Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Manchester Cathedral


Recommended Posts

I don't remember much unblending neo-baroquery there in my day (1990-91). Where's the Solo Cornet des Violes gone? It's listed as Cymbel on NPOR.

 

I do not think that it had one, Ian - at least, not from the time of the H&H rebuild in 1957. In The Harrison Story (Laurence Elvin), it is listed as a (tierce) Cymbel (26-29-31) there, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Coventry, as far as I know it, does not have anything neo-baroque.

It is a plain neo-classique organ, to be compared with Gonzalez,

Delmotte, Klais, Steinmeyer, Holtkamp etc, not Paul Ott and his

followers.

 

Pierre

I was using the term loosely - as did Bazuin - the term neo-baroquery appies no more to the mutations and 1ft. stops at Manchester than it does to Coventry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think that it had one, Ian - at least, not from the time of the H&H rebuild in 1957. In The Harrison Story (Laurence Elvin), it is listed as a (tierce) Cymbel (26-29-31) there, too.

It definitely had one. Alas the spec has been taken off the Cathedral website so can't check.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"If new organs aren't commissioned, then organ-building firms will go bust, won't they?"

(Quote)

 

That is not what I meant. There are many hopeless organs around that can be replaced by better (new) instruments. But that is (in my opinion) not the case in Manchester cathedral. Besides, maintenance to existing organs also keep organ-building firms going.

 

There is also the possibilty to keep, use and respect the Harrison & Harrison organ, and buy a new organ, made especially for the repertoire for which the present instrument is not suitable. You can have the best of both worlds (though not in one instrument)!

 

There are some interesting examples in The Netherlands, like the Grote Kerk in Dordrecht (new Bach organ) and the Bovenkerk in Kampen. See the following links:

 

http://www.debovenkerk.nl/page_3.htm

 

http://www.grotekerk-dordrecht.nl/groteker...el/?language=nl

 

I have seen and heard both the Cavaillé-Coll organ in Warrington and the Schulze organ in Hindley. Both exciting and interesting instruments, and both worthy of a better location, a location where they are appreciated. But I think Manchester Cathedral would not be the right location for either of these instruments. With the cathedral's very dry acoustics, I doubt anything would sound and function better than the present instrument.

 

Dave.

I'm quite interested in the development of 2 organs in British Cathedrals: Southwell has a Screen organ speaking into the Quire of 4 manuals and 51 stops, with a Nave organ of 3 manuals and 44 stops in the nave triforium; Chelmsford has a chancel organ of 2 manuals and 24 stops (with a 3rd manual for coupling and playing the Nave organ) with a West Gallery nave organ of 4 manuals and 40 stops; Worcester has a 4 manual quire organ of 57 stops with plans for a second organ of similar size in the nave. I'm sure people on this board can add many other examples.

 

The pattern and thought that seems to be evolving in British Cathedrals is that the larger organ is intended for the smaller space. The Southwell example speaks into the relatively intimate Quire with some pretty high pitched mixture choruses on 3 manuals with an electronic 32' reed in its 51 stops. The organ is shoe-horned (squeezed?) into a relatively small case for the size of the organ and the fourth manual is home to the unusual (and rather dubious) collection of lone 4' flute, cornet (conveyed to a chest above the Great organ soundboard) and party horn.

 

Worcester (an organ I've yet to see) is similarly sized, with the three enclosed divisions of the organ in the triforium while the Great and Pedal organs occupy the cases cantilevered out at triforium level. Although I've yet to hear it, I can imagine that the Great organ and the pedal reeds in particular must speak with some presence throughout the building, while the enclosed divisions must have quite a job to get out of the fairly deep swell boxes, through those small apertures out of the triforium and though the Great and Pedal divisions. It must be quite a miracle if they can be heard in the quire, let alone the rest of the building. It must have been a very difficult job to get the thing to balence - I think Ken Tickell and his voicers deserve every credit if they've managed to get the divisions to balance well with themselves.

 

Contrast this to the common 2 organ situation on the continent. The Netherlands and France are typical. In France, one will find the Grande Orgue, complete with Organiste Titulaire, occupying the entire west wall, capable of filling the entire basilica with Earthquake, Wind and Hailstones of Fire, all at once with just a single note. In the east end is the much smaller (commonly 2 manual) Orgue de Choeur, frequently with reversed console, for use with the choir. St Sulpice and Notre Dame are the two examples that spring to mind instantly - as do the scorings of the Widor and Vierne Masses which require these 2 organs.

