Jump to content
Mander Organs
Vox Humana

Organ Cds/lps/tapes

Recommended Posts

I was wondering whether MM had heard Roger Fisher's recent recording of the Reubke again at Chester on Amphion recorded only a couple of years ago? I'd had the CD for a while without actually listening to it until a couple of weeks ago when I put the Reubke on. This is real no holds barred playing, quite exhilirating and nothing like so many other performances which tend to be over refined and considered. Roger Fisher just puts his foot down and goes hell for leather, particularly in the fugue at the end. My only disappointment was when he slams on the brakes for the last few chords instead of hurtling into the abyss at full steam.

 

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

 

No, I haven't heard this, but what I can tell you that around the time that Mr Fisher recorded the original Reubke release, the Chester IAO Congress was held, and the work was performed live in recital.

 

I cannot recall a single other performance which even came close to what we all heard that day. It was absolutely hair-raising, and it was the sort of performance where you didn't leave on a cloud. Instead, I think everyone caught a glimpse of the terror in the medieval mind, when clerics talked of eternal fire and brimstone.

We almost skulked out of the cathedral afterwards.

 

Even the original recording has something of that same power of persuasion, but nothing can quite match a live performance such as that described.

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, romantic organs demands

to be registred with great care.

They were not designed to sound "cloggy"!

There is a whole knowledge there that is nearly lost.

 

Now if we deal with Tromba, Tuba, leathered Diapasons

in an H&H organ, this is certainly even more true...

 

-What do we know about Arthur Harrison's registration ideas?

 

-What do we know about Howells ways of registration?

  Of his teaching in that matter?

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

 

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

 

 

I don't think many of us have "lost" anything when it comes to registration.

 

I'm not sure that an Arthur Harrison No.1 Open Diapason actually blends with anything, but then perhaps it was never intended to do. Maybe it was just designed as a big sonic-push for congregational singing.

 

The "Harmonics" mixture, with the tierce and septieme included, was really a binder and a bridge between the very powerful diapasons and the close-toned reeds, and whilst it works to some extent, I know of few organists who actually like the Trombas as chorus reeds. The Full Swell effect is always magnificent, and not far removed from Willis, save for the quint mixtures.

 

The odd thing about English organ-building of the period, is that the best sounds didn't necessarily come from the biggest names, and devoid of the unblending Diapasons of Arthur Harrison and the over dominant reeds of Willis (especially Willis 3 around the same period), the organs of Hill, Norman & Beard probably had more tonal integrity as whole instruments. At least, nothing stood our like a sore thumb!

 

For my money, one of the finest creations in English organ-building had to be the Taylor of Leicester organ at the De Monferte Hall, Leicester. It's a pity that we would have to travel to Australia to hear the best romantic British organ of them all, at the town-hall, Sydney.

 

To understand the philsophy of Arthur Harrison, it is first necessary to understand the flawed perspectives of Lt.Col.George-Dixon, and I seem to recall that this is to be found on the Julian Rhodes organ-site, but I stand to be corrected without checking for myself.

 

Sorry, but I can't help with the Howells question. I don't play Howells or even listen to any of it.

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
================

For my money, one of the finest creations in English organ-building had to be the Taylor of Leicester organ at the De Monferte Hall, Leicester. It's a pity that we would have to travel to Australia to hear the best romantic British organ of them all, at the town-hall, Sydney.

I've not heard the De Montfort Hall organ but have heard lots of good things said about it. I'm going to try and get up to Leicester in March when Prof Ian Tracey is performing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't think many of us have "lost" anything when it comes to registration."

 

(Quote)

 

Really?

Should we take that for granted?

 

As for Sidney, I agree. It is probable this is the best

british romantic organ we still have.

