Registration of Bach

[MusingMuso]

"I played it my way at Armley"

(Quote)

 

Aaaargh !

 

Pierre

 

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

 

 

Aaaargh! That's the right choice of word, but I did have an excuse, because the console is rather buried underneath the case, and what sounded like a reasonable balance at the console, was anything but when I listened to the recording. The right hand just seemed to vanish into thin air. Armley is probably the sort of organ where staying on one manual is the best course of action, and I'm sure much the same would apply to Doncaster and even the Brindley & Foster organs of the day.

 

I'm a little wiser these days.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

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

 

 

Anacrusic......that's a good word. I shall have to look it up. I haven't a clue what it means in my ignorance. But for the letter 's', it could be an anabaptist on a Good Friday procession.

 

 

 

MM

 

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

 

 

 

I looked it up Vox, and what a missed opportunity in my life.

 

We had a dotty old Chemistry teacher who started every sentence with, "Well...yes....erm"

 

We should have named him "Aanacrusia" rather than "Stoker." (The latter had a slightly complex derivation; his initials being L.M.S and his surname Stockdale....all to do with steam-trains, I understand).

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

POST DELETED - SEE LATER POST WITH REFERENCES

[Vox Humana]

The "Dorian" Toccata & Fugue has certain indications of manual changes, but this is a more or less isolated example. However, it does prove beyond doubt that Bach approved of the practice of contrasting voices rather than a preference for monochrome registrations throughout.

Sorry, but I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything of the sort. It does prove that Bach was willing to use two different manual choruses in dialogue, but it doesn't prove that he preferred such a treatment to monochrome registrations; it doesn't say anything at all about his attitude to these. Sorry to nit pick, but I think it's important to be clear on this.

[MusingMuso]

Sorry, but I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything of the sort. It does prove that Bach was willing to use two different manual choruses in dialogue, but it doesn't prove that he preferred such a treatment to monochrome registrations; it doesn't say anything at all about his attitude to these. Sorry to nit pick, but I think it's important to be clear on this.

 

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

 

Well the whole thing is conjecture of course, but as Marie Claire-Alain, Michel Chapuis and Jaques van Oortmersen (Sp?) change manuals quite often, that's good enough for me. To be honest, I can never recall a single flat registration used for any of the big Bach works I've heard in Holland, and they tend to take their Bach very seriously over there, backed by some fairly weighty scholarship.

 

The "evidence" is nothing of the sort of course. We could site the Vivaldi transcription and one or two other bits, but the wider point is that Bach evolved and flourished on and around the concerted style, to which he blended French, Italian and German styles; including the "Stilus Phntasticus" of Bohm & Buxtehude. I think it was C P E Bach who stated that his father greatly admired and carefully studied the work of the young Bruhns, and contrasts don't get much more vivid or theatrical in baroque organ-music.

 

We merely have to ask ourselves why?

 

Why did they have secondary and tertiary choruses with couplers?

 

Why couldn't they make do with just a Hauptwerk and a Solo organ?

 

I know Bach may have played a Wurlitzer (violin), but I just feel that this sort of limitation is a limitation of the imagination which applies to no other instrument: not even the harpsichord.

 

MM

 

PS: Of coure the 'Dorian' proves that Bach approved of manual changes......no matter how briefly in his creative, forward path towards the hideous monochromaticism of the St. Matthew Passion.

[Colin Harvey]

... Jaques van Oortmersen (Sp?) change manuals quite often, that's good enough for me. To be honest, I can never recall a single flat registration used for any of the big Bach works I've heard in Holland...

JvO is renowned world wide for sticking to 1 registration through a prelude or a fugue movement and not changing manuals - he is renowned as one of the apostles for this approach in Bach. Listen to any of his Bach series recordings (especially the Wedge Fugue BWV548 and the G Minor Fugue BWV542) and read his notes in the booklets, go to any of his recitals (I most recently heard him play in Oxford in May/June this year).