 

The Netherlands have a situation that, on the face of it, looks similar: the large West Gallery organ and the Koororgel. We all know about the Grote organ but the choir organ is often overlooked. One example that's always captured my imagination is this: http://www.orgelsite.nl/amsterdam3.htm

And how many of us have overlooked this as we head for the famous Muller at the west end? http://www.orgelsite.nl/haarlem1.htm (and yes, I have no idea what it's like either...)

 

None of these continental examples try to squeeze a large 4 manual into an Quire organ, with whatever design compromises that may entail. However, I think it might involve overlooking an important school of music that has evolved since Walmisley penned his evening canticles in D minor to expect British Cathedrals to adopt Quire organs of continental size. The British Cathedral Quire is used for the majority of the choral services and the choral tradition has evolved the requirements for the organ accompanying these services to become ever larger and complex, initially from transcriptions of orchestral accompaniments to things like Finzi's God is Gone up.

 

Of course, more stops does not necessarily mean louder: more stops give the organ more variety of sound, while more divisions give the organ more contrasts and make it easier to orchestrate the effects and contrasts while managing the organ with less effort - all of which are highly desirable for choral accompaniment. As has already been mentioned, a "gemeentezangorgel" is quite adequate for accompanying a congregation - but this need not be a large organ, as long as it has sufficient sound and presence for the congregation. In addition, I think the argument for proper 16' manual support on this type of organ is not to be overlooked, especially as half the congregation will be singing an octave lower than pitch anyway - so why does the West Great at the proposed new organ at Llandauff have a 5 rank mixture in its 4 stops but no 16'? (especially odd as every other manual division has a 16' stop)

 

I think my main concern about the organs in British Cathedrals with 2 separate organs for Quire and Nave is that the organs should be very carefully designed for the space and purpose they're intended for. I don't have a problem with a 4 manual organ in the Quire and another large organ in the Nave but I do think it is a mistake if the Quire organ is too large and too loud to be used in its entirety for a service in the Quire and its sound is confused or overbearing to listeners in the Quire.

 

If builders are to build separate Nave and Quire organs, they need to understand and develop their craft to build organs that work in the intimate environment of the Quire, with the subtly, seamless blend and crescendo and beauty of sound the Anglican choral tradition demands, while still being able to understand and successfully apply the (slightly different) principles to build an organ capable of filling a larger space like the Nave for accompanying the massed congregation. Most importantly: it is vital they understand the difference between the two styles and know what to apply where.

 

Sometimes I feel modern organs are still too much under the influence of the neo-classical ideals, where powerful upperwork and mixtures were encouraged and all divisions needed to be placed at the front of the organ. This is fine in a large space, where higher frequencies are attenuated as they travel through air (like the Nave) but this is rarely required in the more intimate environment of a Cathedral Quire, where the organ needs to be sociable and subtle at close quarters and at all dynamic levels. It needs to go from very quiet sounds which somehow have enough space to sound distant and yet have presence, grandeur and dignity when summoned while still not yelling at its listeners in the Quire.

 

I think it would help if there was greater confidence to build organs in a particular style so it was not felt necessary to include both a Sesquialtera, Cornet decompose and 32' pedal reed to serve all types of organ music. Clients need to know better than to ask for large eclectic instruments in both spaces and instead start to focus on the purpose of the organs in difference spaces and ask for something suitable for its location and purpose, rather than something that will be compromised from the outset by being too large for its location - both in physical space for the organ and the space it's intended to be heard in. I think the most recent organs could benefit by being more economical in their means by eschewing eclecticism and applying better understanding how to apply a single style to get more colour and interest out of a single organ out of fewer stops and space. This would not only have benefits for the size of the organ, it would help the quality, musical interest and effect of the organ in the space it occupies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo Colin!

 

Have you read Paul Hale's article in the Organbuilder (circa 1996?) entitled something like 'The future of the British Organ'? In it he provides (implicitly) the rationale for the Southwell Quire organ. The 'rationale' is in fact no more than a stoplist, and how it relates to the literature. The links are often tenuous (the North German repertoire requires an "mf pedal bassoon" apparently) and, in my not-always-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion, miss the wider points completely (yes, you can have a Cliquot-scaled cornet on your organ, but if it's winded via Schwimmers and in a dry acoustic in an intimate space you're not going to evoke anything French). Moreover, the relationship between the 'modern British organ' and its liturgical, primary raison d'etre is barely discussed.

 

My opinion of the Southwell organ is well known here so I won't repeat it. Just because you can build an organ with 51 stops surely doesn't mean that you should?