I'd love to hear it live -well in my second next life maybe!-

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering whether MM had heard Roger Fisher's recent recording of the Reubke again at Chester on Amphion recorded only a couple of years ago? I'd had the CD for a while without actually listening to it until a couple of weeks ago when I put the Reubke on. This is real no holds barred playing, quite exhilirating and nothing like so many other performances which tend to be over refined and considered. Roger Fisher just puts his foot down and goes hell for leather, particularly in the fugue at the end. My only disappointment was when he slams on the brakes for the last few chords instead of hurtling into the abyss at full steam.

 

The last point is fascinating since a review of the original recording (EMI for Vol 19, the final volume, in the Great Cathedral Organ Series and now re-released on Amphion so you can get both and compare if rich enough) by a lady called Isla Tait made exactly the same criticism. It would suggest that RF has maintained a remarkably consistent approach to at least some aspects of his interpretation of this work.

 

Elsewhere somebody raised the issue of favourite interpretations of celebrated works. I'm not sure I have a favourite interpretation of the Reubke, but amongst the several I do have is one by GTB on the organ of All Souls' , Langham Place (Vista). I wonder if anyone else here has an opinion on that one.

 

Brian Childs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I have a favourite interpretation of the Reubke, but amongst the several I do have is one by GTB on the organ of All Souls' , Langham Place (Vista). I wonder if anyone else here has an opinion on that one.

 

Brian Childs

 

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

 

I think I have that recording, but the organ is just so "wrong" for the music and the acoustic non-existent.

 

However, I heard it said on good authority, that GTB used to make a mistake in the playing of the Reubke, to which he stayed faithful/convinced for decades.

 

Apparently, no-one had the nerve or the heart to point it out to him!!

 

Was there truth in this?

 

I hope someone knows, or else I'm going to have to dig out the old LP and listen to it with the score....24 minutes of it!

 

Changing tac slightly, I once performed the Reubke under very difficult circumstances. I practised hard...very hard in fact...and promptly destroyed the electronic at home in the process. I got the thing working again three days before the recital and tried to make up for lost time.

 

The performance was a bit peculiar, for whilst 22 minutes of it went well, the last 2 minutes were a bit of a blur; working on the assumption that enough stops and enough speed would cover a multitude of sins!!

 

Perhaps we should open a new thread, or even a category, entitled "In the confessional."

 

MM

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not heard the De Montfort Hall organ but have heard lots of good things said about it. I'm going to try and get up to Leicester in March when Prof Ian Tracey is performing.

 

 

Meanwhile you could beg or borrow a copy of Organ X-plosion Volume 1 in which Kevin Bowyer puts it through its paces, not least with the celebrated Toccata La Vallee verte, sur le theme "Pat le Facteur". Perhaps another possible wedding postlude ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile you could beg or borrow a copy of Organ X-plosion Volume 1 in which Kevin Bowyer puts it through its paces, not least with the celebrated Toccata La Vallee verte, sur le theme "Pat le Facteur". Perhaps another possible wedding postlude ?
Certainly worth considering when the bride resembles a billowing spinnaker. Bit of a naff piece, though, isn't it? Fun though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, romantic organs demands

to be registred with great care.

They were not designed to sound "cloggy"!

There is a whole knowledge there that is nearly lost.

 

Now if we deal with Tromba, Tuba, leathered Diapasons

in an H&H organ, this is certainly even more true...

 

-What do we know about Arthur Harrison's registration ideas?

 

 

 

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

 

The article about the philosophy of Lt Col George-Dixon and his collboration with Arthur Harrison is indeed related to the late Julian Rhodes, but not on the Julian Rhodes "pipedreams" URL.

 

The link is as follows:-

 

http://www.ondamar.demon.co.uk/schemes/dixon/ton-str1.htm

 

It makes fascinating reading, and goes some way to explaining the Schulze-inspired excesses of the typical Arthur Harrison Great Choruses, as well as many of the theories and prejudices which Dixon expressed. Julian Rhodes made quite a number of observations and corrections, which are inserted into the Dixon original, and as always, he was spot-on.

