Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Acoustics And Organ Design


Recommended Posts

In the Worcester Cathedral organ thread, I went off at something of a tangent concerning acoustics, and one discussion-board contributor suggested that we might open this as a new a separate subject; which I now do.

 

To re-cap, mention was made of the Marcussen organ at Bridgewater Hall, and its' seemingly ineffective qualities at this particular location, which I suggested may be more to do with the design of the building tahn any particular fault on the part of the organ-builder.

 

However, to get this discussion off on the right footing, perhaps it is necessary to start with a few basics.

 

Where, I wonder, are the best acoustics to be found?

 

We each have our favourite buildings, but I think that most people would generally agree that some of the very finest buildings in which organs are placed, are to be found in Holland. The churches may vary in size, and there will be obvious exceptions to the rule, but broadly speaking, smaller churches have a certain warmth and resonance thanks to extensive wooden interior furnishings and panelling material, and in the very large buildings, the general rule seems to be that of a single large room with either very shallow transpets, or none at all.

 

It is clearly in such buildings that organ-tone is heard at its' best.

 

Listen to an old baroque organ in such buildings, and there is not usually the slightest sense of shrillness or a lack of warmth, presence or fundamental. Like the carefully shaped body of a violin made by the master hand, the building becomes the great musical belly in which the music blossoms. Interestingly, when playing one of the best organs in Holland, there is a striking fact about the sound coming from the instrument, which seems to demonstrate a certain eveness in the relative volumes right across the audible spectrum, with no particulary audible "spikes" or attenuations.

 

Things are less good in England; especially in the great cathedral churches, where deep transpets, changing roof lines and even stone screens break up the whole into a serious of "mini-acoustics" which often scatter the sound less than ideally.

Nevertheless, a good organ will still sound like a good organ, even if it lacks the perfect definition of its' continetal counterparts in the Netherlands.

 

Although the theory of acoustics is an enormous, complex and often subjective one, there can be little doubt but that modern buildings and building-materials often result in an acoustic which is often less than favourable to good, evenly spread organ-tone, and therefore presents special challenges to the art of the organ-builder and voicer.

 

Having started the subject, I went back to my notes and some of the sources of information I had on disc.

 

To cut a liong story short, the "absorption co-efficients" of modern building materials are radically different from more traditional materials such as stone, brick or glass. It isn't, it seems, simply a question of sound absorbency, but sound absorption within specific frequency bands.

 

If we take stone as an example (much the same applies to brick and concrete), the absorption characteristics are not only very low; more importantly, they are very even across the audible spectrum. This means that even in traditional buildings with only the most modest acoustic, the rate of absorbency is uniform across the musical spectrum, by and large. Even carpets absorb energy across the spectrum evenly.

 

Enter the world of the modern architect, who has to work around building regulations concerning firewalls, structural integrity, cost-saving building methods and structral integrity. Add to this the requirements of creature comforts such as soft-seat covers, carpets, lighting (requiring hidden ducting), heating and ventilation (again requiring hidden ducting) and decor, and what we have is an acoustic nightmare, which the acoustic engineers have to work around and modify, using computer models and scale-model acoustic test-beds.

 

Enter the problem of modern materials, which may be fibrous board, fire-retardent laminates, plastics, foams, acoustic tiles, fibreglass etc etc.

 

ALL these materials, almost without exception, have very specific characteristics, and taking a look at the absorbency co-efficients, what we find is an uneven absorbency across the audible spectrum. Some materials kill high-freqencies, whilst others kill the lower frequencies, but in the critical mid-frequencies, at which each of us is most sensitive, there can be enormous increases in energy absorbency, because these building materials were usually designed for offices and other industrial applications rather than for concert halls.

 

For the moment, that is enough to consider, but if one thinks of the Royal Albert Hall, which has the worst natural acoustic in the world, it was the use of modern materials which came to its' rescue....so it isn't all bad news by any means, and the Arup Associates company who designed the Birmingham Symphony Hall, have shown just what can be achieved using modern materials and a classi concert-hall shape..

