Jump to content
Mander Organs
Pierre Lauwers

Worcester Cathedral's Organ

Recommended Posts

I much prefer the Modern case (on the left)... much more inspiring. I've think the style of the case on the right has been done quite a lot - not dissimilar to Peterborough in some ways and very popular today (e.g. Peachtree, which looks like a more convicing example). The pediments look a bit skimpy to me and the angels rather apologetic.... The modern case looks much more convincing on paper - and it's consistent in the number of pipes in each tower. Be better to curve the positive case a bit, I feel though.

 

And yes, let's see how a West Gallery organ works in an Anglican Cathedral Nave. All this pining for the old organ on this discussion board has made me quite keen for something new and fresh in Worcester!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul@trinitymusic.karoo.co.uk

I don't think that the present Worcester Cathedral organ is beautiful, but it does at least do a good job. I am with a number of previous correspondents who observe how some of the fashionable and expensive imports actually fail when it comes to subtle accompanying work.

 

Having read through much correspondence above, I would, however, like to leap in to defend Kenneth Tickell's work. His new(ish) iorgan at Honiton is a revelation - very fine indeed, and across virtually any repertoire. Provided that it was to be installed as a second organ, I would love to hear a Tickell in Worcester Cathedral.

 

 

Who remembers that there were early plans to ditch most of the 1920's Rushworth and Dreaper at Malvern Priory? When The Priory PCC announced that they were appealing for over half a million to chuck away this art work, various folks threw up their hands in horror, protests were spread around and a certain amount of stirring went on, but.... the fuss was worth it! The (irreplaceable) Rushworth was saved. Rebuilding instead of replacement still provided lots of work for Nicholsons, who had been asked to replace it with a 'neo-Portsmouth Cathedral' job. Now why remind everyone? The adviser for the complete re-hash scheme was the present Cathedral organist at Worcester (and by total coincidence, former organist at Portsmouth)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the present Worcester Cathedral organ is beautiful, but it does at least do a good job. I am with a number of previous correspondents who observe how some of the fashionable and expensive imports actually fail when it comes to subtle accompanying work.

 

Well,

 

Advocating the preservation of an organ does not mean any criticism against the builder who would replace it; as far as I know, we deal there with two differing things.

 

If the Worcester's organ isn't beautiful, this means you know beautifuler organs than I do -by far- quite interesting. (I belived I knew of *some*, but of course I can be wrong).

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis

I don't think that the present Worcester Cathedral organ is beautiful, but it does at least do a good job. I am with a number of previous correspondents who observe how some of the fashionable and expensive imports actually fail when it comes to subtle accompanying work.

 

Well,

 

Advocating the preservation of an organ does not mean any criticism against the builder who would replace it; as far as I know, we deal there with two differing things.

 

If the Worcester's organ isn't beautiful, this means you know beautifuler organs than I do -by far- quite interesting. (I belived I knew of *some*, but of course I can be wrong).

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

 

I think the cases at Worcester fit in with the architecture perfectly. A modern case in a orange colour will look perfectly foul, but will make a very loud statement. organs should blend with the surrounding architecture, woodwork etc. The mdern one on the left you refer to would look good in a modern building, but not Worcester. Yes there are lots of gothic cases around, such as peterborough which however is norman, but the case doesn't "shout" or draw attention to itself, it matches in with the building. But basically we also have the unfortunate probelm that most of our cathedrals are Gothic! Perhaps we should rebuild the cathedral? preferably all of them. A Tickell organ may sound well in its own right, thats all very well. But you dont ditch what isn't broken, and you dont replace on sheer whim. This is what we are all talking about. I do think Worcesters cases are all very fine, and they are now an accepted and love part of the place. As are Chichester, Rochester, York, Kings, Gloucester, Liverpool, Chester, Norwich, Ely, Lincoln, Durham, I could go on......point taken. The Worcester cases also have a historical value. No way should they ever go. It's totally wrong.