 

I have always found the Harrison/Dixon collaboration interesting because, as a mere teenager, I used to play one of the two Harrison organs which Dixon and Arthur Harrison visited when they were discussing Dixon's tonal-ideas. That organ sadly no longer exists, but the other one does, at Thornton Parish Church, Bradford, West Yorkshire. That organ, and the one I played, were completely different musical instruments to what Harrison built a few years later.

 

This has nothing to do with CD's and organ-recordings of course, and for this, I profusely apologise.

 

:)

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
=================

 

I think I have that recording, but the organ is just so "wrong" for the music and the acoustic non-existent.

 

However, I heard it said on good authority, that GTB used to make a mistake in the playing of the Reubke, to which he stayed faithful/convinced for decades.

 

Apparently, no-one had the nerve or the heart to point it out to him!!

 

Was there truth in this?

 

I hope someone knows, or else I'm going to have to dig out the old LP and listen to it with the score....24 minutes of it!

 

MM

 

 

I have never heard this said before and certainly I have no recollection of any review making any such a point, although I do recall exception being taken to over use of the swell pedal. To the best of my recollection Rennert's biography of GTB does not mention it but he would n't, would he ?

 

If you do not like All Souls' then presumably Arnold Richardson at the RFH is a non starter. What about Dearnley at St Paul's , John Scott at Southwark Cathedral , Jennifer Bate at the RAH or Simon Preston at the Abbey (either version)?

 

Brian Childs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Julian Rhodes made quite a number of observations and corrections, which are inserted into the Dixon original, and as always, he was spot-on."

 

(Quote)

These "corrections" are the problem!

When I write about something from the past, I avoid

to judge it by my own, different standards...

 

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Julian Rhodes made quite a number of observations and corrections, which are inserted into the Dixon original, and as always, he was spot-on."

 

(Quote)

These "corrections" are the problem!

When I write about something from the past, I avoid

to judge it by my own, different standards...

 

Pierre

 

I suspect that we're talking about two different things here - value judgments on the one hand; and corrections of errors of fact on the other.

 

The late Julian Rhodes pointed out a number of errors of fact in George Dixon's earlier comments, and attributed these in quite a number of cases to Dixon's aversion for the Hill firm and consequent unwillingness to accord Hill credit for any developments etc. The attribution is clearly a value judgement (although I rather suspect that it is correct).

 

On the other hand, while I have not deliberately sought to check out JR's comments in respect of all of the errors he pointed out, at least in respect of those where I have come across "independent testimony", his comments as to Dixon's errors have certainly been borne out. I suspect it is this aspect to which MusingMuso was referring. Any comments MM?

 

Rgds,

MJF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that we're talking about two different things here - value judgments on the one hand; and corrections of errors of fact on the other.

 

The late Julian Rhodes pointed out a number of errors of fact in George Dixon's earlier comments, and attributed these in quite a number of cases to Dixon's aversion for the Hill firm and consequent unwillingness to accord Hill credit for any developments etc.  The attribution is clearly a value judgement (although I rather suspect that it is correct).

 

On the other hand, while I have not deliberately sought to check out JR's comments in respect of all of the errors he pointed out, at least in respect of those where I have come across "independent testimony", his comments as to Dixon's errors have certainly been borne out.  I suspect it is this aspect to which MusingMuso was referring.  Any comments MM?

 

Rgds,

MJF

 

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

 

 

The thing that most strikes me most about Lt Col George-Dixon is perhaps the realisation that he hadn't a clue what he was talking about!

 

In almost every phrase, he made ridiculous statements about this or that, and yet NEVER (so far as I am aware) actually got down to the details which made this or that style important, splendid or, to his way of thinking, disageeable.

 

He knew nothing about Walcker of Ludwigsburg, he didn't understand the fact that Schulze was really a close descendent of Silbermann, he totally misrepresented "continental" organs but then made a special point of admiring Cavaille-Coll who built upon the Cliquot tradition. His admiration for Willis knew no bounds, and yet, of all leading Victorian organ-builders, Willis produced the least satisfactory chorus-work based on high-pressure and small-scales.

