's way of playing is also closely tied up with the organ he plays at Yale, an instrument we would now call historic......

 

And if you listen to him playing the earlier repertoire on his 'Hook' CDs or his Mendelssohn set it is clear that he is not only at home with the 'Symphonic (or whatever one calls it) repertoire. Likewise - his Elgar Sonata played on tne Hook organ at the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Boston is one of the nicest versions I have heard. The organ sounds like an early Hill so all the lines can be heard etc. and there is none of the pulling about of tempi and heavy registration etc. that can spoil this piece.

 

AJJ

[MusingMuso]

I think we have more or less done this topic to death, and before we have angels doing the light-fantastic on pin-heads, we should perhaps draw it to a close.

 

A couple of points however.

 

I think I was referring to the Uk when I mentioned first and second generation reformists. The whole thing never really took off at all in the UK, but of course, what we did do, was to create a new style of UK organ, of which Blackburn, Liverpool Met and Gloucester are examples. That would not have been possible without some degree of "reform".

 

Concerning Poland, my understanding is that organ-building (and church) was probably low on the agenda of the communist authorities, and I was told by a respected Polish organist, that organs, organ pipes and organ components were often stored in disused buildings, and when new instruments or rebuilds were undertaken, these storage places were raided for parts like a scrap-yard, and then added to existing instruments or placed in new instruments. I think this is what happened to the big Sauer at the "Hundred year hall" in Braslau (Wroclaw), which is now in the cathedral of St.Jan, but minus a lot of the original pipework.

 

Of course, there was also a fiendish amount of romantic revision undertaken by German organ-builders in the early20th century; thus destroying the character of many otherwise historic instruments. I think a lot depended on which part of Poland it happened to be, as to what happened to the instruments. Partition was not the best way of preserving any sort of national history, and both Germany and Russia were very keen to eradicate as much Polish culture as possible; especially in the years following Russian communist control. They really were quite ruthless. I suspect that things were happier in the South of the country during the Hungarian years, where respect for Polish culture certainly did exist. It's a very complicated history, and something of a mixed-bag in organ terms; yet they have quite a lot of wonderful historic organs, and some rather good new ones.

 

Finally, I should clarify what I meant to say about the Netherlands. Quite a number of older instruments were changed by 19th century Netherlands builders, and the organs at the Aa-kerk and Martinikerk in Groningen, were/are very good examples of this. Of course, the changes were probably never as radical as they were in America and the UK, but changes there certainly were, including the use of pneumatic-actions.

 

Fortunately for the Netherlands, the industrialisation and build up of commerce was slower there than in France or the UK, and there wasn't the money around to indulge in bold musical adventures. When prosperity finally came to the Netherlands, I suspect that already, people were waking up to the unique status of their own organ-history, and restoration became a very significant movement in its own right. (I'm sure that this is a dreadful over-simplification of the actual situation).

 

Finally, the Newberry Memorial organ at Yale. I have heard this instrument, and even as someone who adores the classical tradition of Europe, I wouldn't want a single pipe changed at Yale. It is just gorgeous as it is, and easily the most beautifully expressive instrument in a country full of fine, expressive instruments.

 

MM

[bazuin]

"I think we have more or less done this topic to death, and before we have angels doing the light-fantastic on pin-heads, we should perhaps draw it to a close."

 

Probably you're right, but it is one of the more interesting subjects under discussion I think!

 

"The whole thing never really took off at all in the UK, but of course, what we did do, was to create a new style of UK organ, of which Blackburn, Liverpool Met and Gloucester are examples. That would not have been possible without some degree of "reform"."

 

These in a sense are the iconic organs of the era in the UK, though I would politely suggest that all are to a greater or lesser extent flattered by unusually good acoustical circumstances. What is so regrettable is that the Gloucester and Blackburn organs have now been changed, and that the style they represent didn't develop into anything more mature.

 

I'm itching to visit Poland. While I'm sure what you say is true, there are still astonishing organs to see I think.

 

"Of course, there was also a fiendish amount of romantic revision undertaken by German organ-builders in the early20th century; thus destroying the character of many otherwise historic instruments."

