Jump to content
Mander Organs

Cochereau Dvd


Jonathan Thorne

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
Indeed - sadly, even N.-D. de Paris is now not like N.-D. de Paris.... Now it is too polite - it sounds more like King's - after a fashion.

 

One of the biggest mistakes made in 1992, as far as I am concerned, was to remove both chorus mixtures on the Récit-expressif. This (as well as many of the other changes) has had a big impact on the sound of the organ.

;)

 

Yes that's right, and you also could add the modification on the PC's chamades which are now smoother than before. Cochereau used them as a chorus over the general tutti.

As I had the chance to hear PC live in the late 60's and the seventies, I confirm this organ has deeply changed since then. you may check that by listening to the late CD recorded in NDP in 2005 by Yves Castagnet playing the "Chemin de la croix" (Intrada) and then the Falcinelli's version (Soltice) recorded live in 1981 during PC's time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, almost!

 

The chamades added by Robert Boisseau (for PC) in about 1970-71 were not revoiced - although they were re-winded - God knows why, since they are now less stable.

 

However, two new ranks of chamades were added in the 1990-92 rebuild, both deliberate copies of the two chamade ranks on the GO of the fantastic C-C at S. Senin, Toulouse. These stops are smoother - it is almost certainly these which you hear on later recordings. This is partly due to the re-disposition of the chamades at the rebuild. The Boisseau ranks cannot now be used in the tutti at 8p and 4p - only 8p, as far as I can remember. However, these two ranks are, to quote John Scott, "...still unbelievably fiery."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
Indeed - sadly, even N.-D. de Paris is now not like N.-D. de Paris.... Now it is too polite - it sounds more like King's - after a fashion.

 

One of the biggest mistakes made in 1992, as far as I am concerned, was to remove both chorus mixtures on the Récit-expressif. This (as well as many of the other changes) has had a big impact on the sound of the organ.

:blink:

 

 

Yep it was a over keen clean up of the sound. I also liked the old Chamades, and (used conservatively) they were excellent. Mind you, the organ had been mauled about, and a lot of stops rearranged and/or moved to other departments, and it is probably nearer the "original" (sic) Cavaille Coll conception now?

R

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finding this info on Notre Dame most enlightening. It goes some way to explaining my puzzlement when I heard the organ in situ two or three years ago. It was an Italian organist playing the Reubke and Ad nos (just my luck - not!) and I was most disappointed at the underwhelming impression the instrument made from less than halfway down the nave. Glorious tone, yes, but very far from hair-raising. However, judging from a recent CD I have I suspect he never used the instrument quite at full bore. I'm not convinced I ever heard the GO Cymbale, for example - or do I mean the Grand Choeur Plein jeu?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep it was a over keen clean up of the sound. I also liked the old Chamades, and (used conservatively) they were excellent. Mind you, the organ had been mauled about, and a lot of stops rearranged and/or moved to other departments, and it is probably nearer the "original" (sic) Cavaille Coll conception now?

R

 

Yes Richard, you are probably correct.

 

Whilst it is closer to the C-C ideal for this organ, I agree that it was over-zealous. The Récit mixtures could have been left in - then organists could have had the choice of using them.

 

Still, there are compensations - it now has a combination system (be it ever-so-slightly odd) that actually works; and it now has those extra two ranks of chamades.

 

Because, of course, in the same way that one can never have too many books - one can never have too many chamades....

 

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you almost certainly did not hear the Tutti Général - this is extremely exciting - even from half-way down the nave; I know - I have heard it there, as well as from leaning against the case....

 

:blink:

 

Each titular organist has his own way to compute the general tutti and the progression to it (séquenceur). For example, O.Latry put in the tutti some pedal stops and of course all the 8 and 16' couplings. Lefebvre and Leguay use some other arrangements.

Actually each invited organist can program whatever he wants through the computer which allows thousands of combinations, sostenuti on all the manuals,etc.

This explains why listening to a concert or a mass you hear in different ways the great organ.

For instance I had the pleasure to hear D. Briggs in january 2005 playing

a Cochereau's transcription and a piece of his own: his registrations were particulary so well choosen that you could believe that Pierre Cochereau was still alive...

Link to post
Share on other sites
...his registrations were particulary so well choosen that you could believe that Pierre Cochereau was still alive...

 

That's exactly what I personally dislike in all this Cochereau-improvisations-writtendown-and-performed.