 

His sole "contribution" was in the idea that,by some means or other, it was desirable (and fashionable) to combine the power of a Schulze chorus with the rather splendid heavy-pressure reed tones of Willis, and this is exactly what happened with the organs of Arthur Harrison, but in quite an artless manner.

 

It should be noted that the "Grove" organ at Tewskbury had already achieved that, and probably sounds better than any Arthur Harrison organ ever made.

 

Dixon attributed super-natural qualities to the (in)famous Armley 5 rks Great Mixture, but in actual fact, the effect is merely because it is right at the front of the organ and introduces the 5.1/3 quint to what is, in effect, just another 8. 4. 2.2/3 and 2ft chorus; a couple of notes or so smaller than the main straight-line chorus.

 

I would place Dixon in the same category as Audsley; except that the latter could draw beautifully.

 

Quite how anyone could claim to wish to combine Schulze with Fr.Willis, and then use the techniques of Hope-Jones, is quite beyond my comprehension, but that is what the Dixon/Harrison collaboration achieved in effect.

 

That said, there IS something about the work of Arthur Harrison which is extremely impressive, but I suspect it had more to do with Arthur Harrison than ever it had to do with Dixon, who probably wouldn't have understood the voicing of a Hohl Flute or even part of a flute!!

 

I feel sure that Dixon's knowledge of the ranks was largely restricted to military-life.

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear MM,

 

Of course dislikings are permitted, And I myself do

have mines too.

And Indeed Dixon had his limits,a lacking knowledge

-like us all in so vast a matter-.

 

Just a question for the sake of it:

 

-What do you think one could think of your opinion

in twenty years?

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear MM,

 

Of course dislikings are permitted, And I myself do

have mines too.

And Indeed Dixon had his limits,a lacking knowledge

-like us all in so vast a matter-.

 

Just a question for the sake of it:

 

-What do you think one could think of your opinion

  in twenty years?

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

 

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

 

I don't have an opinion. I have restricted myself to the evidence about the man Dixon who, perhaps typical of his generation and background, dabbled in things which he clearly didn't understand.

 

It's interesting that Dixon found a ready listener in Arthur Harrison. I don't think he would have been quite so warmly received by any member of the Willis family!

 

In fact, I would put Lt.Col.George-Dixon in the same mould as Robert Hope-Jones, who liked to experiment with bits of wire, batteries and over-scaled organ-pipes. Like Dixon, Robert Hope-Jone would have been nothing without a real organ-builder to shape his ideas.... Wurlitzer.

 

Throw them together, and what do you get?

 

Worcester of course!!

 

As for my "informed stance," I expect it would be respected in 20 year's time, just as true organ-tone has been respected for centuries, but I don't expect to be remembered for it. To be remembered, one has to do something really, really good, or something really, really bad; the majority of us being mere slaves to convention.

 

 

:unsure:

:ph34r:

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the majority of us being mere slaves to convention."

 

(Quote)

 

This is quite correct!

 

As for W...., I must confess while having some recordings and having

known a reasonable number of organs "in situ", this one is still among

my five preffered.

So you may file me with Dixon & Co on the erring side, no problem. :unsure:

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether one loves him or hates him, I think one is bound to admit Dixon's prominent place in the tonal design debate in the late 19th century / early 20th century. The Dixon / H&H collaboration at St Nicholas, Whitehaven was a very important instrument indeed, and I wouldn't mind betting that many of us would love to have heard or played it, had it survived - if only because of its historical significance. Certainly, I would.

 

In his book The History of the English Organ, Stephen Bicknell traces H&H's rise to the first rank of organ builders to the Whitehaven organ, and thus to their collaboration with Dixon. I think SB is quite right in this, and on this score, at least, we owe Dixon quite a debt of gratitude.