 

I'm not sure where you've heard Bach played recently in Holland. Last time I was in Holland (for the Schnitger Festival and Competition at Alkmaar in 2009), none of the finalists in the competition changed registration or manuals during the Bach Passacagilia. During none of the other recitals did an organist change manuals or registration during a Bach prelude or fugue movement, or a chorale prelude.

[Vox Humana]

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

 

Well the whole thing is conjecture of course, but as Marie Claire-Alain, Michel Chapuis and Jaques van Oortmersen (Sp?) change manuals quite often, that's good enough for me. To be honest, I can never recall a single flat registration used for any of the big Bach works I've heard in Holland, and they tend to take their Bach very seriously over there, backed by some fairly weighty scholarship.

 

The "evidence" is nothing of the sort of course. We could site the Vivaldi transcription and one or two other bits, but the wider point is that Bach evolved and flourished on and around the concerted style, to which he blended French, Italian and German styles; including the "Stilus Phntasticus" of Bohm & Buxtehude. I think it was C P E Bach who stated that his father greatly admired and carefully studied the work of the young Bruhns, and contrasts don't get much more vivid or theatrical in baroque organ-music.

 

We merely have to ask ourselves why?

 

Why did they have secondary and tertiary choruses with couplers?

 

Why couldn't they make do with just a Hauptwerk and a Solo organ?

 

I know Bach may have played a Wurlitzer (violin), but I just feel that this sort of limitation is a limitation of the imagination which applies to no other instrument: not even the harpsichord.

 

MM

 

PS: Of coure the 'Dorian' proves that Bach approved of manual changes......no matter how briefly in his creative, forward path towards the hideous monochromaticism of the St. Matthew Passion.

I agree with all of that, but, again, it needs to be considered alongside what it was that organists played most - which wasn't preludes and fugues. Indeed, Peter Williams has questioned whether Lutheran organists Bach's time played concluding voluntaries at all (though one would then have to suppose that Buxtehude and Bach gave a lot of recitals and demonstrations). Organists must have spent far more time playing chorale-based works, including variations, for which setting up different sounds on several manuals would have been very useful. Long chorale fantasias such as Bruhns's Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland and Lübeck's Ich ruf zu dir shows how the different manuals might be used for this. How much more might an improviser do with three or four manuals? Also one cannot consider the question simply in relation to the most popularly played composers. What about Tunder's Praeludia for example? Were these all written for a one-manual organ? Where are you going to change manuals in these? Considering what we know of Renaissance music, I also find it hard to see a case for manual changes in the fantasias of Sweelinck (except of course the echo fantasias) and Scheidemann, but I don't think their organs were one-manual either. What about Weckmann? (Genuine question; I don't know his works.)

 

Diverting at a tangent for a moment, who invented the concept of the two-movement prelude and fugue? I don't think I know of any examples earlier than Bach, but I have read that he didn't invent the form. (There's a fantasia by Byrd that's preceded by a short prelude, but I think we can discount that since that form has no line of evolution from Byrd to Bach.)

[Paul Morley]

Diverting at a tangent for a moment, who invented the concept of the two-movement prelude and fugue? I don't think I know of any examples earlier than Bach, but I have read that he didn't invent the form. (There's a fantasia by Byrd that's preceded by a short prelude, but I think we can discount that since that form has no line of evolution from Byrd to Bach.)

 

1) I don't know about the first example, but I would have thought that one could reasonably consider Bruhns' Praeludium in g minor (written in the 1690s) to be a prelude and fugue.

 

2) My chronology/history/scholarship may be way out here, but it occurs to e that JSB abandoned the the writing of sectional praeludiae and began writing two movement works following his appointment to Weimar in 1708.

[MusingMuso]

JvO is renowned world wide for sticking to 1 registration through a prelude or a fugue movement and not changing manuals - he is renowned as one of the apostles for this approach in Bach. Listen to any of his Bach series recordings (especially the Wedge Fugue BWV548 and the G Minor Fugue BWV542) and read his notes in the booklets, go to any of his recitals (I most recently heard him play in Oxford in May/June this year).