The great Pierre would probably not have 'done' the same improvisation twice, his genius would already have moved further. I doubt even if he would have liked it (would they be written down if he had had the health to be still alive?). Even on 'his' organ, with his notes, and his registration, you are not Cochereau, and neither is your 'performance' (and now I start wondering if this doesn't also count for written music by i.e. Bach - shooting myself in the foot?).

 

Anyway, let's study his impro's very carefully, but do our/your own thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's exactly what I personally dislike in all this Cochereau-improvisations-writtendown-and-performed.

The great Pierre would probably not have 'done' the same improvisation twice, his genius would already have moved further. I doubt even if he would have liked it (would they be written down if he had had the health to be still alive?). Even on 'his' organ, with his notes, and his registration, you are not Cochereau, and neither is your 'performance' (and now I start wondering if this doesn't also count for written music by i.e. Bach - shooting myself in the foot?).

 

Anyway, let's study his impro's very carefully, but do our/your own thing.

 

I'm not so sure about "disliking" written-out and performed improvisations - particularly when I listen to the Durufle transcriptions of the Tournemire improvisations from the early 1930's. Wonderful stuff.

 

But how do we do our own thing?

 

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - sorry, Heva, but I think your foot is bleeding profusely....

 

Incidentally, I have not forgotten about the recording - I will do it soon - promise!

 

Personally, I think the Cochereau improvisations are just too wonderful not to play, if at all possible.

 

It must be said (and I am not the only person to say this) but the instrument in my own church does do a good job of some of the Cochereau improvisations. Whilst it is missing the 32p reed and really French chorus reeds (and a decent reverbeation period), most of the rest is there.

 

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes - sorry, Heva, but I think your foot is bleeding profusely....

 

Incidentally, I have not forgotten about the recording - I will do it soon - promise!

 

Personally, I think the Cochereau improvisations are just too wonderful not to play, if at all possible.

 

It must be said (and I am not the only person to say this) but the instrument in my own church does do a good job of some of the Cochereau improvisations. Whilst it is missing the 32p reed and really French chorus reeds (and a decent reverbeation period), most of the rest is there.

 

:blink:

 

Well, my foot get's better already, whith these wise words here :D

 

Could playing these impro's conflict with the original artist's will? As far as I know PC seemed not very serious about it ("I don't study it, I study it on stage") and said that that music is there on the moment and is gone when it's finished. Would it show respect to him to keep repeating his 'thing for that particular moment'? (I know he was proud on the other hand when Jean-Marc had written down the Boléro - and played it himself (and found it pretty difficult)).

 

But I agree they áre wonderfull ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, my foot get's better already, whith these wise words here  :P

 

Could playing these impro's conflict with the original artist's will? As far as I know PC seemed not very serious about it ("I don't study it, I study it on stage") and said that that music is there on the moment and is gone when it's finished. Would it show respect to him to keep repeating his 'thing for that particular moment'? (I know he was proud on the other hand when Jean-Marc had written down the Boléro - and played it himself (and found it pretty difficult)).

 

But I agree they áre wonderfull ...

 

Glad to hear about the foot, Heva!

 

I understand that PC did have moments of self-doubt (call it what you will) - he occasionally released 'the last improvisations ever, on LP' - fortunately for us, he did subsequently change his mind. Whether he would have approved of the release of about twenty CDs over the last ten years or so, all filled with his improvisations, will forever remain a matter of conjecture. Personally, I am so glad that they were released. I would, however, dearly love to have a recording of the improvisation on Veni, Creator, to which allusion was made in the accompanying booklet to the three-CD set.

 

As far as I know, he actually took the business of improvising very seriously - once saying rather firmly to one of his offspring 'Be quiet - I'm working!' whilst playing for a service at N.-D.

 

Yes - it was interesting to learn of how difficult he found Jean-Marc's transcription of his own Bolero! Actually, on the DVD, in an earlier interview, PC does state that he was a lousy sight-reader when he was younger - and had not significantly improved. Whilst I doubt that this was literally true, it does perhaps cast some light on how he approached his own performances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, on the DVD, in an earlier interview, PC does state that he was a lousy sight-reader when he was younger - and had not significantly improved. Whilst I doubt that this was literally true, it does perhaps cast some light on how he approached his own performances.

 

Indeed, the 'louzy sightreader' remark puzzled my mind too. But did they need to in Dupré's class, I always thought everything needed to be played from memory. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently not - memory was, I believe, desired for certain things, but the students were allowed to have the scores - as far as I know. I would be interested to know more about this.

 

Cochereau could play from memory (for example, at least one of the Widor Symphonies), but I must admit that I have never seen any footage of him playing without music.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...