Organ matters - Organs matter!

Of course, without looking at and hearing the instrument, any suggestions can only be purely speculative but I would definately lose one of the doubled Diapason 8' ranks. Why there seems to be such a predilection for this in England I have never been able to understand. The original reason for doubling the 8' foundation stop was because the most of the organs in England stood on a screen between the choir and the nave so a secondary facade was needed to face the other way.
       The other option is of course replacing the Salicional, but often on a two-manual organ such a stop on the Great can be very useful for accompaniment purposes. There again, with a four-rank quint mixture replacing one of those Diapasons, then you might be able to consider replacing that with either a Quint or a Nasard at 2.2/3 as well. Then with the rest of the chorus correctly re-intonated to blend with these alterations (definately not forgetting the reed in this), then there is no reason why the realization of music from the French romantic period could not be greatly enhanced by such a scheme.

Best of luck with it!

Ian 

Specifically, we comemmorate the birth of Johann Sebastian Bach upon the twenty-first of March and perhaps within the confines of the art of the organ we might allow ourselves the luxury of hyperbole in saluting Bach as representing the zenith of this great art's long history.

That we can confidently state such a thing is at once to give honour where it is more than just due, but it is also, in some other ways, a very sad thing. I doubt if I could, or even should, find the words to delineate Bach's place in the annels of the greatest musicians in history. No organist who has ears to hear can fail to comprehend the monumental scale of his achievement. On the other hand, it can also be said that the history of our art since the great Leipzig cantor has seldom revealed a quality of achievement to compare with him, or to approach somewhere near to it even.

Great composers and musicians there have been (and they are evident throughout music as a whole), who have not contributed to the world of the organ in any way comparable to Johann Sebastian Bach. Inspired bursts of creative genius there has been, music to enliven the soul by the hour too, but never the sustained and fundamental elevation of an art form which indeed is Bach's final consummate achievement.

This curious paradox is an enigma that might not be unravelled for another thousand years, or indeed ever, although for many within our own lifetime the wonderful compositions of Olivier Messiaen may one day come to be seen as burning with the same fire of sublime genius. Perhaps it is also significant that the music of Bach and Messiaen are both suffused with a strong religius motivational force, unparalleled in the organ repertoire.

In honouring Johann Sebastian Bach we rightly honour the unique.
It is an awesome accolade.

The registration I quoted apparently comes from an early copy made by Bach himself, perhaps for a performance by another organist, I'm not certain but will try to find out next time I'm in Leipzig, for that's where the MS resides. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about this registration in Germany in the 18th century. The other thing you have to remember is that Bach was known in his own time for many of his somewhat unusual registration practises anyway. For instance, there is a quote by a music critic who was present during Bach's opening concert on the new organ in the Castle Church at Altenburg, built by Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost in 1739, of which he was one of the advisers during its construction, where he reportedly played the Praeludium and Triple Fugue in E flat-Major (552) in public for the first time, and where the organ was described as being played "in full voice". (Organo pleno?)   

The same critic also commented on another piece he played at the same concert, another of his own compositions where he drew all the 8ft flue stops on both manuals and coupled them together, and lets face it, this organ has more than its fair share of 8ft ranks, (and 16ft too), which proves to some extent Bach's fondness for not only a good selection of reeds (including a 32' Posaune which this organ also contains), but also colourful 8ft flue ranks when he was advising the builder. Tradition suggests that this piece was the Prelude in c-minor (537) but unfortunately this cannot be proven.
A far back at his brief tenure at Muhlhausen, he was known to constantly change registrations during the performance of a single piece, one of the reasons why the first thing he would do when testing a new instrument would be to draw every speaking voice so he could hear "if its lungs were functioning properly". This goes completely against the modern idea that changing registrations during a piece was never done in Barock times, almost forbidden in fact.
Incidently, the original contract for a new organ at the Castle Church was awarded to Gottfried Silbermann in 1735, but due to other commitments, he found he couldn't complete it in time and so 'gave away' the contract to Trost, a minor builder who had his workshops in Bad Langensalza.
The other fact which this organ is famous for is that one of the early organists there was Johann Ludwig Krebs (1713-1780) who was known even in his own time as being Johann Sebastian Bach's "star pupil".