As to Portsmouth, another bad rebuild, and one also remembers Oxford, and myself one student saying to me "if only we had the old Willis back", so thats "progress". Even worse when the consultant then goes to pastures new. Imagine such consultants doing a whirlwind tour of English cathedrals.....where does it stop? are we the custodians, or do we think we have the right to discard that which simply we do not like? we should be curators, and keep what is there. if Worcester was a bad organ that would be different, but it isn't. Thats the bottom line. As to accompanying duties, a competent organist can make for plenty of variety at Worcester, and others have proved it so. That cannot be questioned or contested. They only just spent a load out on the transept organ, and now this!! The poor dean!!! No there is a definite desire to out the job, and as it still a fine organ, one has to ask what is wrong with restoring the current. It will be cheaper, and a lot of people want this to be done. Cathedral organs are not just that, they are national treasures, and are known everywhere. Organists come and go, and rarely these days do we have genuinely loyal organists who stay put, they move all over the place. So you keep status quo, and that again is the bottom line. We do not not at new organ, we simply dont. No questions, no other reason to out the job than sheer fashion. We had exactly this in the 60s and 70s with the back to Bach brigade, now whole organs are being threatened, and it is morally and ethically WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
I much prefer the Modern case (on the left)... much more inspiring. I've think the  style of the case on the right has been done quite a lot - not dissimilar to Peterborough in some ways and very popular today (e.g. Peachtree, which looks like a more convicing example). The pediments look a bit skimpy to me and the angels rather apologetic.... The modern case looks much more convincing on paper - and it's consistent in the number of pipes in each tower. Be better to curve the positive case a bit, I feel though.

 

And yes, let's see how a West Gallery organ works in an Anglican Cathedral Nave. All this pining for the old organ on this discussion board has made me quite keen for something new and fresh in Worcester!

 

 

All this pining? no, we just care about our heritage. Nothing wrong in that, we are to be applauded for our concerns and "pinings". A certain attitude and indifference is exactly how such organs at Worcester can get outed. Responsibility and justification for our actions is paramount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
I much prefer the Modern case (on the left)... much more inspiring. I've think the  style of the case on the right has been done quite a lot - not dissimilar to Peterborough in some ways and very popular today (e.g. Peachtree, which looks like a more convicing example). The pediments look a bit skimpy to me and the angels rather apologetic.... The modern case looks much more convincing on paper - and it's consistent in the number of pipes in each tower. Be better to curve the positive case a bit, I feel though.

 

And yes, let's see how a West Gallery organ works in an Anglican Cathedral Nave. All this pining for the old organ on this discussion board has made me quite keen for something new and fresh in Worcester!

 

 

The case on the left looks like it is a flatpack from a DIY store....and a USA one at that. Note the silly little curls on the bottom of the towers. A sort of retro gothic, or perhaps "polically correct Gothic". Nothing too fancy or loud, "we dont want a Gothic case in a Gothic cathedral" sort of attitude. Take a look at some modern choir stalls in light wood in some cathedrals and you'll get my point. The usual excuse is "they aren't fixed" . But they never move, and look horrendous. Liverpool have a lovely modern set that match nothing. But, and this really is the point, they do draw attention to themselves.......Anything new a mediaeval cathedral must shout, is it a modern requirement of the liturgy??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Roffensis.

 

Two points that may deserve some thoughts:

 

-It seems the "Classic revival" is still strong in the UK.

(here it is over)

 

-Organs that may seem "quite ordinary" from a local point

of view may appear completely original from abroad.

 

We from abroad do not want you to imitate german or french organs,

we want you to present us your unique, original instruments, and the

music that suits them.

(If I want to hear Bach, Germany is about 60 Miles from here, so...)

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
I don't think that the present Worcester Cathedral organ is beautiful,  but it does at least do a good job. I am with a number of previous correspondents who observe how some of the fashionable and expensive imports actually fail when it comes to subtle accompanying work.

 

Having read through much correspondence above, I would, however, like to leap in to defend Kenneth Tickell's work.  His new(ish) iorgan at Honiton is a revelation - very fine indeed, and across virtually any repertoire.  Provided that it was to be installed as a second organ, I would love to hear a Tickell in Worcester Cathedral.

Who remembers that there were early plans to ditch most of the 1920's Rushworth and Dreaper at Malvern Priory?  When The Priory PCC announced that they were appealing for over half a million to chuck away this art work, various folks threw up their hands in horror, protests were spread around and a certain amount of stirring went on, but.... the fuss was worth it!  The (irreplaceable) Rushworth was saved.  Rebuilding instead of replacement still provided lots of work for Nicholsons, who had been asked to replace it with a 'neo-Portsmouth Cathedral' job.  Now why remind everyone?  The adviser for the complete re-hash scheme was the present Cathedral organist at Worcester (and by total coincidence, former organist at Portsmouth)!