 

 

 

_

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for the spellin' mistakes in the last post, which was sent prematurely when I hit the send button in error. However, it's close enough, so I shall not bother to replace it with a corrected version.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right that what people consider to be good accoustics is subjective. Personally, I think the Royal Festival Hall has a far worse accoustic than the Royal Albert Hall, despite the latter's faults. The RAH does at least have some warmth to it. That said, piano recitals work pretty well in the RFH.

 

I've not heard the Marcussen at Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, so I cannot comment. I have heard orchestras play there and the accoustic is nothing like that of Symphony Hall, Birmingham. However, I would not say that it is a bad accoustic.

 

Speaking of Symphony Hall, despite the use of modern materials, where it mattered accoustically, such as large, flat reflective walls and surfaces, the choice of material was marble and solid timber. And the choice of seating materials was also a crucial component in the success of the space. The success of this accoustic owes more to the acoustician Russel Johnson of Artec, rather than Arup. I've only heard orchestras, small ensembles and vocal and choral ensembles in Symphony Hall, and I've yet to hear the organ, so I've no idea how it sounds. But I do think that Symphony Hall has one of the finest concert hall accoustics I have ever experienced.

 

How materials are used is just as important as the choice of materials. The most successful concert halls have one thing in common: they are basically the same shape, which is the shoe box shape, turned on its side. This provides lots of large, flat walls, which provide listeners with early reflections of higher frequencies. Symphony Hall is slighly different in that the ends are rounded. The shoebox and the early reflections really help with clarity and help instrumental players with balance and ensemble. The classic examples are the Musikverein in Vienna and the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. The Town Hall in Birmingham should also have been a good example, but the effect was ruined by carpet. However, as part of the renovation, the carpet was removed, revealing a much more lively accoustic.

 

The importance of large, flat walls can be demonstrated by taking a walk down the street. If you are next to a building with a large flat wall, walking towards a busy street in front of you, it will sound like the street noise is coming from the large flat wall. If there is a pneumatic jack hammer going 100 yards down the road, it will still sound like the noise is coming from the flat wall that is next to you. And if an aircraft flies over head, the noise will sound like it is coming from the flat wall and you will hear the aeroplane long before you see it.

 

I have sat in various parts of Symphony Hall, listening to a solo violin practicing, and sometimes it sounded like the player was just a few feet to the side of me. Something like 80% of the sound that an audience hears at Symphony Hall is reflected off the side walls, rather than coming directly from the performers on the stage. Of course, the ceiling and floor play their part too. The large flat floor of the Royal Albert Hall means that orchestras sound superb in the arena during the Proms season. If you stand in front of the fountain, the notorious 'double note' almost disappears, save for when a snare drum are playing softly.

 

The fan shape of the Barbican is a disaster. The only flat surfaces of any accoustical use are behind the woodwork on stage, which means performers can hear every noise the audience makes.

 

Churches come in all shapes and size. In addition to the overall shape of the building, the placement of the organ and any choral or instrumental group is key. Generally speaking, churches on continental Europe have organs housed above the west door that speak down the full length of the nave. If the nave has lots of flat surfaces and is free of sound-absorbing materials, the organ will often sound superb. Take for example, Westminster Cathedral and also St Alban's Holborn. And if you happen to be in New York, try St Ignatius Loyola too.

 

When organs are sited in a chamber next to the choir stalls, they struggle to speak into the church and organ builders have a hard time to make them do so.

 

The disadvantage of a good accoustic that is free of sound absorbing materials is that instrumentalists, soloists and choral groups have to work really hard to achieve a genuine pianissimo, and few can really do it. A mezzo forte is effortless and fortissimo does not take much effort. A poor solo trumpet player can easily achieve an ear-splitting fortissimo in such an accoustic. And I have heard orchestras overplay in Symphony Hall, largely because they were used to performing in such poor accoustics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

All very interesting - but in reference to church acoustics, we perhaps need to keep in mind that listening to the organ is not the primary function of the building!