 

Rgds,

MJF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his book The History of the English Organ, Stephen Bicknell traces H&H's rise to the first rank of organ builders to the Whitehaven organ, and thus to their collaboration with Dixon.  I think SB is quite right in this, and on this score, at least, we owe Dixon quite a debt of gratitude.

 

 

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

 

I'm sure Mr Bicknell is absolutely correct, but whether he would suggest that we should therefore be grateful to Dixon, I am not quite so sure.

 

I would never question the quality or integrity of Arthur Harrison, and as accompaniment instruments, his organs were tailor-made for the job. I don't think there is any question concerning that.

 

However, better-sounding organs had been built by others; notably Thomas Hill and T C Lewis.

 

In the final analysis, it was the pursuit of outright power and orchestral-smothness, by the most eminent organists, which took the organ and its' music down a peculiarly insular and sometimes negative-path.

 

I can bear to listen to or play a good H & H of the period, but my words, when the ethos moved down the organ-building food-chain, the results were often a disaster of epic proportions, from which we are still recovering.

 

It's interesting to consider perhaps just three organs by way of comparison.

 

1) Would anyone question the integrity and superb musical qualities of the organ at Southwark Cathedral?

 

2) Even to contemporary ears, isn't the organ of Beverley Minster really quite magnificent?

 

3) How does All Saint's, Margaret Street, London compare?

 

I know which two I could live with, but don't take my word for it. Try the following link to Richard McVeigh's web-site and listen to the Reger T & F in D minor played at Beverley Minster:-

 

http://www.richardmcveigh.co.uk/DownloadsSounds2.htm

 

Rather good organ-playing too!!

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting debate!

 

I do not believe there were "good" and "bad" periods; this belief

is a human one, it is as if we'd need to think "Daddy was wrong"

in order to be able to create something by ourselves.

 

-Dixon made mistakes.

 

-BUT.....Lawrence Phelps did as well

 

-AND....We would make exactly as many mistakes, no more, no less.

 

Let's say I am given a chance to design a cathedral organ.

I would of course, among other borrowings, ask for a Tuba of the A. H kind.

How would it be made?

After what Pierre believes to be a 1910 H&H Tuba.....And this will unavoidably

be partly correct, partly false.

 

So maybe we lose our time fetching for errors in the work of past designers, scholars etc.

They all did mistakes.

The true question is elsewhere: to see the jobs as an artistic creation.

It is not interesting to see if Dixon's aim to reproduce a huge flue tone with reed

stops voiced after R. H-J manner was successfull or not; what is interesting is to hear the organs for themselves.

And this, not in order to determine if it will fit ou own ideas of "what a correct organ is" (polyphonic textures and other 20th century ideas), but if it will touch our soul.

Period.

That way, try to have any child 10 years old hearing W....; I guess no one will

dislike it.

 

We are just dust!

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting debate!

 

I do not believe there were "good" and "bad" periods; this belief

is a human one, it is as if we'd need to think "Daddy was wrong"

in order to be able to create something by ourselves.

 

-Dixon made mistakes.

 

-BUT.....Lawrence Phelps did as well

 

(snip)

 

We are just dust!

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

 

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

 

 

I don't quite know how we managed to divert so far from CD's and recordings to this, but that's a common-room for you! This reply will possibly qualify as the longest in the history of the Mander Organs discussion-board.

 

However, last things first Pierre....I am not dust....quite....yet!

 

Of course Pierre is right in suggesting that we should hear organs for what they are, rather than to complain when they don't sound exactly as we would prefer or theorise about. That, of course, is the almost impossible divide between "thinking," "seeing" and "hearing."

 

I am VERY familiar with the work of Arthur Harrison, and lived with quite a large example of his work for some time, and it is when one considers the whole, that the "mistakes" in the overall conception amount to not a great deal. What always impresses me about almost ANY Arthur Harrison organ, is the way in which he managed, very successfully, to create a fine sound overall, in spite of the obstacles to marrying "hard" diapason sounds of considerable power, to strings, flutes, splashy reeds and close-toned reeds. Rather like the bumblebee, which shouldn't be able to fly due to the incorrect design of its' wings, an Arthur Harrison organ sings in spite of everything theoretical.