 

This went on everywhere, not just in Poland. A Sauer organ of the 1920s is still a fascinating and wonderful thing. I really am trying to keep this discussion to the post-war period.

 

"Finally, I should clarify what I meant to say about the Netherlands. Quite a number of older instruments were changed by 19th century Netherlands builders, and the organs at the Aa-kerk and Martinikerk in Groningen, were/are very good examples of this. Of course, the changes were probably never as radical as they were in America and the UK, but changes there certainly were, including the use of pneumatic-actions."

 

The changes though were of a different nature because (virtually) all the builders who worked on those organs worked in the same traditions building slider chest organs with mechanical action. And (almost) all were superb organ builders (Van Oeckelen, Van Dam, Witte etc). Pneumatic action only really caught on among the Catholic organ builders Adema and Marschalkerweerd, (and later Vermeulen and Pels who built many awful electro-pneumatic organs). In the limited number of circumstances when pneumatic organ builders did get contracts they almost always built new organs, (Dekker, Koppejan) and those organs were of such poor quality than many were replaced within the first 50 years of their lives. It is important to realise that organs builders such as Bakker en Timmenga and Steenkuyl were building organs with mechanical action, slider chests and no swell boxes well into the 20th century.

There is the odd exception such as Valckx en Van Kouteren who built organs like this

 

http://www.orgelsite.nl/kerken14/zwolle11.htm

 

which are now revered in certain quarters and have books written about them.

 

 

"Finally, the Newberry Memorial organ at Yale. I have heard this instrument, and even as someone who adores the classical tradition of Europe, I wouldn't want a single pipe changed at Yale. It is just gorgeous as it is, and easily the most beautifully expressive instrument in a country full of fine, expressive instruments."

 

Of course that organ should be preserved in every respect.

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

[Pierre Lauwers]

"I think we have more or less done this topic to death"

(Quote)

 

Interesting point.

You decide this, while the topic: tierce Mixtures in Bach & Heels has not

even been commenced. Instead, we talked about 20th century organs.

 

Do we revive the Casparini thread (yes, the one which died the very day it was opended) ?

Any understanding of the Bach organs begins with the genius Eugenio.

(Though Mr Urbaniak could rightly add there were many others in the same vein!)

 

http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...mp;hl=Casparini

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

"I think we have more or less done this topic to death"

(Quote)

 

Interesting point.

You decide this, while the topic: tierce Mixtures in Bach & Heels has not

even been commenced. Instead, we talked about 20th century organs.

 

Do we revive the Casparini thread (yes, the one which died the very day it was opended) ?

Any understanding of the Bach organs begins with the genius Eugenio.

(Though Mr Urbaniak could rightly add there were many others in the same vein!)

 

http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...mp;hl=Casparini

 

Pierre

 

 

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

 

 

Over the months, we have discussed tierce mixtures until we are blue in the face.

 

As for Casparini, we don't have many of his organs in the UK, so that's not going to run very far as a topic, is it?

 

We could discuss heels and toes, and even include Scottish dancing; fingers and thumbs and arms and legs...keep moving.

 

If something sounds right, we don't worry too much about it.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

What is so regrettable is that the Gloucester and Blackburn organs have now been changed, and that the style they represent didn't develop into anything more mature.

 

 

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

 

 

Two things....the organ at Blackburn has not changed at all. It has had bits added to address the problem of choral accompaniment, but all the additions are perfectly reversible, and what was there originally sounds exactly the same as before.

 

I don't understand the "more mature" part.

 

Sticking to Blackburn as probably the best example, I can't think of many organs on which it is possible to play more or less the entire baroque repertoire (including French), and then do full justice to French romantic repertoire. It really is an extraordinarily fine sound, and one which never fails to excite. The acoustic is actually a bit of a nightmare, but in the central lantern floor space, the organ sounds absolutely wonderful.

 

With slightly more "English" leanings, the organ at Coventry Cathedral could be said to be the one really successful cross-fertilisation of English/German and French ideas; at least in so much as it remains a very good accompaniment instrument.

 

By association, I think Windsor is another success story in similar mould, but to a very, very clever tonal design.

 

MM

[bazuin]

"I don't understand the "more mature" part.