 

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

 

Why do we need to keep this in mind?

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right that what people consider to be good accoustics is subjective. Personally, I think the Royal Festival Hall has a far worse accoustic than the Royal Albert Hall, despite the latter's faults.

 

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

 

I think I would agree with everything Anthony Poole states, save for the fact that Arup bore the responsibility for the end result at Birmingham.

 

However, we are in danger of sliding back towards the subject of "favourable acoustics" rather than the unfavourable acoustics I began with.

 

A technical note about the RFH, which when built, was not built as specified by the architects. I forget the exact details, but some of the material specifications differed from that stipulated, and this had a disatrous effect on the final outcome.

Without making any political point, Peter Mandelson has been busily trying to prevent changes to the hall, due to some family connection with the design of the building and his desire to preserve what he regards as "heritage."

 

My original post was concerned with buildings which do not favour organ-music, and we all have our pet hates. Mine include Bradford Cathedral and the Fairfield Hall, Croydon, among others; the latter a classic example of a theatre acoustic which does nothing good for the organ.

 

With the benefit of hindsight (always the greatest benefit!), how does an organ-builder design around the problems of an essentially defective or challenging building?

 

THIS is what we need to address.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right that what people consider to be good accoustics is subjective. Personally, I think the Royal Festival Hall has a far worse accoustic than the Royal Albert Hall, despite the latter's faults.

 

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

 

I think I would agree with everything Anthony Poole states, save for the fact that Arup bore the responsibility for the end result at Birmingham.

 

However, we are in danger of sliding back towards the subject of "favourable acoustics" rather than the unfavourable acoustics I began with.

 

 

MM

 

From what I've read about new organs built by Mander in challenging buildings, the company has done its best to design the internal layout to maximise the egress of sound into the building. The new organ built in St Louis, Missouri, a couple of years ago was one such example, but the good work of the builders and voicers has reportedly been destroyed by the subsequent installation of carpeting.

 

In some churches, where a lack of height forces the swell to be placed behind the great, some organ builders put the bigger reeds on separate chests and voice them on higher pressures and make them louder, perhaps with more generous scaling than might seem necessary.

 

I believe some organ builders also use swell shutters on more than one side of a box to improve egress. I believe the new organ that Mander is building in St Alban's incorporates this into its design, but best to check with JPM.

 

Interestingly, at Westminster Cathedral, the grand organ has the swell placed behind the great, even though there was plenty of height to put the swell above the great, or the other way around. But the egress of the swell into the building is still splendid and the swell box effect of opening and closing produces a considerable dynamic range.

 

I once conducted a band in a theatre, which had so much sound absorbing material that I was able to tell the brass and percussion that no matter how loud they played, they would not be able to drown the singers. The performers on stage were in front of the orchestra. But even with the percussion appearing to beat the **a% out of their instruments, it rarely sounded like more than a generous mezzo forte.

 

I think organ builders sometimes come up against this in churches and, no matter what they do, the organs sound like they are wrapped in cotton wool.

 

My understanding of Symphony Hall, Birmingham was that Arup was the project manager, but Artec and Russel Johnson had carte blanche when it came to the accoustic design and specification of the materials used. His other big success is the Meyerson Center in Dallas, although there are other noteable examples too that don't come to mind right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barry Oakley

With the benefit of hindsight (always the greatest benefit!), how does an organ-builder design around the problems of an essentially defective or challenging building?

 

THIS is what we need to address.

 

MM

 

This reminds me of the well-worn saying, "cart before the horse." It is surely extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an organ builder to produce an instrument based purely on an architect's drawings. This is what happened in Sheffield in the early 1930's when Edward Bairstow and Willis III produced a specification for the City Hall organ. Acoustically, the result eventually fell short of expectations. The organ was completed, installed, voiced and finished well ahead of the building which was little more than a shell at the time. It sounded superb. But when plastering was completed and fittings and fixtures added the instrument took on a much less exciting character.