 

 

 

So why cannot he do a "rehash" at Worcester, with Tickell do a new nave job??? problem solved. Reputation intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why cannot he do a "rehash" at Worcester, with Tickell do a new nave job??? problem solved. Reputation intact.

(Roffensis's citation)

 

If "rehash" means a sympathetic restauration, this would be the reasonable

way to go.

In the end Worcester would have two different, worthwile organs.

So what?

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case on the left looks like it is a flatpack from a DIY store....and a USA one at that. Note the silly little curls on the bottom of the towers.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinions, but I do not think it necessary to be so glibly dismissive of a design that someone will, in all likelihood, have put a lot of work into.

 

As to whether the current organ in Worcester Cathedral should be saved, or not, it is worth remembering that the Dean and Chapter are the ultimate custodians and have difficult choices to make. It is not quite as black and white as some here appear to think. The current Organist at Worcester, in conjuction with the Dean and Chapter, have to base their decisions on what they, as custodians, believe is best for the future of the Cathedral. They only have to look at their neighbours down the road at Gloucester to realise that whatever decision they take, there will be those who, in all probability, will still be arguing they were wrong 30 years hence.

 

As far as I can see, retaining the existing organ is the easy option. But it may not necessarily be in the long-term interests of Worcester Cathedral. Something to think about before anyone here has another 'pop' at the cathedral authorities.

 

Jeremy Jones

London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

retaining the existing organ is the easy option.

 

(Citation Mr Jones)

 

Well, maybe it's the reverse.

As far as my experience has shown, to keep such

"out of the rails", "outmoded" instrument is far from easy.

In the long term, it seems the future belongs to original,

charachterfull organs (The style isn't important, provided

there is one).

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinions, but I do not think it necessary to be so glibly dismissive of a design that someone will, in all likelihood, have put a lot of work into.

 

As to whether the current organ in Worcester Cathedral should be saved, or not, it is worth remembering that the Dean and Chapter are the ultimate custodians and have difficult choices to make. It is not quite as black and white as some here appear to think. The current Organist at Worcester, in conjuction with the Dean and Chapter, have to base their decisions on what they, as custodians, believe is best for the future of the Cathedral. They only have to look at their neighbours down the road at Gloucester to realise that whatever decision they take, there will be those who, in all probability, will still be arguing they were wrong 30 years hence.

 

As far as I can see, retaining the existing organ is the easy option. But it may not necessarily be in the long-term interests of Worcester Cathedral. Something to think about before anyone here has another 'pop' at the cathedral authorities.

 

Jeremy Jones

 

I am sure that it is in the long term interests of the cathedral, it has served perfectly well for a very long time, and tonally is perfectly splendid. Cathedral authorities do have ultimate say, which is why there should be better regulation, and informed opinion that is unbiased. No one has any right to simply out an organ that is tonally fine. Even mechanically it seems fine, but I accept that a "rehash" ie proper up to date action would doubtless improve it still further. Possibly a couple of solo stops but essentially kept tonally as it is. Yes Gloucester did get a very radical rethink. There the case was retained, and the Harris pipework restored as genuinely historic. The fact is that this organ is not now at all suited to English Anglican cathedral music.The debate still goes on about the 1971 rebuild, which was in essence a new organ. It would have been better to have kept the better of the original pipework and sorted out the layout better. There were a lot of  very fine Willis stops, and some Harrisons that should never have gone. It was the typical English organ. The case had been butchered however, and the restoration of that was magnificent. The new layout was an example to us all. Several factors influenced Gloucester. Worcester is different however, a far more unique sound than Gloucester ever was , and no other has that clang and eclat I'm always going on about! There is simply no reason to out it. A new organ will, as at Gloucester probably be a fine organ in its own right, but NOT at the expense of a current very fine one. One that has never had a proper full rebuild. How sad is that?  I heard it reopened in 1978, and everyone, including the cathedral authorities said it was a fine organ. The only thing wrong with it now is the action. That can be addressed. The lesson is that fashions change, so clearly demonstrated at Worcester. But you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater, and you realise you are JUST a custodian, a temporary one, and you either respect, or move on. QED.