 

Sticking to Blackburn as probably the best example, I can't think of many organs on which it is possible to play more or less the entire baroque repertoire (including French), and then do full justice to French romantic repertoire. It really is an extraordinarily fine sound, and one which never fails to excite. The acoustic is actually a bit of a nightmare, but in the central lantern floor space, the organ sounds absolutely wonderful."

 

[Deleted by moderator] The organ has an impressive, colourful sound but it is, unavoidably, a child of its time. Awareness of the repertoire has changed the boundaries by which such success is measured. French [Deleted by moderator] I think Britain needs to objectively assess its post-war organ building history since the war and understand that it hasn't in any way developed into a mature style, nor has it demonstrated anything like the artistic standards in the UK between, let's say, 1860 and 1900, (even if the technical standards are now mostly excellent). Stephen Bicknell, incidentally, understood this profoundly and wrote about it often.

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

[Colin Harvey]

Blackburn - wasn't this the organ that had chipboard soundboards, which all needed to be rebuilt because they started to sag just a few months after it went in?

 

Why are we still talking about eccentric examples from the 1960s, like Blackburn and Gloucester? Organs made of poor quality materials, rather eccentric tonal schemes and somewhat odd tonal finishing standards? The bottom line is that they were build down to a (cheap) price. The imagination, ideals, experimentation and excitement are there but the quality and satisfaction of a beautiful object are missing. What about citing more relevant recent work, like William Drake and Robert Shaftoe? Maybe we can add H&H to this list as well, as their work at Twyford was at a similar level - at least, Stephen Bicknell thought so. These are England's parallels to the high end of the market, like Taylor & Boody, Henk van Eeken, Aubertin, Richard Fowkes & Co, etc

 

Then we've got the mainstream builders like Nicholson, Robert Jennings (yes, frankly...) and Ken Tickell - their work is very different and is more the next generation from people like GDB, Peter Collins and Nigel Church, etc. They're competent, good quality organs on whole which should last the test of time in most cases but I find these organs generally anodyne - capable, competent, versatile and efficient but their playing experiences are generally just of an efficient instrument with no character - everything does what it says on tin but don't expect to be bowled over by anything and I often find some annoying features I wish they'd get right. They usually come across as effective machines for the activities in the church or hall in which they sit.

 

Stephen Bicknell was an extremely intelligent and insightful man, who I don't think anybody really understood, himself included. The capacity and intensity of his intellect bordered on the frightening. While he loved organs, I think he became disillusioned with working in organbuilding as the daily humdrum of being a builder got in the way of his higher visions and principles. He could see his utopian ideal of being an organ builder but it seemed modern life and the real world somehow managed to get in the way. As a consultant, I think he found the same thing: the politics and dealing with people who didn't understand his vision and ideals got to him. I remember talking about various people (who will remain nameless) and his exchanges and views on them. But his relationships were complex and he saw their strengths as well as their failings and where he thought someone was worthwhile, he was normally positive about them.

 

When it came to his views on organs, his views were many and complex and we will never know or understand them all. His understanding and pallette for discerning organs remains unmatched - he could discern things that would escape everyone else. I was flattered by his comparisons of the organ at Twyford to Naumberg when it was finished - we were both delighted with the beauty of the results. He tended towards the vernacular appropriate to the situation with each of his organs and delighted in quality, detail, craft and beauty in a way reminiscent of Albert Schweitzer.

[bazuin]

"Why are we still talking about eccentric examples from the 1960s, like Blackburn and Gloucester? Organs made of poor quality materials, rather eccentric tonal schemes and somewhat odd tonal finishing standards? The bottom line is that they were build down to a (cheap) price. The imagination, ideals, experimentation and excitement are there but the quality and satisfaction of a beautiful object are missing. What about citing more relevant recent work, like William Drake and Robert Shaftoe?"

 

YES YES YES YES YES!!!

 

"Maybe we can add H&H to this list as well, as their work at Twyford was at a similar level - at least, Stephen Bicknell thought so. These are England's parallels to the high end of the market, like Taylor & Boody, Henk van Eeken, Aubertin, Richard Fowkes & Co, etc"

 

They're not there yet, but certainly Drake is a little bit in that direction.