 

Sheffield City Hall has recently undergone a £12.5 million refurbishment programme. None of the money has been spent on the organ. Much more is known about producing a pleasing acoustic. But it will be interesting to experience the effect this has had (if any) in eradicating the hitherto dry acoustic of the building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read about new organs built by Mander in challenging buildings, the company has done its best to design the internal layout to maximise the egress of sound into the building. (snip).....

 

I once conducted a band in a theatre, which had so much sound absorbing material that I was able to tell the brass and percussion that no matter how loud they played, they would not be able to drown the singers. (snip)

 

My understanding of Symphony Hall, Birmingham was that Arup was the project manager, but Artec and Russel Johnson had carte blanche when it came to the accoustic design and specification of the materials used.

 

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

 

 

This is very interesting, possibly because it gets to the core of that to which I alluded.

 

"Egress of sound" may indeed NOT be the key to solving the problem; though it would doubtless be a move in the right direction.

 

Let me fly off at a brief tangent.....

 

How many modern concert hall organs sound weak until the chamades are drawn?

 

That says it all, because the relatively fierce sound is acutely directional, and the barking horizontal reeds tends to dominate everything.

 

Moving swiflty back to Anthony Poole's experience with the brass players, I'd like to bet that he heard the Trombones and Trumpets.....for the same reason as the chamades.....directional sound.

 

But again, this is only part of the problem, which may or may not have a solution as the case may be.

 

I have a very interesting recording of the organist (and genius!) Hector Olivera, playing a large theatre organ in the U.S., which is preceded by the final soundtrack of a film. The film track sounds distinctly "honky" because it is obviously quite an old one, but when the organ cracks in, it utterly dwarfs the sound of obviously powerful auditorium loudspeakers. Not only that, if it is run through a spectrum analysis display, there is a wonderfully even slope of sound, from the powerful basses, right through the mid-range and tailing off gently towards the higher end of the spectrum. IT IS AN ALMOST IDENTICAL SLOPE TO THAT DEMONSTRATED AT ST.MARY,REDCLIFFE, ON VIRTUALLY FULL ORGAN, BUT WITHOUT THE LATER GREAT QUINT MIXTURE ADDED BY CUTHBERT HARRISON.

 

Now isn't that fascinating?

 

Two completely different types of building, two completely different type of organ, but a similar result Ie; a musical sound.

 

It must be stated that my methods have not been entirely scientific or in any way a "controlled experiment," but the results are obviously pointing towards something significant.

 

Forgetting for a moment the origins and musical purpose of a theatre organ, which is quite irrelevant to this discussion, it seems to me that the builders of theatre organs actually knew what they were doing exactly, and had discovered a means of producing good organ-tone under tricky circumstances.

 

Another interesting fact......

 

Not far from me is a church which has an acoustic as dead as a witch's mammory gland, and in which is a Lewis/Compton instrument which sounds extremely good.

 

So rather than trying to pontificate or suggest solutions to a problem, I raise the interesting question as to whether "classical voicing" has any place at all in a concert hall like the Bridgewater at Manchester, and if it does not, is there an alternative which doesn't take us straight back to Arthur Harrison, Aeolian Skinner or, dare I suggest, Rudolph Wurlitzer and Hope Jones?

 

Discuss!

 

MM

 

 

PS: Arup are bright enough to have some very able people on their books as "associates." They've had much success as a result of delegating design to people they trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly, at Westminster Cathedral, the grand organ has the swell placed behind the great, even though there was plenty of height to put the swell above the great, or the other way around. But the egress of the swell into the building is still splendid and the swell box effect of opening and closing produces a considerable dynamic range.

Unless my ears have been deceiving me, I had always thought the Swell was on the left hand side of the instrument, i.e. the liturgical South side, something the picture below tends to substantiate.