London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely!

 

I don't agree with earlier comment that all of the cases are beautiful, the two quire cases seem to fit the building perfectly and sympathetically complement the Gilbert-Scott screen, but I've always (much as I love the instrument) thought the transept case a bit gross. But as I commented much earlier, a great deal of the particular and unique thrill of evensong at Worcester derives from the very proximity (at more or less ground level) of the pipe-work and this would be lost by moving up to the triforium.

 

I also very much agree that, however much care the designer may have put into the very striking proposal for the new west end case, it will be hideously innapropriate within the subtle beauty of the Worcester nave.

 

My greatest worry is that we're heading for another St. Mary's Warwick here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
Absolutely!

 

I don't agree with earlier comment that all of the cases are beautiful, the two quire cases seem to fit the building perfectly and sympathetically complement the Gilbert-Scott screen, but I've always (much as I love the instrument) thought the transept case a bit gross. But as I commented much earlier, a great deal of the particular and unique thrill of evensong at Worcester derives from the very proximity (at more or less ground level) of the pipe-work and this would be lost by moving up to the triforium.

 

I also very much agree that, however much care the designer may have put into the very striking proposal for the new west end case, it will be hideously innapropriate within the subtle beauty of the Worcester nave.

 

My greatest worry is that we're heading for another St. Mary's Warwick here!

 

I agree about the transept case, it is a bit gross!! But in a wonderful way.The scale is very impressive, and the pipes have a grandeur rarely met in cathedrals. Exeter has a similar array of 32 flues, but they are not impressively placed. I always think Worcester is similar to St Georges Hall, Liverpool, with its "steam engine" tops etc. The stencilling is also quite magnificent. Really the height of Victorian taste! I was interested to hear you say there are no real problems with the remoteness of this section musically, and of course this reflects the competence of an organist. And oh yes....St Marys ,Warwick. Can anyone tell me if the choir is away at Worcester next week? I was going to make a pilgrimage to Worcester to hear it again, but also, there is a broadcast soon of Choral Evensong. One to record.......

If anyone was on here debating my own church organ, I would be on here stating my case. Perhaps the worst aspect of all this is the relative silence. There is nothing to read on the web, just a couple of pics of cases, and an idealised formula that clearly has no musical ground whatever. I always thought that any proposal would include full details. Maybe it isn't yet formulated? maybe it is not too late. Maybe we can still keep the organ that we all so clearly love and respect. Maybe people are listening. Letters to the cathedral authorities can only help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone was on here debating my own church organ, I would be on here stating my case. Perhaps the worst aspect of all this is the relative silence. There is nothing to read on the web, just a couple of pics of cases, and an idealised formula that clearly has no musical ground whatever. I always thought that any proposal would include full details. Maybe it isn't yet formulated? maybe it is not too late. Maybe we can still keep the organ that we all so clearly love and respect. Maybe people are listening. Letters to the cathedral authorities can only help.

 

Yes!

I'm afraid this testifies for a wish to avoid to debate.

Of course, to join us here would be far from easy, but I do not

think we would eat them alive here (If we dealt with football, maybe...)

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the Cathedral Advisory Commission have yet to give approval for the new choir case, not least because it will mean drilling into medieval stonework etc etc. To be fair to the Dean & Chapter, maybe they feel it better to wait until such issues are resolved and the contract signed before further public pronouncements. The same probably goes for the builder: I don't believe Ken Tickell is being unduly secretive - the poor chap is as keen as anyone else to know what is going to happen. I've seen the proposed specification, which incoporates some Hope-Jones ranks. For the moment, unfortunately, I can't recall where - sorry!

 

Perhaps other are more up to speed on this than I am.

 

JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
As I understand it, the Cathedral Advisory Commission have yet to give approval for the new choir case, not least because it will mean drilling into medieval stonework etc etc.  To be fair to the Dean & Chapter, maybe they feel it better to wait until such issues are resolved and the contract signed before further public pronouncements.  The same probably goes for the builder:  I don't believe Ken Tickell is being unduly secretive - the poor chap is as keen as anyone else to know what is going to happen.  I've seen the proposed specification, which incoporates some Hope-Jones ranks.  For the moment, unfortunately, I can't recall where - sorry!