 

That, I suppose, is the measure of great organ-building and a great tonal-artist.

 

However, there is a converse aspect to all this, which few perhaps appreciate fully.

 

Unless your name happened to be Father Henry Willis, who did his own thing, flew in the face of convention, and then managed to convince people that only HIS sound was the best, you would have kept a low-profile as a mere servant to those who "knew better."

 

The people who "knew better" were people like Prince Albert (because of who he was), people like Dr.Gauntlett who advised William Hill, S.S.Wesley and a host of others: many of them in fine-suits with bulging industrial wallets. The WORKMAN knew his place, organ-builders were SERVANTS and they who paid the bills or held high-office were the MASTERS.

 

On this premise, we may perhaps begin to understand the process of how the more gentile sounds of the English organ were transformed into the great roaring beasts they eventually became. The name which crops up time and time again is that of Edmund Schulze: surely the "Holy Grail" of organ-tone. Doncaster and Armley (the latter only when it ended up there eventually) were the two organs which utterly overwhelmed those more familiar with Gray & Davison, Walker or Hill organs prior to that.

 

The MASTERS queued up to marvel at the sound....like some latter-day "Winchester organ," and a humble architect changed his life and became an organ-builder....T C Lewis. Already, England had sought a more "German" sound, and the Hill/Gauntlett phenomenon is testament to that quest, and without it ever being expressed in public, the reason for that quest was as much social as it was musical. The PRINCE CONSORT was a German organist, and he held court with people like Mendelssohn. Victorian England was all about hierarchy, position and, ultimately power. It was Prince Albert consort, who had brought Schulze to England, lest we forget, and a vast amount of private money it cost too!

 

In the fifty years which followed the building of the Schulze at Doncaster, a certain sweet sentimentality entered into musical life, which now centred around the home, with people wanting to hear pretty tunes or sing "Home, sweet home" around the piano or harmonium. Choral music, Brass Bands and Church were the great late-Victorian/Edwardian passions of the SERVANTS, encouraged and financially supported by the MASTERS. They certainly didn't want to hear eternal Bach fugues when they could listen to the "Grandfather Clock" variations. The best known fugue would not have ben THAT D-minor, but probably the "Amen Chorus" from "The Messiah.". With so much music-making going on, a new passion for all things choral and some big public gatherings, organs NEEDED to be powerful, but also capable of extreme expressiveness. In point of fact, possibly the last thing on the minds of the music-loving public, was REAL organ-music. It says a lot that the music of Reger never really caught-on in England, but everyone played a lot of third-rate transcriptions.

 

Now seen in that light, the creation of the typical Arthur Harrison/Dixon sound was a stroke of genius, which fulfilled every possible role the organ may be required to play, and I do not doubt it for one moment. However, I am quite sure that the triumph was due to Arthur Harrison rather than the dilettante Lieutenant Colonel. Whatever I or anyone else may think to-day, the creation of the Arthur Harrison sound was no mistake. There was a parallel in America of course, with the work of Ernest Skinner, and the powerful influence of another German organ-builder, namely E F Walcker at Boston.

 

If "mistakes were made," then it has rather more to do with musical-mistakes than organ-building mistakes, and I could ramble on, not just about Schweitzer and the "orgel reform" pack-hounds (I can never spell the German word Orgelbe...whatever it is!), but also about the whole early-music movement, including Dolmetch in London. Pierre mentions Lawrence Phelps, and his "mistakes," but at least he was a thinker and doer, who responded to the challenge of taking the organ back from whence it came, to the job of being suitable for the mainstream heritage of proper organ-music, which had largely passed England by, as everyone wallowed in the sentimentality of Caleb Simper. (Yes, I know this is a gross over-simplification!) That a man like Robert Hope-Jones could ever be considered a serious organ-builder, is testament to the waywardness of English creativity around the turn of the last century. I would include America in that same equation....we lost him...they got him!