 

Jeremy Jones

London

 

music_organ.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheffield City Hall has recently undergone a £12.5 million refurbishment programme. None of the money has been spent on the organ. Much more is known about producing a pleasing acoustic. But it will be interesting to experience the effect this has had (if any) in eradicating the hitherto dry acoustic of the building.

 

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

 

Sheffield City Hall, I understand, comes close to the top of the league-table of awful buildings. The Bridgewater should have been a whole lot better, and probably is.

 

Whilst not wishing to blame anyone for the relatively underwhelming sound of the Marcussen organ there, it would be nice to understand the design process from sod to sortie; not just that of the organ, but that of the hall also, which at least "appears" to have some element of acoustic design about it.

 

I read an interesting paper on acoustics a couple of days ago, which suggests that acoustic-engineers are so familiar with recorded sound, that they have a distorted view of what constitutes a good acoustic. There may well be truth in that statement. Of course, knowing Manchester, it is quite likely that their idea of a "concert hall" is one suitable for a Robbie Williams or "Scissors Sisters" gig, and I can't imagine that they'd be wasting a lot of money on fancy wood panelling!

 

Maybe the answer is much nearer to home, and perhaps Marcussen just don't have the expertise in concert-hall organ design. It may well be that the organ-consultant specified specific aspects of pipe-scaling and voicing. Maybe, as I have suggested, modern materials have produced a new type of acoustic, in which case, the architects and acoustic-engineers need to know that it doesn't work very well.

 

One thing I do see, when I look at the absorption characteristics of many modern materials, is a horror-story. Some materials absorb only 10% of sounds below 500Hz, and much the same above 2 KHz, but between that, they can be gobbling up 50% of the sound energy!

 

That's my concern, and it is what I hear in many concert halls to-day.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheffield City Hall, I understand, comes close to the top of the league-table of awful buildings. The Bridgewater should have been a whole lot better, and probably is.

 

The Bridgewater Hall acoustics are pretty good for orchestral music, but a bit dry for the organ. An echo is audible in the stalls, which has been ameliorated somewhat by draping cloth over the front of the circle and balcony. However, it's an excellent hall, very comfortable seats, good sight lines, good (and silent!) ventilation.

 

Were the acoustics of Leeds Town Hall been improved in refurbishment a few years ago? Last time I was there it was like hearing a concert in a Victorian swimming baths, and I was told by an acquaintance who had played there in a youth orchestra that ensemble is very difficult as members of the orchestra can't hear each other.

 

St George's Hall, Bradford, which is shoebox-shaped, would be excellent acoustically were it not for the amount of street noise that comes in (mainly buses going to the adjacent bus station). Of course, there are people (organists) for whom the sound of buses would add immeasurably to the experience of concert-going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Were the acoustics of Leeds Town Hall been improved in refurbishment a few years ago?  Last time I was there it was like hearing a concert in a Victorian swimming baths, and I was told by an acquaintance who had played there in a youth orchestra that ensemble is very difficult as members of the orchestra can't hear each other.

 

Kurt Masur (Gewandhausorchester, Leipzig and other orchestras) apparently rates Leeds Town Hall very highly: apparently the diminutive orchestral canopy does make a difference and curtains round the balcony 'apse' must reduce the reverberation time.

 

The Town Hall was shut for refurbishment a couple of years ago - I'm not sure whether any work was done on the acoustics. Pity about the organ though - the 1972 rebuild was well-intentioned but somehow doesn't hang together: child of the time, I suppose.

 

JS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless my ears have been deceiving me, I had always thought the Swell was on the left hand side of the instrument, i.e. the liturgical South side, something the picture below tends to substantiate.