 

Perhaps other are more up to speed on this than I am.

 

JS

 

The only "Hope Jones" ranks(?!) to be incorporated are actually the 32' flue, 32' and 16' pedal reeds, which are actually Hill I believe, in the transept. It is worth remembering that the rest of the organ is considered worthy to scrap. That is the apparent intention. Exactly how much "Hope Jones" survives is also open to debate now as it stands. Harrisons contributed a very great deal to this organ, which also has Hill and others work in, which all blends well. What other organ do you know that can pull off English music perfectly, and also French?.Another argument against has been the organ being to close at so called "ground level" to the choir. Here, a competent organist will sensitively use the instrument. Donald Hunt respected it, and kept it. I hope the cathedral is not hacked and drilled out to accomodate this new case, it is not needed, and the current set up is perfectly adequate. I hope contracts have not been signed, and never are to butcher and destroy this organ. What I do hope is that those in authority see sense, restore it, and as needed build a new nave organ, with no sacrifice on the Altar of "fashion"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is quite interesting and resembles somewhat to others situations

where the actual contents of a "uninteresting" organ aren't known (as if: "not worth any study).

 

As far as one can find in the litterature:

 

-H-J would have re-used very little of the Hill's organs.

 

After "The organs and music of Worcester cathedral", Vernon Butcher, 1981, page

22:

"Hope-Jones completed his task in 1896, but much of the pipework of the existing two organs was discarded in favor of his own work".

 

-The Harrison & Harrison rebuild of 1925 was somewhat limited:

(From the same source, page 25):

 

"The new Harrison organ was opened in April 1925. The mechanism was electro-pneumatic, with drawstops instead of stop keys, but the Hope-Jones composition keys were kept. New chorus work, nine ranks in all, was added to the Great, and altough a number of the Hope-Jones names remained, some of the stops were revoiced".

 

And so the organ remained up to.....1972!!! it's only then than the Diaphones were

disabled, along with some "updating" in the tonal scheme.

 

So it may be reasonably assumed there could remains a bit more of Hope-Jones in this organ as one could believe.

A torough rebuild never happened.

 

The example of the Namur cathedral's organ is another one of a mistake that could happen:

It was build round 1835-40 by Korfmacher, Aachen (Germany), at a time when a certain Josef Merklin was busy there as manager. Well, am I foolish to assume this could have been a worthwile organ? Not a "romantic" yet, rather something to be compared with the very earlier William Hills. Who would dare "update" such a thing today?

And yet it was destroyed in 1968 (not forty years ago) and replaced by an elucubration I would not dare to show to Mr Mander.

Now the question is: what previous pipework was retained in this "rebuild"?

 

-Some sources say: the display pipes.

-Others say: Many....

 

Today the whole is in a state only a keen specialist could tell something like "Well, this could be Korfmacher's...Maybye".

 

To say the least, such organs deserve a complete, torough inventory of their pipe-works, with all the means our "modern-enlighted(?)" civilisation (?) has at

its disposal...

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<<The only "Hope Jones" ranks(?!) to be incorporated are actually the 32' flue, 32' and 16' pedal reeds, >>

 

and the H-J Viol, too, according to the builder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis

<<The only "Hope Jones" ranks(?!) to be incorporated are actually the 32' flue, 32' and 16' pedal reeds, >>

 

and the H-J Viol, too, according to the builder.

Apparently according to the 1981 booklet, the 1925 rebuild resulted in basically a new organ tonally, a lot of new ranks, or old revoiced by Harrisons. The 32 and 16 reeds on the pedal arrived from what I can tell in 1977, when the Diaphones were disconnected. Surely a good move. The booklet does mention the fine tone of certain HJ stops however. It also mentions the new Frech great reeds, which are also excellent stops. I also feel that regardless of the HJ connection, we need to evaluate this instrument on its sound. The fact that it works so well with different schools of music and sounds so very excellent are the most important factors to my mind. It's also worth restating it owes very much to Harrisons. The transept case pipes are of course the old Hills.

On another note, how very appropriate to have a new nave organ on French lines to use for the choirs festival, which of course sing exclusively french music and totally disregard anything English.....Not.