 

I'm not sure where you've heard Bach played recently in Holland. Last time I was in Holland (for the Schnitger Festival and Competition at Alkmaar in 2009), none of the finalists in the competition changed registration or manuals during the Bach Passacagilia. During none of the other recitals did an organist change manuals or registration during a Bach prelude or fugue movement, or a chorale prelude.

 

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

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing out my error. I've never heard JvO perform at all, but the name was linked to Alain and Chapuis as adherents to the performance practices contemporary to Bach, on which each claim to base their interpretations.

 

I've heard so many performances of Bach in the Netherlands, I'm not sure that I can remember who did what, except for the organist who played from a Straube edition, and Bass de Vroome who played different ornaments in the opening of the BWV565, which I'd never heard previously played that way by anyone.

 

As we once again enter the world of conjecture, it really doesn't matter how organists play things, (obviously assuming good playing), because that is what interpretation is all about. Equally, the listener may be delighted or irked by what is heard.

 

I think I would defend the more registrationally ambitious path on the grounds that Bach often threw motives across an entire orchestra, when they are first heard played by a soloist in, for example, the Double Violin Concerto. It isn't simply a matter of coming to a halt, moving up the stage a few metres, drinking a beer and starting all over again, as an excuse for changing orchestral "registration."

 

That is surely what the concerted style is all about.......dialogue and musical dovetailing, but of course, it is only truly possible on the right instruments.

 

I think this is why I included the fascinating and kaleidoscopic performace of the BWV565 on the Hinsz organ, which demonstrates what is possible on some of these old instruments.

 

I can't even imagine how awful the Bach Passacaglia would sound played on a pleno registration throughout. What a wasted opportunity to explore the lyrical beauty, whimsical moments and dashing bravura. For me, it would be about as attractive as listening to the Bach Magnificat performed by voice synthesisers and electronic keyboards.

 

Call me a romantic....I don't care.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

1) I don't know about the first example, but I would have thought that one could reasonably consider Bruhns' Praeludium in g minor (written in the 1690s) to be a prelude and fugue.

 

2) My chronology/history/scholarship may be way out here, but it occurs to e that JSB abandoned the the writing of sectional praeludiae and began writing two movement works following his appointment to Weimar in 1708.

 

 

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

 

 

No 2 is very interesting. I've never considered that before. What about the "Great" G Minor Fantasy? It's not a Prelude I know, but it is quite sectional in the way it is written, I have to admit to not being on the ball with Bach's chronology and works.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

1) I don't know about the first example, but I would have thought that one could reasonably consider Bruhns' Praeludium in g minor (written in the 1690s) to be a prelude and fugue.

 

 

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

 

 

 

This from Wikipedia:-

 

 

The development of the prelude in 17th century Germany led to a sectional form similar to keyboard toccatas by Johann Jakob Froberger or Girolamo Frescobaldi. Preludes by northern German composers such as Dieterich Buxtehude (c.1637–1707) and Nikolaus Bruhns (c.1665-1697) combined sections of free improvised passages with parts in strict contrapuntal writing (usually brief fugues). Outside Germany, Abraham van den Kerckhoven (c.1618-c.1701), one of the most important Dutch composers of the period, used this model for some of his preludes. Southern and central German composers did not follow the sectional model and their preludes remained improvisational in character with little or no strict counterpoint.

 

During the second half of the 17th century, German composers started pairing preludes (or sometimes toccatas) with fugues in the same key; Johann Pachelbel (c.1653-1706) was one of the first to do so, although Johann Sebastian Bach's (1685–1750) "prelude and fugue" pieces are much more numerous and well-known today. Bach's organ preludes are quite diverse, drawing on both southern and northern German influences. Most of Bach's preludes were written in the theme and variation form, using the same theme motif with imitation, inversion, modulation, or retrograde the theme as well as other techniques involved in this baroque form.