 

"In the middle of the road, we've got people like Nicholson, Robert Jennings (yes, frankly...) and Ken Tickell - their work is very different and is more the next generation from people like GDB, Peter Collins and Nigel Church, etc. They're competent, good quality organs on whole which should last the test of time in most cases but I find these organs generally anodyne - capable, competent, versatile and efficient but their playing experiences are generally just of an efficient instrument with no character - everything does what it says on tin but don't expect to be bowled over by anything and I often find some annoying features I wish they'd get right. They just come across as effective machines for the activities in the church or hall in which they sit."

 

Precisely! This is the kind of organ building which panders to the way of commissioning an organ currently favoured in the UK:

 

1) Draw up a stoplist (preferably with a tuba, 32's and a mounted Cornet even if the church seats fewer than 1000 people)

2) Make a budget

3) Build the stoplist to the budget at all costs, (second hand material, digital 32's, electric couplers, no winding system)

4) Write at great length in various journals (especially Organists Review) about wonderful it is.

 

OK, this is a little bit stereotyped but you take the point. Of the builders you mentioned at least one (and perhaps all?) buy in all their metal pipes and reeds from supply houses. This is not what first-rate organ builders do.

 

"When it came to his views on organs, his views were many and complex and we will never know or understand them all. His understanding and pallette for discerning organs remains unmatched - he could discern things that would escape everyone else."

 

Isn't there a way in which his collected writings can be published? This seems to me to be an essential tribute to his genius.

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

[Colin Harvey]

Isn't there a way in which <Stephen Bicknell's> collected writings can be published? This seems to me to be an essential tribute to his genius.

His family and widower partner are aware of his eminence and importance on organs. They've set up a trust fund at the RAM in his name for an annual scholarship. But his writings and correspondance must still be on his computer, C&O and Orgue-l. There's also an unpublished book co-written with Nick Plumley on the history of J.W.Walker and he had started work on Willis, although he lost interest after he failed to get funding for it. He had started to collect and edit the keyboard works of John Keble and there are, of course, his compositions written while at Win Coll. But maybe someone should suggest it to the family, if it hasn't been suggested before...

 

People over here don't insist on a mounted cornet . So long as there's a separate tierce, that'll do as it's much more flexible anyway - Better to have all the pitches available separately so we can mix up our own solo voices in our improvised rambling liturgical anglican mush!! I'm surprised anglican improvisation is not studiously studied in the Netherlands and at German hochschueles! Takes years to get the knack! There should be an exam and qualification. Anyway, 50% of organists over here regard the 2' as optional in a cornet, while 40% would rather have a fanfare trumpet to a tuba, preferably mounted horizontally. But there must be at least 64 levels of memory! And a swell 16' reed before a swell oboe or 8' open diapason! And nobody over here has any idea what to do with a Quintadena but every organ must have a larigot on the swell to give baroque sounds for trio sonatas! They give a nice Nazard for french classical music when played down the octave with a 4' flute as well... (Oh, shit, do we play any French classical music? It's all rather easy, isn't it? Wouldn't our efforts be better spent learning the Reubke to impress our organist mates? Surely better just to sight-read Couperin... then we can brag we can pass ARCO keyboard tests any day of the week) Trio sonatas over here must be played at speeds to rival Ton Koopman and with a detatche touch on the larigot!

 

Tubas and Fanfare Trumpets. Same pipes, different name. Makes a hell of difference, don't you know?

 

Actually what happens over here:

 

1. Draw up a base specification. have long argument why we should not have an electronic organ. If you win that argument, you're doing well... (but the only way to win that argument is over costs...)

2. get in 3 tenders respones. Always invite H&H, just for the street cred even if you're worried they'll be stupidly expensive. Always give contract to the lowest bidder. Tell everyone how wonderful they are and how crap the more expensive builders actually are. The organist rarely wins against the PCC treasurer anyway.

3. After the contracts are in, Somebody will visit the church uninvited, either Klais or Matthew Copley. They'll write to the church with a stupidly low offer and fantastic spec that nobody else would dare match. They advise the carpets must be removed, a new ceiling installed and the organ put in a different position.