Further to registration practices in the 18th century, I have at home somewhere a registration guide for Silbermann organs which was given to the minister of Fraureuth in 1780 by Adam Gottfried Ohme, who was an apprentice of Silbermann and had just completed a renovation of the instrument.
When I find it I will post it on here.

With best wishes - Ian

Since last time I have spoken to members of Godalming Town Council and by what they've told me this matter is not by any means as straightforward as was first thoght.
Apparently, according to the plans submitted, the complete church building is to be demolished and replaced with luxury appartments, and by luxury, I mean in excess of £400,000 each.
The land earmarked for where the new church is to be built is much further away, in another less affluent part of the town. However, it is still in the early stages of debate in the council whether this plan will get the go-ahead or not. If this is the case, then it looks to me as if the future of the organ is by no means secure.
If I hear of anymore news, I will let you know.

Best Wishes - Ian.

Dear Julian

       Many thanks for the update on the organ in your church. It is good to see that the the pipe organ is regarded as important enough to move into a new building rather than taking the easy way out and replacing it with a pipeless, some people here describe as a "toaster", although I don't really understand why. I mean, toasters are generally useful, whereas pipeless organs aren't, except for home use when the organist refers to practise at home rather than having to trudge down to the church.
       It is also good to know that you have already sought professional advice on getting the organ moved. A pipe organ is a complex instrument and just leaving it all to amateurs could result in extra expenditure being incurred if something was to go wrong or gets broken.
       It would also be good to know how the organ will be situated in its new home. Will it still be just hidden behing a grille or are you thinking of providing a proper case for it?  Are you also considering making any tonal alterations which would fit better into the new arrangement?
       When I am residing in the UK I am not very far away from Godalming so if you would like to meet up perhaps we cold arrange to do so.

As regards the Boehm Flute, if I remember rightly it was just a normal overblowing harmonic flute, but whether it was either wood or metal I cannot say as I never had time to inspect the instrment internally. All I can remember about it was that everything worked and the sound was more than satisfactory.

So once again, a happy outcome!

Best Wishes to everyone from Ian.         

Hi!

I too had a copy of this (from where it came I can't remember) which had the chorale melody written out in four voices. I think it was produced to enable a full choir to sing while the organist played the original part. In this case it probably would be better to use three manuals, unless of course the choir is trained well enough to sing it unaccompanied.

The other point is that BWV 645 is one of the only pieces by Bach where he left (some?) details for registration;

Ruckpositiv:  Rohrflote 8', Sesquialtera II   (12, 17 - non repeating).
Oberwerk: Fagott 8'
Pedal: Subbass 16'  (no 8' or couplers are mentioned).


Best wishes
Ian.