 

Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer was one of the first German composers to bring the late 17th century French style to German harpsichord music, replacing the standard French ouverture with an unmeasured prelude. Fischer's Ariadne musica is a cycle of keyboard music which consists of pairs of preludes and fugues; the preludes are quite varied and do not conform to any particular model. Ariadne musica served as a precursor to Johann Sebastian Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, two books of 24 "prelude and fugue" pairs each. Bach's preludes were also varied, some akin to Baroque dances, others being two- and three-part contrapuntal works not unlike his inventions and sinfonias. Bach also composed preludes to introduce each of his English Suites.

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

JvO is renowned world wide for sticking to 1 registration through a prelude or a fugue movement and not changing manuals - he is renowned as one of the apostles for this approach in Bach.

 

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

 

 

 

Mmmmmmmmm.

 

 

 

 

MM

[Vox Humana]

1) I don't know about the first example, but I would have thought that one could reasonably consider Bruhns' Praeludium in g minor (written in the 1690s) to be a prelude and fugue.

Thanks. I suppose other contenders might be Lübeck's Praeludia in F major and C minor, although the terminus ante quem for these is later.

 

2) My chronology/history/scholarship may be way out here, but it occurs to e that JSB abandoned the the writing of sectional praeludiae and began writing two movement works following his appointment to Weimar in 1708.

That's an interesting observation. I don't know either, but it would make sense. As I understand it, it was at this time that Bach was toying with a three-movement form (with a trio movement separating the prelude and the fugue - or, in the case of BWV 564, an adagio) and the catalyst for this form must have been the Italian concertos that the prince brought back to his court from his travels. The question is, did Bach have an earlier interest in such concertos?

[MusingMuso]

As I understand it, it was at this time that Bach was toying with a three-movement form (with a trio movement separating the prelude and the fugue - or, in the case of BWV 564, an adagio) and the catalyst for this form must have been the Italian concertos that the prince brought back to his court from his travels. The question is, did Bach have an earlier interest in such concertos?

 

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

 

 

 

Ah! What a fascinating question, and one which I haven't tried to answer for over 30 years.

 

I'm not sure I can answer it now, but at least I know the source, which came from Prof.Turner of Newcastle University, possibly back around 1980 or so.

 

The details held in my grey matter are a bit hazy, but I seem to recall that Turner argued that Bach, having gone to Lubeck and the Hanseatic region, not only played violin at two major performances of Buxtehude's works, he would probably have been surrounded by imported Italian musicians, who were then very fashionable in the court orchestras.

 

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but wasn't it Mattheson who complained bitterly about German musicians being unable to find work because of all the Italians in town?

 

This is where it gets even hazier for me, but I seem to recall that Turner mentioned an important Court, where these Italians performed, and somewhere along the line, a large store of Italian music at, I believe, Kiel University, (one of the oldest).

 

I can tell you no more, except to say that Prof Turner believed that Bach, at a young age, probably first came into contact with Italian music scores in the Hanseatic region, and not later on as is normally believed.

 

MM

[Pierre Lauwers]

Even with a dutch organ, even in the Kunst der Fuge, one can

register in a way that refer to the rich colors of the organs Bach knew:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2swVtqsXjo

 

Pierre

[MusingMuso]

BACH REGISTRATION (WITH REFERENCES/SOURCES)

 

 

On the subject of Bach registration, its quite difficult to know where to start, but perhaps we may consider the musical language of the day for our starting point.

 

I am personally very puzzled by the belief that there shouldnt be changes of registration in the bigger, more monumental works of Bach; the belief being that the texture of the writing changes at certain points, thus making changes of registration unnecessary.

 

I find this bizarre, because it tends to suggest that all of Bachs bigger works, save for the Toccata, Adagio & Fugue in C major, could be played on a large one-manual and pedal instrument. Something tells me that this is wrong, and hardly consistent with the wider style of baroque music.