4. Contract the gazumper...

 

Apposite observation about making pipes. Certainly while I worked at Peter Collins (a few weeks over a summer at uni), they bought in a lot of metal pipes from Stinkens (pre-nicked, can't remember whether they'd received tonal preparation). They also made quite a lot of metal pipes themselves (which were much better than Stinken's pipes) but bought in the pipe metal. They certainly preferred their own pipes. But I think Bill Drake also buys in his pipes... maybe someone who's worked with Bill can confirm...

 

But seriously, we shouldn't be too quick to deride the work of mainstream builders in the UK. All are competent at the very least and most are well thought through in their own way (except one or two Nicholsons I've seen), some are a bit more and have become landmark instruments of this style (e.g. St Barnabus, Dulwich). And they're all much better than a much rebuilt Conacher with direct electric extension chests added on.

[Colin Harvey]

Stephen B quotes:

 

On a brand new organ, after 5 minutes, standing in the middle of the nave: "God, I'm bored already. Why have they tried to copy the tonal characteristics of an electronic organ?"

After visiting a very carefully restored G&D: "Well, that was a horrible little organ. Why ever did they bother spending so much trying to restore it? I can now see why G&D went to the wall - most local builders could have built something very much better in 1895"

[Guest Cynic]

Perhaps Bazuin would indulge us, and tell us of the instrument over which he/she presides and of the other instruments which s/he has built or commissioned from the finest builders in the world. We all hope for wonderful instruments, but most of us have to live both in the real world and very firmly within our means.

 

I was organist of a very finely made Dutch instrument for seven years. It was a work of art and its tones (mostly) sang very sweetly. The case was solid oak, unvarnished without visible screws or electric components. Key and stop actions were mechanical throughout, designed after historic models, winding was via a wedge bellows in the floor. Tuning was (I think) Vallotti; it was certainly not equal temperament and this benefitted a number of keys. For maybe a quarter of my repertoire it was a very suitable instrument indeed.

 

On the other hand, it was cripplingly uncomfortable to play, unflexible in worship and it is at present undergoing its first refurbishment at a little over twenty years old. They have been no more able to recruit organists than other places since it was installed, my successor did not stay long. Ideals, principles and

pursuit of High Art are all very large and fine but as with so many things Success, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Bazuin is entitled to employ freedom of speech to condemn out of hand [deleted by moderator, because in the UK freedom of speech does not include defamation] clever solution to Southwell Minster's problems, but members of this forum are usually more generous in their comments, recognising that most designers and most builders are after all only trying their best. He does not have to like every organ but if he/she starts to list all those of which he/she does not approve, maybe s/he'll need a whole column because apparently there is hardly one in the UK that s/he finds any merit in! I am sorry for him/her. Even a poor organ gives me some pleasure when I have brought the right scores with me!

[Colin Harvey]

Re-reading Paul Hale's exhaustive and well-researched booklet on the organs at Southwell, it's clear that it would be very tricky to make one organ on the screen work well in the quire and nave: It would have to speak very powerfully westwards and much more gently eastwards in order for everyone's demands to be met. The two potential solutions as I see them were to have a single organ inhabiting the screen with a generous nave division in the nave triforium or 2 separate organs. On balence, the right decisions were probably made. However, I think Bazuin's later points below about the screen organ are frighteningly apposite.

"some are a bit more and have become landmark instruments of this style (e.g. St Barnabus, Dulwich). "

 

I've played this one, the organ gains a lot by speaking directly into the room. The swell is excellent (strings, reeds, dynamic possibilities). The remainder left little impression on me I have to say. I remember the action was poor, and it had an RCO console. Always smell a rat when you see case pipes from flamed copper. Not for nothing was it used here a lot after the war when good materials were in short supply....

 

I loved the rest of your post, you really get it!

 

Greetings

 

Bazuin

The action is very light - too light maybe?

 

I found the swell salicional makes no impact on any of the other swell foundation stops - even the 8' Gedeckt. I found this rather disappointing. There's also a sw 2' flute but no 4' flute...