 

I am likely to be without internet connection for some days now, hope this leads to some good discussion in my absence!

 

Bazuin

Link to post
Share on other sites
It definitely had one. Alas the spec has been taken off the Cathedral website so can't check.

It was Cymbel from when I first played in 1997, and I can't think I've seen anything in print calling it anything else.

 

Norman Cocker's original scheme, for those interested, was as follows:

 

Pedal

1. Double open wood 32

2. Open wood 16 (from 1)

3. Open metal 16

4. Bourdon 16 (from Screen Gt 59)

5. Salicional 16 (from Chancel Gt 42)

6. Octave wood 8 (from 1)

7. Octave metal 8 (from 3)

8. Principal 8

9. Bass flute (from 59)

10. Salicet (from 42)

11. Octave quint 5 1/3

12. Super octave 4 (from 8)

13. Fifteenth 4

14. Flute 4 (from 59)

15. Mixture (17 19 22)

16. Scharf (19 22 26 29 - from 11, 13 and 15)

17. Double ophicleide 32

18. Ophicleide 16 (from 17)

19. Clarion 8 (from 17)

 

Enclosed Pedal

20. Viole (from Solo 86)

21. Dulciana (from Sw 68)

22. Dulciana principal (from 68)

23. Posaune (from Ch 38)

24. Hautboy (from Sw 80)

25. Octave hautboy (from 80)

26. French horn (from Solo 98)

27. Orchestral tuba (from Solo 99)

28. Orchestral clarion (from 99)

(Pedal scheme retained by Allan Wicks exactly, except the Bourdon rank is not borrowed)

 

Choir

29. Cantabile diapason 8*

30. Viola da gamba 8

31. Echo dulciana 8

32. Stopped flute 8*

33. Unda maris (tenor C) 8

34. Flauto amabile 4*

35. Clarinet 8*

36. Diapason stentor 8

37. Doppelflöte 8

38. Contra posaune 16*

39. Posaune 8*

40. Octave posaune 4*

41. Tuba magna 8 (from Solo 100)

Trem

Oct / Sub / Unison off

Chancel Gt on Ch / Screen Gt on Ch

 

* retained by Allan Wicks, the rest replaced with Gemshorn 4 / Twelfth / Fifteenth / Tierce / Twenty-second

 

Chancel Great

42. Double salicional 16

43. Diapason (no.1) 8

44. Diapason (no.2) 8

45. Clarabella 8

46. Principal 4

47. Salicet 4

48. Waldflöte 4

49. Twelfth 2 2/3

50. Fifteenth 2

51. Tierce 1 3/5*

52. Mixture (19 flat21 22)*

53. Contra posaune (from Ch 38)

54. Posaune (from Ch 39)

55. Octave posaune (from Ch 40)

56. French horn (from Solo 98)

57. Orchestral tuba (from Solo 99)

58. Tuba magna (from Solo 100)

Oct / Sub / Unison off

 

* replaced by Allan Wicks with Nineteenth / Mixture (22 26 29). Nineteenth transposed to Seventeenth in late 1990s. Mixture replaced with Fourniture (19 22 26 29) in 2000.

 

Screen Great

59. Bourdon 16

60. Major diapason 8

61. Geigen diapason 8

62. Claribel flute 8

63. Octave 4

64. Flûte harmonique 4

65. Rauschquint (12 15)

66. Harp celesta (tenor C) 8

67. Harp celesta 4 (from 66)

not affected by octave couplers

(Screen Gt excluded from final scheme - I believe on cost grounds)

 

Swell

68. Contra dulciana 16

69. Diapason 8

70. Echo salicional 8

71. Vox angelica (AA sharp) 8*

72. Dulciana 8 (from 68)

73. Dulciana céleste (tenor C) 8

74. Lieblichgedeckt 8

75. Principal 4

76. Suabe flute 4

77. Fifteenth 2

78. Twenty-second 1*

79. Mixture (17 19 22 26 29)*

80. Contra hautboy 16

81. Hautboy 8 (from 80)

82. Double trumpet 16

83. Trumpet 8

84. Clarion 4

85. French horn 8 (from Solo 98)

Trem

Oct / Sub / Unison off

 

* replaced by Allan Wicks with Larigot 1 1/3 / Sesquialtera (12 17) / Mixture (19 22 26 29 33). Mixture replaced in 2000 with Mixture (19 22 26 29).