 

I am firmly of the opinion that good performances start and end with a proper understanding of the musical language of the day, which for Bach and his contemporaries meant the concerted style. I personally find it inconceivable that what Bach did in the Brandenburgs or his Orchestral Suites, he would have ignored for the organ works; given that the organs were designed in such a way as to permit just as much colour and dynamic contrast as any orchestra. In baroque music, contrapuntal dialogue is the name of the game, and involves musical rapport between different instruments or groupings of instruments. Why should the organ be singled out for monochrome polyphony?

 

Bach went to Lubeck for a reason, and stayed there for some time; no doubt intrigued by the music he heard and the prevalent Stilus Fantasticus of Buxtehude, heard at the Abendmusic concerts.

 

According to C P E Bach,(writing to Forkel, Bachs biographer), his father greatly admired and studied the works of Nikolaus Bruhns; perhaps the most fantastic of the Stilus Fantasticus exponents, and a pupil of Buxtehude. Perhaps it was this early experience which freed his creative spirit from the constraints of the day, and allowed his musical imagination to soar into the stratosphere. As the various choral Passions demonstrate, Bach was not afraid of the dramatic and startling, and knew how to create an effect.

 

How does this translate into performing the great organ-works?

 

Unfortunately, Bach gave few clues. The Dorian Toccata & Fugue has certain indications of manual changes, but this is a more or less isolated example. However, it does prove beyond doubt that Bach approved of the practice of contrasting voices rather than a preference for monochrome registrations throughout.

 

It is important to understand that German musicians, although often moving across international borders, (especially the very fashionable Italian string players in the German court orchestras), were also working in a country which, at the time, consisted of numerous distinct regions, and what happened in one place did not necessarily happen in another. So perhaps we have to exercise caution in applying modern thinking to historic concerns. There was probably no just one way of doing this or that thing, but a variety of ways, and it is certainly known that Bach did unconventional things.

 

However, all this does not help very much; especially if we are trying to play Bachs organ music on an instrument far removed from those of Bachs native Thuringia. As Pierre Lauwers regularly informs us, the Thuringian organs did not conform to our established view of Werkprinzip and perfectly balanced choruses, yet each of the manuals and the pedal organ would have sufficient independence and strength of tone to make the contrasting sounds of the concerted style possible.

 

Although a modern Van Vulpen organ in Rotterdam is hardly a Thuringian instrument, the following gives an excellent idea of how contrasting timbres rather than contrasting volume-dynamics work in practice. Here is a well judged, very musical,(but not flawless) performance of the Bach A-minor from the late and very great Jiri Ropek of the Czech Republic:-

 

http://orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav=mqajsCsHtGAkBbCYaM

 

 

The difficulty of achieving this on the majority of British organs is well known; especially when the full flues of the Great organ are drawn as a pleno sound. Avoiding a sudden contrast of dynamic as well as timbre, is often virtually impossible; especially with romantic organs, where the only dynamic balance is achieved with the full Swell drawn, and where the Choir organ is just a collection of smaller sounds.

 

With more modern instruments incorporating either a Positive organ or a much modified, (usually enclosed), Choir organ, a better dynamic balance can often be achieved; especially where the dominant Principal (Diapason) rank is at 4ft or 2ft.

If an organ is based on Werkprinzip style, or even simply a tonally balanced style, then a better musical result can usually be obtained; dependent of course on the skill of the organ-builder.

 

The Pleno chorus usually consists of Diapasons at 8,4,2.2/3 and 2, plus an appropriate Mixture stop, but normally without the reeds being drawn.

 

A suitable contrast of timbre may be achieved with 8ft Flute, 4ft Flute and a 2ft Principal on a Positive or boldly voiced Swell, but it is probably a mistake to have just 8ft and 2ft, or any other combination which includes tonal gaps in the chorus: that being a fashion of the 1960s, and not one based on any known historical practice.

As for the Pedal organ, this presents a real problem on many British organs, due to the fact that they are often heavy in tone and indistinct; while the reeds tend to be far too lacking in fundamental or far too powerful to be used alone. Unless one is lucky enough to play an instrument with a full chorus of pedal Diapasons from 16ft to 2ft, coupling to either the Great or the Swell organ is often necessary; any large-scale, booming Open Wood basses best avoided. With some instruments, the Swell reeds often supply contrapuntal clarity when coupled down to the pedals, but they do not compare favourably with the more fundamental reeds of the Thuringian organs known to Bach.