 

It comes down to the serious question as to what we are all about. If it isn't about music, what are we about?

 

I hope I am not just a train-spotter, though God knows, with a steam-railway rattling past every few minutes in the summer months, I may as well be!

 

This shouldn't be about "Romantic" v. "Classical," but about Romantic comparison. Much as I may admire what Arthur Harrison did, (and I do!), I am much more stirred by the work of Hill (especially under the leadership of Thomas Hill), who was not only misrepresented by the likes of Lt.Col. George-Dixon, but actually despised by him. Logically speaking, that means that our military friend had no time for the organ at Sydney Town Hall, which says it all, I suppose.

 

So I end with a question and a statement.

 

Am I expected to admire a MASTER dilettante who changed so much, but had cloth-ears?

 

I certainly admire the faithful SERVANT who crafted a silk-purse from those same ears!!

 

MM

 

PS: Why a W C Jones Tuba Pierre? Have you never heard a proper Fr.Willis one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you snip the better part of my previous post, dear MM?

 

In our days when we see the devastating effects of an "inverted

classes struggle" that will end up sending us all under the bridges

as an alternative roof for the ones we shall no more be able to afford

(but a handfull of mega-wealthy), are we able to weight the social

games in the 19th's century correctly?

 

We are beginning to realize Aristide Cavaillé-Coll had actually a

quite dictatorial attitude; he certainly was not an humble servant

to better-knowing!

 

Orgelbewegung= "Organ movement".

 

I'd go for a more closed-toned Tuba because my style is a synthesis.

FHW's reeds may be best used in a fully british one.

If your aim is to pit fiery french reeds against german and british ones,

then the more differenciated the best.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did you snip the better part of my previous post, dear MM?

 

In our days when we see the devastating effects of an "inverted

classes struggle" that will end up sending us all under the bridges

as an alternative roof for the ones we shall  no more be able to afford

(but a handfull of mega-wealthy), are we able to weight the social

games in the 19th's century correctly?

 

We are beginning to realize Aristide Cavaillé-Coll had actually a

quite dictatorial attitude; he certainly  was not an humble servant

to better-knowing!

 

Orgelbewegung= "Organ movement".

 

I'd go for a more closed-toned Tuba because my style is a synthesis.

FHW's reeds may be best used in a fully british one.

If your aim is to pit fiery french reeds against german and british ones,

then the more differenciated the best.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

 

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

 

 

Pierre, I snipped your post in my reply as I snip most posts from anyone else...... :ph34r:

 

I refrain from getting embroiled in social-history and the merits of a meritocracy, but as something of a bridge enthusiast, I could live under one. I've slept in a bus-shelter and a snow-drift....anything is possible and I know how to do my own washing.

 

It's interesting that Henry Willis and Aristide Cavaille-Coll were men of sure-mind and certain-tread who did their own thing.....my point exactly! Neither were shaped or guided by MASTERS who thought they knew better!

 

That said, being French, Cavaille-Coll would have been a peasant! :ph34r:

 

"orgel-be-we-gung"...thanks!

 

I'll practice that slowly on the computer....left-hand only, then right one only.....give me air! :ph34r:

 

So let me get this right Pierre. You want to pit voices AGAINST each other?

 

French style reeds, English style reeds, Big Flutes, keen Strings....that sort of thing?

 

It's been done, sorry!

 

It was called a Wurlitzer! :unsure:

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure::ph34r::ph34r: !

 

As an historian found of traditions, moreover from a family

with several languages and dialects represented , and this

in a country that was conceived as a no-man's-land -with 10,000,000

people, tough- border between mighty french, german and british ones,

any organ I could dream of cannot be anything else than a synthesis.

There is no one belgian organ that is not a synthesis, even within the

stops themselves; we have a discussion about the Hautbois on Plenum,

in which we speak about the german an the french type.