 

Solo

86. Contra viole 16

87. Viole d'orchestre 8

88. Viole céleste (CC) 8

89. Harmonic flute 8*

90. Viole octaviante 4

91. Concert flute 4

92. Nazard 2 2/3

93. Piccolo 2*

94. Tierce 1 3/5*

95. Septième 1 1/7*

96. Orchestral oboe 8

97. Vox humana 8

98. French horn 8

99. Orchestral tuba 8

100. Tuba magna 8 (unenclosed)

Trem

Oct / Sub / Unison off

 

* replaced by Allan Wicks with Cymbel (26 29 31 - strings) / Spitzflöte 8 / Blockflute 2 / Flageolet 1

 

Extra octave of pipes at the top for all stops except screen Gt, Solo reeds and Ch clarinet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a good and recent recording of the Manchester organ - Langlais organ music (Paraphrases Gregoriennes?) plus the Durufle Messe cum Jubilo the Langlais Messe Solennelle and another by Naji Hakim (great fun - espcially the Gloria with lots of Hakim's 'off-note-fairground' sounding material)- dedicated to the performers. Jeffrey Makinson and Christopher Stokes are playing. 'Can't remember the label - possibly Herald.

I have it somewhere!

 

A

 

Yes, it's Herald, and yes it's the Langlais Trois Paraphrases.

http://www.heraldav.co.uk/showdisk.php?diskNum=248

Great recording - but I'm biased as I duetted the organ part to the Hakim Kyrie and produced the rest!

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Paul Walton' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:37 PM' post='45414'

 

Norman Cocker's original scheme, for those interested, was as follows:

 

 

Screen Great

59. Bourdon 16

60. Major diapason 8

61. Geigen diapason 8

62. Claribel flute 8

63. Octave 4

64. Flûte harmonique 4

65. Rauschquint (12 15)

66. Harp celesta (tenor C) 8

67. Harp celesta 4 (from 66)

not affected by octave couplers

(Screen Gt excluded from final scheme - I believe on cost grounds)

 

Hello,

There was disagreement about whether the Screen Organ should be re-instituted following the destruction of the former instrument during the Blitz. One factor being that an organ case in that location prevented an uninterrupted view of the length of the Cathedral, as can - in fairness - be seen from earlier photographs, elegant though Scott's case was. William Greer, Bishop of Manchester was, in the end asked to adjudicate and stated that it would go back "over his dead body."

I think I am right in saying that only a limited amount of the new instrument had been installed at the time of Norman Cocker's death in late 1953, and there are also some fascinating tales about his ingenuity in playing & getting a "quart out of a pint pot" from the temporary Harrison instrument - which have become the stuff of legend.

Best Wishes

Phil Lowe

Rochdale, Manchester.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was disagreement about whether the Screen Organ should be re-instituted following the destruction of the former instrument during the Blitz. One factor being that an organ case in that location prevented an uninterrupted view of the length of the Cathedral, as can - in fairness - be seen from earlier photographs, elegant though Scott's case was. William Greer, Bishop of Manchester was, in the end asked to adjudicate and stated that it would go back "over his dead body."

 

Personally speaking, I would love to see a nice case back on the screen at Manchester, but considering the lack of height I couldn't see a screen organ containing very much and retaining a visually pleasing proportion.

Thinking of a couple of examples of new instruments which occupy screen locations in buildings of similar proportions, St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford is a small 2 manual but looks right for the size of the arch, Hexham Abbey is again 2 manuals but is almost twice the size of Oxford. In my opinion Hexham looks too big for the arch, Manchester certainly does not have the height to accommodate 16ft pipes like this.

In both these churches, the new instruments have paneled backs and the Quire has been abandoned as the place where the choir sings, with new stalls set up in the nave or under the crossing at Hexham.

I couldn't see Manchester abandoning their fine mediaeval choir stalls!

A further difficulty is the completely different style of each aspect of the Manchester Screen, Tudor paneling on the nave side, Gothic pinacles on the Quire side (also about 4 feet higher than the nave side!).

 

DT

Link to post
Share on other sites
................so why does the West Great at the proposed new organ at Llandauff have a 5 rank mixture in its 4 stops but no 16'? (especially odd as every other manual division has a 16' stop)...........

 

 

Did I read somewhere that the new Nave division at Llandaff will not be sited in the George Pace case on the arch (with the Epstein Majestas) as was the HNB Positif, presumably on grounds on accessibility?

 

JS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I read somewhere that the new Nave division at Llandaff will not be sited in the George Pace case on the arch (with the Epstein Majestas) as was the HNB Positif, presumably on grounds on accessibility?