 

The Following beautifully played clips are from America; the first from the lovely Flentrop at the Busch Reisinger Museum, Harvard, and the second an equally lovely Noack organ in Houston. (Noack is an example of a rare virtuoso performer/organ builder).

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ap9tgeaak...feature=related

 

The Noack organ at Houston is especially significant, because it the first attempt in America to produce a Bach Organ rather than a copy Schnitger, such as those made by John Bromburgh. In fact, the Houston organ is based on the work of Hilderbradnt, who had studied his craft with Silbermann before working first as an associate of Silbermann and then as a separate builder.

 

The organ seems to sound so right for Bach, and that must surely be the ultimate accolade.

 

Further details of the organ, including the full specification, may be found in the following link:-

 

http://www.gothic-catalog.com/Houston_TX_C...organ_s/815.htm

 

The significance of Hilderbrandt is the fact that both Silbermann and J S Bach inspected and approved the organ made by him at Naumberg. Thus, the instrument at Houston is a sincere attempt at the replication of the Saxon style of instrument typical of Hilderbrandt, with warmer tones and the provision of mild string tone, as well as a multiplicity of mutations and reeds capable of yielding many interesting sounds and combinations of sounds.

 

A FURTHER significance of Hilderbrandt and the organ builder Trost, is the fact that their organs demonstrate a move away from an older style, in which there was a strict separation between the use of narrower flues and wider flues (Diapasons/Principal, and Flute stops); a concept which went back to the organs of the Renaissance and which still prevailed throughout the 17th century. (The organs of Arp Schnitger, (1648-1719), belong to a pre-Bach musical philosophy, and in any event, would have been quite different to the organs Bach knew and played in his home area. When Bach was 20, Arp Schnitger only had 24 years left to live). The organs of these two organ-builders also didnt need to conform to the Werkprinzip layout, though there was a certain balance between the divisions, including the pedal organs.

 

The criticisms levelled at Bach; that he used strange registrations, might well suggest that Bach was very modern; being happy to break the old rules. From a registrational point of view, this opens up all sorts of possibilities, so long as the end result sounds both musical and appropriate to the music.

 

The problem we all share, is that there is not a single authentic Bach registration indication available to us; only sources which tell us what the normal practice of the day might have been. The closest of these to Bach, is Georg Friedrich Kaufmann's Harmonische Seelenlust (Baerenreiter, ed. Pidoux) . Some of the registrations are interesting, and include the following:-

 

Christ...zum Jordan kam:

Hinterwerk: Flaute travers 4' (RH playing an octave lower than written)

Hauptwerk: Viol di Gamba 16', Viol di Gamba 8' (As the bass played in the LH)

Pedal: Octava 8' (Presumably as the Cantus Firmus....I havent seen the music)

Tremulant

 

Vater unser:

Hauptwerk: Lieblich Principal 8', Spitzflo"te 8' (RH)

Hinterwerk: Principal 4', Flaute travers 4' (LH)

Pedal: Subbass 16', Octava 8'

Tremulant

 

For Trio forms, Kaufmann suggests the following more than once:-

Hauptwerk: Principal 8 (RH)

Oberwerk: Principal 4 (LH: played an octave lower)

Pedal: Subbass 16, 8 Octave

 

The trio indication is interesting, for it produces two 8ft voices of similar character, and also makes the job easier, by keeping the left hand straight ahead on the keyboard. This use of similar voices is, of course, the very essence of string Trio writing, and tends to rubbish the idea that trios should be played any differently.

 

Of course, the big question is whether Bach himself would have played his own Trio Sonatas similarly, and of course, we can never know what he might have done.

Now back to the Pleno, and certain practices which appear to have been commonplace, both before Bach and during his own lifetime.