 

The rest is OK, pretty good, even. The pedal Trombone needs careful handling but is rather effective. The choruses tend to rely on upperwork for power (as many builders here do these days) and there's no ascendancy, making them a little sterile to my ears and the ensuing masses of octaves and fifths from strong upperwork runs quite close to getting in the way of contrapuntal clarity in this acoustic. The acoustic binds things together though and nothing stands apart from anything. Balences are nicely judged between divisions - I guess you can quite happily couple the swell principal and choir 15th to the Great open diapson, if you'd ever want to. It fits that building like a glove. It's very easy and comfortable to play in the modern british style.

[MusingMuso]

Blackburn - wasn't this the organ that had chipboard soundboards, which all needed to be rebuilt because they started to sag just a few months after it went in?

 

Why are we still talking about eccentric examples from the 1960s, like Blackburn and Gloucester?

 

 

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

 

 

The simple and brutal truth is, that I'm completely ignorant of almost all the builders and organs mentioned. I live in the frozen North of England, after all, and very little has actually been built new above Birmingham. On the other hand, the destruction of worthy instruments has been a resounding success!

 

In referring to Blackburn, my comments were entirely directed at tonal matters. I am aware of the dreaful quality of much that Walker's built, and a fair number of good sounding organs are no more because of it. It says something, that after only 40 years or so, this organ wasn't just in need of a re-build, it was in need of total reconstruction.

 

Of course, the comment from our friend "Bazuin" about French baroque music and tuning, is never going to be relevant in the UK, because only rarely do we ever have organs which are out and out recital instruments. We make do with equal temper because that is what is required of church organs.

 

Another sad fact, is that I've never heard a modern Mander organ. Have our hosts ever built anything in the North?

 

The only Mander organs I've ever played were the re-built/restored instruments at Sheffield Cathedral, Adlington Hall and St Philip's, Salford, and they're all going back a fair while in the history of the company.

 

I suppose it all comes down to money, and the fact that organs in the UK are neither valued nor protected, and when it comes to restoration, it more or less remains in the hands of fund-raisers. The Schulze at Armley has been the one glorious exception to the usual indifference of grant-making bodies, who seem to value sports-stadiums rather more than artistic endeavour.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

People over here don't insist on a mounted cornet . So long as there's a separate tierce, that'll do as it's much more flexible anyway - Better to have all the pitches available separately so we can mix up our own solo voices in our improvised rambling liturgical anglican mush!! I'm surprised anglican improvisation is not studiously studied in the Netherlands and at German hochschueles! Takes years to get the knack! There should be an exam and qualification. Anyway, 50% of organists over here regard the 2' as optional in a cornet, while 40% would rather have a fanfare trumpet to a tuba, preferably mounted horizontally. But there must be at least 64 levels of memory! And a swell 16' reed before a swell oboe or 8' open diapason! And nobody over here has any idea what to do with a Quintadena but every organ must have a larigot on the swell to give baroque sounds for trio sonatas! They give a nice Nazard for french classical music when played down the octave with a 4' flute as well... (Oh, shit, do we play any French classical music? It's all rather easy, isn't it? Wouldn't our efforts be better spent learning the Reubke to impress our organist mates? Surely better just to sight-read Couperin... then we can brag we can pass ARCO keyboard tests any day of the week) Trio sonatas over here must be played at speeds to rival Ton Koopman and with a detatche touch on the larigot!

 

Tubas and Fanfare Trumpets. Same pipes, different name. Makes a hell of difference, don't you know?

 

 

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

 

 

Well that brought a smile to my face!

 

I always wondered why a four stop unenclosed Positive should require a 1.1/3 Quint on the organ I play, and especially one made of tin, which goes right to the top note and sits at the front just above my head!

 

If I won the lottery, I would personally pay to have this rank removed, and a 2ft flute installed; giving 8, 4 2 & 2.

 

Then I could ENJOY playing Trio Sonatas, without being deafened.

 

I don't agree with the comment about big Trumpets and Tubas. There is a huge difference between good trumpets and tubas; and I know which I (and "pcnd") would prefer.

 

I hope that not everyone "rambles" when improvising. When I'm not in the mood, I can ramble with the best of them, but on good days, I can improvise a "Stanley voluntary" with some ease. If people ask me what I was playing, I always tell them that it was composed by one Robert de Farnham; the originals kept in the chained library of a remote Irish castle.

 

MM