The belgian Hautbois is excatly between the two, be it about voicing

or scaling.

The situation is the same as in Switzerland or Alsace.

 

A. H. "pitted" Trombas on the great against free-toned Swell trumpets.

You could do the same with Trompettes harmoniques on the Swell and

a french Bombarde division, plus a german Trompete as a gentler echo

on the choir.

By "german Trompete", we understand in Belgium: smaller-scaled, and with

german shallots.

This stop was named "Trompette céleste" here in the 19th century.

It was actually very close to what César Franck had on the Positif at St-Clotilde, Paris; a solo stop.

 

Well, you see, we wandered from Durham to Paris. This is Belgium!

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
========================

I.

 

 

 

On this premise, we may perhaps begin to understand the process of how the more gentile sounds of the English organ . 

 

Given the ethnic make up of the population of Victorian and Edwardian England this statement is likely to be factually accurate though I entertain serious doubts it is what you meant.

 

It says a lot that the music of Reger never really caught-on in England, but everyone played a lot of third-rate transcriptions.

 

And not a few first rate ones too, plus quite a lot of original french organ music which seems to have suited the taste of the times better. One should also perhaps not overlook the fact that Reger was German and a great many people who spent their youth evading getting killed and watching their friends blown to bits may have been infected with anti-German sentiment to a degree which it is difficult for us to grasp at this distance of time. One has to remember that Siegesfier (sorry my German is not up to much despite my daughter-in-law being from Cologne) from opus 145 was omitted from post war editions, after all the victory it was written to celebrate was not an Allied one.

 

 

which had largely passed England by, as everyone wallowed in the sentimentality of Caleb Simper.

 

What did this guy write; I cannot recall anything off hand but perhaps I know the tunes but not the composer. However, all active in this period (1837-1911 to embrace both reigns) were Smart, Stanford, Wolstenholme, Hollins, Bairstow, Vaughan Williams, Howells, Faulkes, etc etc most of whom produced at least some pieces which could hardly be called sentimental, unless the term is used in its widest sense to include all descriptions of sentiment up to and including jingoism

  (Yes, I know this is a gross over-simplification!)  That a man like Robert Hope-Jones could ever be considered a serious organ-builder, is testament to the waywardness of English creativity around the turn of the last century. I would include America in that same equation....we lost him...they got him!

 

And we got as a result the wurlitzer theatre organ for which I at least am grateful, even if its suitability for "proper organ music" is somewhat restricted. However, Quentin Maclean made a fair stab at it on the Christie at Marble Arch, albeit a somewhat larger instrument than the typical wurlitzer.

 

It comes down to the serious question as to what we are all about. If it isn't about music, what are we about?

 

I hope I am not just a train-spotter, though God knows, with a steam-railway rattling past every few minutes in the summer months, I may as well be!

 

This shouldn't be about "Romantic" v. "Classical," but about Romantic comparison. Much as I may admire what Arthur Harrison did,  (and I do!), I am much more stirred by the work of Hill  (especially under the leadership of Thomas Hill), who was not only misrepresented by the likes of Lt.Col. George-Dixon, but actually despised by him.  Logically speaking, that means that our military friend had no time for the organ at Sydney Town Hall, which says it all, I suppose.

 

We have a nice Hill here in Belfast too in the Ulster Hall. Check out the reissued DGW recordings from the 1980s on the Ulster Hall

 

So I end with a question and a statement.

 

Am I expected to admire a MASTER dilettante who changed so much, but had cloth-ears?

 

I certainly admire the faithful  SERVANT who crafted a silk-purse from those same ears!!

 

MM

 

PS: Why a W C Jones Tuba Pierre?  Have you never heard a proper Fr.Willis one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come back on this:

 

"You could do the same with Trompettes harmoniques on the Swell and

a french Bombarde division, plus a german Trompete as a gentler echo

on the choir."

 

(Self-quoting)

 

I won't post any stop-list of this kind here, as a means of prevention

against heart attacks!

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Share this post


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...