 

JS

The Great Organ is to be located in the north choir, so perhaps the West Great will occupy the west facing case in the north choir aisle - though hardly an ideal position. We shall see next Easter all being well !

 

A

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great Organ is to be located in the north choir, so perhaps the West Great will occupy the west facing case in the north choir aisle - though hardly an ideal position. We shall see next Easter all being well !

 

A

 

Looking at Nicholsons' ad for this organ in 'Choir & Organ' recently, it struck me as a bit odd that in a large scheme which unashamedly 'marks a return to the romantic English style' there doesn't appear to be a tuba, tromba, or big solo reed of any description. It's got just about everything else you could want. Is this really the case, and if so, does anyone know the thinking behind it?

 

R.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cynic
Looking at Nicholsons' ad for this organ in 'Choir & Organ' recently, it struck me as a bit odd that in a large scheme which unashamedly 'marks a return to the romantic English style' there doesn't appear to be a tuba, tromba, or big solo reed of any description. It's got just about everything else you could want. Is this really the case, and if so, does anyone know the thinking behind it?

 

R.

 

 

Feeling idle today, and up to my eyes in sawdust, I've not checked this for myself. But if you're right and this is the case, Ron, they have definitely slipped up. What would a romantic organ of this size be without a commanding solo reed? [Answer: Seriously deficient!]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at Nicholsons' ad for this organ in 'Choir & Organ' recently, it struck me as a bit odd that in a large scheme which unashamedly 'marks a return to the romantic English style' there doesn't appear to be a tuba, tromba, or big solo reed of any description. It's got just about everything else you could want. Is this really the case, and if so, does anyone know the thinking behind it?

 

R.

 

The spec as printed in C&O May/June 2009 seems to be missing 2 stops from the Solo. According to OR Nov 2008 these are Orchestral Trumpet 8 and Tuba 8 (unenclosed). The stop list may mark a return to the romantic English style but when I saw it I just thought of Westminster Abbey! I hope I am wrong.

PJW

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Looking at Nicholsons' ad for this organ in 'Choir & Organ' recently, it struck me as a bit odd that in a large scheme which unashamedly 'marks a return to the romantic English style' there doesn't appear to be a tuba, tromba, or big solo reed of any description. It's got just about everything else you could want. Is this really the case, and if so, does anyone know the thinking behind it?"

 

Yes, you're right but if you look at older copies of Choir & Boredom, you'll notice there's not only an unenclosed Tuba but also an Orchestral Trumpet. Panic averted then.

 

It might just be me but I find this specification speaks more to me of modern eclecticism with a gloss of English Romanticism than a genuine English Romantic organ. Look at the seven ranks of quint Mixture on Great and Swell, the choir mutations and mixture, the complete flute and principal choruses on the Choir organ. However, it's nice to see a fully traditional romantic Solo organ specified though - I'll be interested to see how it turns out - but otherwise you will forgive me if I cannot detect any originality in the specification.

 

The most recent Nicholsons I've seen speak to me of unapologetic modernism in their own style, when the gloss of traditional English nomenclature is removed: they are built in an uncompromising modern way which speaks more of efficient manufacture and wholesale adoption of modern techniques than building in a particular style. Not that there is anything wrong with that: builders have always done this throughout history and Nicholson organs are soundly made and finished. The same goes for the tonal result, which seems to aim for the same sort of tonal qualities that Wyvern and Makin seem to arrive at, albeit with the advantage of real pipes. Not that there's anything wrong with that - they are competent and worthy organs and fulfil the needs and expectations of their customers - but they're not like a vintage Hill, Lewis or Willis. Not that you should understand I am criticising Nicholsons in any way: when faced with something genuinely competent, the senses are keyed up to the next level and the bar for excellence rises. I will be interested to see how far Nicholsons go to recreating something genuinely romantic at Llandaff or whether it remains on the gloss of the stop list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The spec as printed in C&O May/June 2009 seems to be missing 2 stops from the Solo. According to OR Nov 2008 these are Orchestral Trumpet 8 and Tuba 8 (unenclosed). The stop list may mark a return to the romantic English style but when I saw it I just thought of Westminster Abbey! I hope I am wrong.

PJW

 

Thanks for that - assuming OR is the correct version it looks as if the C & O has two stops missing. At least I hope so, there's nothing else comparable, you can't even transfer the great reeds. How can this be confirmed, does anyone have a definitive source of the spec?