 

An organ tour to the Netherlands, where the tradition of Schnitger continued well into the 19th century, (Hinsz, Freytag and even Batz organ-builders), reveals a continuation of an older style, where many organs did not have a separate Pedal Organ, but merely pull downs. Where an instrument of this type is quite substantial, the Hoofdwerk (Hauptwerk) will usually have a 16ft register; meaning that anything played at 16ft on the pedals automatically requires the 16ft to be heard also on the Hoofdwerk. This was apparently common practice in the North German style of Buxtehude and the era of Stilus Fantasticus, where a 16ft Pedal register would not be drawn until the same pitch was drawn on the manuals. Vice versa, the 16ft would be silenced when the pedals were used against 8ft and above on the manuals.

There is apparently the belief, (Harald Vogel), that Bach may have been the first, (or at least one of the first), to regard the Pedal Organ as a distinct 16ft division, rather than merely a suitable bass to whatever is drawn on the manuals. (Presumably the same difference as that found between a Consort of Viols and a full Classical Orchestra).

With the development of the Pedal Organ as a separate entity, composers made full use of the resource; often writing spectacular pedal solos or using the pedals to play complex contrapuntal lines.

 

However, in a way, the old practice lingered on, because it is said, (I do not know the sources), that Bach and his contemporaries liked to use 16ft registers on the manuals, and both the Hilderbrandt and Trost organs have these manual pitches. Furthermore, some of the Mixtures of the Thuringian instruments included pitches (in the treble) more normally associated with the 16ft fundamental rather than the 8ft; suggesting that the 16ft pitch on the manuals was very much a part of the full flue Pleno sound. However. The American organ-builder and Schnitger expert John Brombaugh, holds the view that 16ft Principals are possibly a little too pompous for the contrapuntal music of Bach, and that this explains the presence of 16ft Quintadenas in many instruments. He believes that Bachs music is conceived at 8ft pitch, and heavier toned 16ft registers upset that.

 

Of course, the Pedal 16ft registers would be of larger scale, often with wood basses, to underpin all this. That certainly seems to be the case, judging by the various sound-clips posted of the Trost and Hilderbrandt organs known to Bach.

We should also be aware of the fact that there were other Pleno combinations in general use, such as the Vocal Pleno comprising 8, 4, 2.2/3 and 2ft pitches, suitable for pieces written in the style of vocal polyphony, where clarity of line matters more than an effect of great harmonic richness.

 

Thirdly, there was the Reed Plenum using perhaps 16ft and 8ft manual Trumpets, (usually with a rather dark sonority without any trace of French fire). With these reeds could be drawn the Principals at 4, 2.2/3 and 2ft pitches, as well as any available Terz ranks contained in the quite common Sesquialteras. (The organ-builder Trost used Terzes in all the Mixtures at Altenburg).

 

To underpin the Reed Plenum the pedal reeds at 16 and 8 ft would be drawn where available, but not the foundation flues; the reeds often being of wood construction and of a very fundamental nature. It is quite possible that the advice of the 18th century organ-builder Dom Bedos, to use ONLY the reeds or ONLY the flues, (but never together), may only have applied to the 16 and 8ft pitches rather than the higher flue pitches or the manual to pedal coupler where available. There is little doubt but that the use of foundational flues WITH reeds would have sounded far too bass heavy and dominant.

 

I have no idea what organ this is, but Ton Koopman demonstrates the typical Reed Pleno sound admirably in the following:-

 

 

The following is an astonishing sound from a two-manual organ, and not quite what one expects from an organ of this size. Of great interest is the use of both the manual and pedal reeds even at the start of the Fugue, as well as the stately pace. One of Bachs relatives, Johann Lorenz Bach,was organist here at the Monastery Church, Grauhof, playing the superlative instrument built by Christop Treutmann.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb4l0cQtyLA

 

As in all things, it shouldnt be a case of dogmatic belief in some supposedly correct formula, but rather a case of using the ear critically and musically, just as Bach would have done, if only because no two organs or buildings are ever quite the same.