 

Jeremy Jones

London

 

http://www.westminstercathedral.org.uk/images/music/music_organ.jpg

 

Hi Jeremy,

 

If the Swell is on the left of the picture , then presumably the edifice on the right is the solo box ? What is that on top of it ? I have never seen any specification of westminster cathedral which mentioned a horizontal reed, which is what it looks like . Also , if it is the solo box, it appears the shutters are disposed horizontally whereas those on the swell would seem to be vertical. Is there a known reason for this ? One might guess that the swell shutters positioned as they are might have a greater tendency to deflect the sound of the swell in such a way as to better facilitate blend with the great, whilst the solo shutters would not tend to have the same effect, at least to the same extent. But do you actually know better, being a self confessed admirer of this instrument and rather closer to it than I am here ?

 

Regards,

 

Brian Childs

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Swell is on the left of the picture , then presumably the edifice on the right is the solo box ? What is that on top of it ? I have never seen any specification of westminster cathedral which mentioned a horizontal reed, which is what it looks like .

 

There flues as far as I can tell (zoom....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurt Masur (Gewandhausorchester, Leipzig and other orchestras) apparently rates Leeds Town Hall very highly

 

Pity about the organ though - the 1972 rebuild was well-intentioned but somehow doesn't hang together: child of the time, I suppose.

 

===========

 

That's a bit harsh John!

 

Actually, down the hall, the organ at Leeds Town Hall is a very interesting sound, but admittedly, one on its' own, which can only be a good thing. Using a combination of Gray & Davison pipework, new pipes and pipes re-cycled from a scrapyard, Dennis Thurlow did a rather good job of the voicing, I think.

 

Pierre will be delighted to know that the half-length 32ft reed is actually by Aneesens of Belgium, and came from the old organ of St.Mary's, East Parade, Bradford which had been replaced by an organ largely the work of Booth of Otley, whoever they were.

 

The important thing is, the often large audiences love it, and I've certainly enjoyed some magnificent performances there.

 

Wonderful moments too....such as Simon Lindley elbowing stops in. I swore he once used his right foot! Another head-butted the 8ft Ophicleide; some of us chanted "Leeds United!" Then there was the infamous hurricane which ripped through Leeds, as Jane Parker-Smith sat down to play to the accompaniment of 100mph winds hitting the roof.

 

"Sorry about the heavy-wind obligato!" It could only be Simon Lindley!!

 

Anyway....I was there at the opening....I saw and heard Flor Peeters, and I have the souvenir programme/booklet to prove it.

 

Thar's nowt wrong wi' town 'all organ. On thee bike Sayer!

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre will be delighted to know that the half-length 32ft reed is actually by Aneesens of Belgium, and came from the old organ of St.Mary's, East Parade, Bradford which had been replaced by an organ largely the work of Booth of Otley, whoever they were.

 

 

MM

 

Hi

 

NPOIR to the resue again - DBOB - Henry Booth Gay Lane Otley between 1881 & 1889.

It appears from DBOB that there are a number of Booths known of in this area (Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield).

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Pierre will be delighted to know that the half-length 32ft reed is actually by Aneesens of Belgium, and came from the old organ of St.Mary's, East Parade, Bradford which had been replaced by an organ largely the work of Booth of Otley, whoever they were."

 

(Quote)

 

Thanks!

 

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre will be delighted to know that the half-length 32ft reed is actually by Aneesens of Belgium, and came from the old organ of St.Mary's, East Parade, Bradford which had been replaced by an organ largely the work of Booth of Otley, whoever they were.

 

It replaced a 32' free reed which was said to have been ineffective in the hall, and probably was.

I wish I could have heard it, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

NPOIR to the resue again - DBOB - Henry Booth Gay Lane Otley between 1881 & 1889.

It appears from DBOB that there are a number of Booths known of in this area (Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield).

 

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

 

Interestingly, Booth of Otley were reputed to be "disciples of Schulze"....Schulze having more disciples than the Lord, it seems.