Of course this is yet one more red herring in this far form flawless "plan", and I trust English Heritage will squash any attempt to mess around with the historic stonework. I will be writing to them to remind them of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as usual I very much agree with what Roffensis says above, the organ should be judged as a 4-manual H&H English Cathedral instrument, in which capacity it does a superb job. I think the Hope-Jones history is a red-herring, his work was widely regarded as disastrous and I don't think the retention of a few historical curiousities of little musical value adds greatly to the debate as to whether the organ as a whole merits retention.

 

The point about repertoire at the The Choirs Festival is also well made, although Worcester have been more experimental than others and certainly in Donald Hunt's days a fair amount of French music would have been included.

 

My understanding (possibly wrong!) is that it is proposed that both new organs will be playable from a single combined console, or at least will share some stops in the transept case. This I find worrying if one is to be voiced on continental lines and the other has english voicing. Its this as much as anything that brings St. Mary's Warwick, where the Nicolson west end organ remains, to my ears, absolutely foul, to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Harrison did not discount H-J's tonal qualities, tough...

But no matter, fact is, this organ sounds magnificently, and,

to my mind, not really like a genuine H&H; it's rather something

of its own.

Tough not "classic", the Diapason choruses present something else

than plain romantic ones. A kind of versatility and "grandeur" one

rarely find in modern ones too.

This is "the organ per se", with which one can get a "Full Swell"

as well as a "pure" Diapason chorus. Very rare!

 

"Hotch-potch jigsaw"-organs are over. We know today this does not

work.

I know of several excellent neo-classic organs; in each case, their

voicers avoided to have "clashes" between very different things,

for instance "french-romantic" 8' flues ensembles with "would be Silbermann's"

choruses. Or they did go more one way, or the other.

The scholars of course disagreeded about such choices, that actually

destroyed their dreams, and these instruments were forgetted. Today

we need to discover them again.

 

But if we want today a "french" organ next to an "english" one, better to keep

them apart, with their own consoles.

 

I personnaly nurture some strange synthesis ideas, tough; but these would

end up with a new kind of organ, not a simple addition of differing things.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

<I know of several excellent neo-classic organs; in each case, their

voicers avoided to have "clashes" between very different things,

for instance "french-romantic" 8' flues ensembles with "would be Silbermann's"

choruses. >

 

PL

 

 

I was fortunate enough to visit the Frauenkirche in Dresden last week, almost completely rebuilt 60 years after the destruction - a quite magnificent, awe-inspiring building.

 

It is here that Daniel Kern appears to be attempting just that. His new organ seems to be, in essence, a pretty faithful copy of Gottfried Silbermann's original 3 manual scheme of 1736 with the addition of a 4th manual, a 16-stop Schwellwerk/ Récit in C-C style plus 32ft pedal Basson.

 

Not so much a synthesis, more an optional extra, I suppose. Let's hope organists are sensitive about when and when not to use it.

 

The organ should be ready for the re-dedication in October.

 

On verra......

 

JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

I didn't mean this one of course -and yes, let us hear it first-.

By "neo-classic" I mean older instruments; organs such as

these, build today, are maybe something else.

 

By "worthwile neo-classic organs", I understand examples such as these:

 

-Soissons, Gonzalez 1956 (Maybe the best)

 

-Bailleul, Gonzalez 1933 (extremely original and refined)

 

-Antwerpen, Klais 1931 (20 years in advance on others)

 

-Beauvais, Danion-Gonzalez 1979 (more modern, more "baroque")

 

-Châtelet (Belgium), Delmotte 1942

 

Best wishes,

Pierre Lauwers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of interest - how does what could happen at Worcester differ to what did happen at Chelmsford and Southwell (stylistically different of course but broadly similar with 'nave' and 'choir' sections) and what could be happening in the future at Sheffield? Were there similar feelings to those expressed by some list subscribers when these (in my opinion at least) very worthy arrangements were created and is anyone starting to get upset about the possible demise of the Father Willis pipework at the core of the Mander at Sheffield and its replacement by something possibly from beyond these shores? While not wanting to go over previous discussions I am interested (having worked within 'dropping in distance' to Worcester albeit sometime ago, not heard Chelmsford and Southwell in their previous incarnations and sung against Sheffield and its Tuba when all was working) in how Worcester is different.

AJJ

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...