 

When it comes to solo registrations for Chorale Preludes and such, many of the old instruments have simply exquisite sounds; ranging from Cornet and Sesquialtera combinations to Flute and reed combinations. To give some idea, here are a few examples:-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPqCh21GbNI...feature=channel

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovFjxHj7PxE

 

The Sei gegruesset, Jesu guetig" BWV 768 are a wonderful set of variations for demonstrating many of the typical styles of Bach writing in the various chorale forms, and the same Treutmann organ is a perfect vehicle.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4tQXEUgGho

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLI7T5KLO0g

 

O Mensch Bewein Dein Sunde Gross, BWV 622 Haarlem, St.Bavo

 

 

 

When it comes to exciting playing and performance practice, the following takes some beating, but it is included to demonstrate the wonderful sound of the Hinsz organ at Kampen in the Netherlands:

 

Wild D Minor Fugue BWV565

 

Ton Koopman ''Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland'' BWV 659

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRbDLCHZ2fw

Marie Claire-Alain at the Martinikerk, Groningen (Schnitger)

Clavier-Übung III - Chorale Preludes BWV 682-683

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8zn6_Fd0wM...feature=related An Wasserflüssen Babylon BWV 653 Marie Clair-Alain at the Martinikerk, Groningen (Schnitger)

 

As time permits, I will improve and amend what has been written, but in parenthesis, perhaps we should be aware of a specific detail concerning the organs of Bachs era, which has a drastic and far-reaching consequence for any attempt at historically informed performances. The most critical things was the wind-supply, powered by human-beings; long before water-engines and electric blowers. Organs would often have a single wedge-shaped bellows; effectively limiting the amount of reserve, steady wind available. Although improvements were made during Bachs life, it would still be fair to say that raising the wind was never easy, and it was a precious and scarce resource.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Fom3BEZkI...feature=related

 

It means that registrations had to be selective and economical in effect, rather than symphonic in the widest sense of the word. Pulling out ALL the 8ft stops together, even if they blended, was not really an option, and this is why Dom Bedos the organ-builder recommended the use of the one or the other scenario for the pedal 16ft stops.....reeds and flues.

 

REFERENCES FOR FURTHER READING

 

 

SYNTAGMA MUSICUM II ORANOGRAPHIA (1619) MICHAEL PRAETORIUS (1571-1621)

 

TABLUTAR NOVA (1624) SAMUEL SCHEIDT (1587-1654)

 

THE PELPIN TABULATURE (c.1630)

 

THE LUNEBURG TABLATURE KN209

 

ORGANISTENCHRONIK JOHANN KORTKAMP (c.1615-1664/5)

 

ERWEITERT UND VERBESSERT ORGEL-PROBE (1681) ANDREAS WERKMEISTER (1645-1706)

 

THE PLAUNER ORGELBUCH (1708/10) J G WALTHER (1684-1748)

 

REGISTRATION FOR THE ORGAN OF WALTERHAUSEN,

ALTENBURG AND EISENBERG (c.1722) GOTTFRIED TROST (1681-1759)

 

REGISTRATIONS FOR THE BERLINER

GARISONKIRCHE(1726) JOHANN F. WALTER

 

HARMONISCHE SEELENLUST (1733) G. F. KAUFMANN (1679-1735)

 

DER VOLLKOMMENE CAPELLMEISTER (1739) JOHANN MATTHESON (1681-1764)

 

REGISTRATIONS FOR THE ORGANS IN

GROSSHART-MANNSDORF AND FRAIREUTH (1741/2) GOTTFRIED SILBERMANN (1683-1753)

 

HISTORICH-KRITISCHE BEYTRAGE ZUR

AUFNAME DE MUSIK (1758) JOHANN F. AGRICOLA

 

MUSICA MECHANICA ORGANOEDI (1768) JACOB ADLUNG (1699-1762)

 

CHORALVERIATIONEN (1740) DANIEL MAGNUS GRONAU (d.1747)

 

 

 

MM