 

R.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for that - assuming OR is the correct version it looks as if the C & O has two stops missing. At least I hope so, there's nothing else comparable, you can't even transfer the great reeds. How can this be confirmed, does anyone have a definitive source of the spec?

 

R.

 

This is from the Cathedral website http://www.llandaffcathedral.org.uk/Organ%...ecification.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
The most recent Nicholsons I've seen speak to me of unapologetic modernism in their own style, when the gloss of traditional English nomenclature is removed: they are built in an uncompromising modern way which speaks more of efficient manufacture and wholesale adoption of modern techniques than building in a particular style. Not that there is anything wrong with that: builders have always done this throughout history and Nicholson organs are soundly made and finished. The same goes for the tonal result, which seems to aim for the same sort of tonal qualities that Wyvern and Makin seem to arrive at, albeit with the advantage of real pipes. Not that there's anything wrong with that - they are competent and worthy organs and fulfil the needs and expectations of their customers - but they're not like a vintage Hill, Lewis or Willis. Not that you should understand I am criticising Nicholsons in any way: when faced with something genuinely competent, the senses are keyed up to the next level and the bar for excellence rises. I will be interested to see how far Nicholsons go to recreating something genuinely romantic at Llandaff or whether it remains on the gloss of the stop list.

 

 

Making no reference to any current builder, except to discount those who choose to build predominantly in a historically biased style, I think you have touched on a problem with modern British organs, that seems to have no current resolution. They are, for very largest part well designed and made, and as machines, competently executed to a world class level. But they have, to my ears, no character. I think the same comment can be levelled at some continental builders, but I am choosing here to limit myself to comments on home soil. I think the problems extend to differences in the manufacture and treatment of pipe metal before the pipes are made and the grades and scalings chosen to achieve the desired result, the quality and nature of the timber used in wooden pipes, the layout of instruments, disposition of soundboards, choice of winding system etc. The Romantic organ, or the baroque organ or whatever is a synthesis of all these things and more.

 

What we have produced is a modern organ. What frustrates me is that organ builders and advisors try to pin what they are doing on things from the past. Out of great Hills little hillocks grow. Even a modern Harrison with an Arthur and Harry style stoplist will sound different, and I wonder what exactly customers are looking for when they order an organ from a particular company, and are presented with an instrument with a particular style of stoplist. To build a Romantic organ, you have to build a Romantic organ, not produce a Romantic stoplist, use some period scalings, and call it a Romantic organ.

 

My personal opinion is that we are producing a lot of 'Vanilla' organs. Almost everyone likes them, very few people find them utterly distasteful, and they perform their role perfectly. This of course makes very good business sense, and with the cost of new organs, from that perspective one would be foolish to criticise. Our electronic organ manufacturers have also realised this, and are producing machines that make a similar sound (finer points notwithstanding). They know it sells, but are doing nothing to further the art. Sadly, the art is, in some senses very much secondary to the finances. You are principally running a business, so to produce something that might further the art, and take it on a stage, is a calculated risk which few are willing to take. In most instances, we are back to a common human thread - 'we buy what we like because we know we like it' .

 

I wish we could lose the tags and references to the past, something which I suspect neo baroquery has tricked us into doing - did we ever do it in the UK before 1950? - and start making a true distinction between those organs that are built wholly in a period style, for which the tag of that style is appropriate, and otherwise call them 'modern organs' . What I think we will still lack is a vision for the future, but at least the present will tell its own story.

 

AJS

Link to post
Share on other sites
It definitely had one. Alas the spec has been taken off the Cathedral website so can't check.

 

The present console on the screen is the 1957 one which used to be in the choir, the pre '57 console was placed in the nave and I remember from many visits in my youth that there were a number of discrepancies between the specifications on the 2 consoles. This old console has since been removed, I'm not sure exactly when.

I'd bet that the 'Cornet des Violes' appeared on the nave console.

 

DT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hopefully I am not the only one who thinks this is neither "excellent" nor "exciting" news? A very sad situation as far as I am concerned!

 

And: very creative writing on the account of the cathedral officials (on the Catheral's website):

 

"(But,) over the years, the musicians have managed to make it sound like a silk purse, even if it continues to look like a sow’s ear".

 

So, the only reason the organ ever sounded "like a silk purse" was due to the musicians, and not to the instrument itself. Quite an insult to its designer and builder!

 

And, as far as the "looks" of the instrument are concerned, it is almost invisible from most parts of the building, so how can it "look like a sow's ear"? I wonder if a new case on the screen can improve the east/west view in the cathedral.....

 

Dave Lazoe.

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...