 

In fact, this is the only organ I know of by this firm, but the tonal quality is excellent for a local builder. Sadly, St.Mary's RC Bradford, is in a blighted area with a very high Asian population, and support has crumbled over the years. The organ staggers along, but there isn't a pot of gold available should it suddenly cease working. The original Aneesens case and 16ft front is still in situ, and I believe that the original opening recital on the Aneseens was given by the Belgian organist, Jaques Lemmens. This was one of the very earliest electric-action instruments in the UK.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, this is the only organ I know of by this firm, but the tonal quality is excellent for a local builder. Sadly, St.Mary's RC Bradford, is in a blighted area with a very high Asian population, and support has crumbled over the years. The organ staggers along, but there isn't a pot of gold available should it suddenly cease working.

MM

 

Hi

 

Why do you say that the area is "blighted" just because there's a large Asain population? That's the sort of attitude that those of us in the churches in Bradford are fighting against. Sadly, the demographics of the area, coupled with the general shrinking of congregations, means that a significant number of churches have closed, and others are threatened. That's how it is - we have to live here, and try to fulfil the mission of the church, even if that means breaking with tradition - for example, I will be attending an Asian Christian service tomorrow. I suspect the closest thing to an organ that will be used is an Indian table Harmonium, but that's what's culturally appropriate.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity about the organ though - the 1972 rebuild was well-intentioned but somehow doesn't hang together: child of the time, I suppose.

 

===========

 

That's a bit harsh John!

 

The important thing is, the often large audiences love it, and I've certainly enjoyed some magnificent performances there.

 

Thar's nowt wrong wi' town 'all organ. On thee bike Sayer!

 

MM

 

A bit harsh mebbie - I'll kep pedallin' ........

 

As a Leodensian myself, I've no wish to decry the splendid promotional work Simon Lindley has done for the organ over the years. However, I do think the City has finer instruments to offer - Armley, of course, and the marvellous untouched 3m Binns in the quite amazing church of St Aidan, Harehills, not to mention the little Walker in St Saviour's and its younger sister at Osmondthorpe, the big 'Arthur' of 1911 at St Chad's, Far Headingley and so on.

 

It' might be interesting to speculate how we might approach the next rebuild of LTH, 30-odd years on.

 

JS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do you say that the area is "blighted" just because there's a large Asain population? That's the sort of attitude that those of us in the churches in Bradford are fighting against.

 

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

 

I will re-quote my words Tony...."Sadly, St.Mary's RC Bradford, is in a blighted area with a very high Asian population, and support has crumbled over the years. "

 

Now if you are going to pick a fight, it is important to understand the English language!

 

I did not say the area was blighted BECAUSE it has a very high Asian population.

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will re-quote my words Tony...."Sadly, St.Mary's RC Bradford, is in a blighted area with a very high Asian population, and support has crumbled over the years. "

 

Now if you are going to pick a fight, it is important to understand the English language!

 

I did not say the area was blighted BECAUSE it has a very high Asian population.

 

MM

 

Hum!

 

Why cite it then?

"Support has crumbled..." would have been enough then...

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will re-quote my words Tony...."Sadly, St.Mary's RC Bradford, is in a blighted area with a very high Asian population, and support has crumbled over the years. "

 

Now if you are going to pick a fight, it is important to understand the English language!

 

I did not say the area was blighted BECAUSE it has a very high Asian population.

 

MM

 

Hum!

 

Why cite it then?

"Support has crumbled..." would have been enough then...

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

 

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

 

OK...I'll re-phrase it.

 

Bradford is a blighted area due to the collapse of the former textile and engineering industries. Many of the traditional British-born workers in those industries moved away, leaving behind a large second and third generation population derived from the immigrant workers who came from areas of the former British commonwealth; many of whom do not attend catholic mass on a Sunday.

 

Bradford is now the heroin-trade capital of Northern England and is famous for the variety of fast-food emporia serving exotic cuisine.

 

There you are! I didn't mention the "A" word once!!

 

;)

 

 

MM

Link to post
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...