The question of why the organ got into the church in the first place is simple, there wasn't another building in the village/town/city that was big enough to accomodate it! The early accounts of organs in the middle ages seem to be more poetic than factual but there is certianly evidence that organs were in fair number from the 1350's, mostly in the area of Europe that is now Northern France and Belgium
today. At first the organs had no seperate stops, but comprised of a single "Blockwerk", (don't know the English name for that, sorry!) comprising of the lower foundation ranks (16, 8, 4) and a enormous Mixtuer, repeating in octaves and fifths. Connected to that might also have been a Cimbel, comprising of even higher pitched ranks, all sounding together. Therefore, the Mixtures and Cimbels today are what are left over from this mediaeval organ. What it was employed for and what music was played upon it is not really known. As far as I can ascertian it was orginally put there to make the largest noise possible.
       After this, the organ slowly began to acquire for diversity in tone as the higher-sounding ranks were "stopped off", leaving the single ranks of 16, 8 and 4 able to be played seperately or together, the sound of the "full-organ" being reserved for more drmatic effect, such as the music of the til=me would allow. The organ then sterted to be employed to accompany the choir at times in plainsong, possibly completely or just supplying the cantus firmus whoe the choir sang the rest. This was the reason why the pedal organ was developed, not to supply the bass part, as is generally assumed by many people today. That came much later, in the mid 17th century with German composers such as Samuel Scheidt (1587-1654) and Heinrich Scheidemann (c.1595-1663) who wre taught in Amsterdam by Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck (1562-1621), organist of the Oude Kerk who today is regarded as the "Father of Keyboard Music", and the "Maker of Organists" in his own time. He was also the first to give organ recitals, (sometimes daily) and so also the first to give public concerts in the modern sense.
       As the music became more sophisticated, small seperate organs were set up in the vicinity of the chior, especially to accomany the choir and at first were developed seperately from the main organ (mostly in the west end of the church). Only later did they migrate up to the main organ and sitting on the front of the gallery where their more sutle sounds could be heard to lead the singing, which by now the main congregation of the church were also expected to sing
       As regards England, it happened the other way around. The earliest organs were of the small choir organ type, put there solely to accomany the almost enclosed choir, and this olnly happened in large towns or cathedrals. Everywhere else used solo instruments, perhaps violins, flutes and bassoons. It easn't until the 1840's that organs in England started to acquire a status of their own, and not in the west end either most of the time. Thus the organ in England grew up around the liturgy, and not as a solo instrument, built to delight the local citizens. In fact, in my own country of the Netherlands, the organ was forbidded to have any role within the services.
      This is only an outline, this subject is far more complicated than just this and perhaps I might be able to elaborate on it at another time.
 

Hi everyone!

My last, somewhat terse comments about this, I'll admit, was designed to stir things up a little, bearing in mind that not much has been happening on this forum of late, and in this I seem to have been somewhat successful. Let me try now to explain the reasons for my thinking on this subject. You may agree, you may not, but after all, this is why we are here....isn't it?

Firstly, let's look at the issues from the organ building point of view.
The first problem concerns the date of the construction, 1929-1932. This unfortunately coincides with the exact moment when the art of organ building reached its nadir. The time when the cinema organ had taken centre stage, and when it more often than not dictated how pipe organs of every kind should be constructed: essentially an organ should be like some kind of one-man orchestra, able to reproduce with style and panache the entire panopoly of popular songs, operatic arias and other kinds of banal ditties in vogue at that time. This was the time when the cinema was enjoying an unparalleled level of success. Likewise, the type of organ, built originally to accompany the silent films, was regarded then as the most modern, and the most technically advanced musical instrument of the age. It is also no coincidence that within three years of the Convention Hall organ's completion, Laurens Hammond released his tone-wheel electronic organ to the world, and after that happened the days of pipe organ building started to look distinctly numbered.

There was a reaction of course by some, resulting in the famous court case to test whether Mr. Hammond should even be allowed to call his invention an organ at all, since there was nothing 'organic' in the method of sound generation. He successfully proved (or his team of lawyers did), that as the production of sound in a pipe organ came from the natural oscillation of air in a tube, then the oscillation of an electric current (which is also a natural phenomenon) within a coil is exactly the same thing.
       This or course, has been the subject of sometimes heated debates ever since, and if the same case was to come before a court today then the outcome would probably be much different. However, this was the mid 1930's, and the last thing on anyone's mind at that time was how a pipe organ should be properly designed and constructed. Anyway, the Hammond organ reproduced its sound by means of an amplifier, so if you wanted a much bigger sound, then you just fitted a much bigger amp!

If all of this was true, then why was this enormous organ in the Convention Hall ever built in the first place? The simple answer to that is timing. Had the Hammond organ been invented just ten years beforehand, there is no telling what would have happened to organ building. The other thing that needs to be considered is the dire state of the economy at the time, with the Wall Street crash and its subsequent reverberations around the world. So yes, it is indeed a wonder that it was ever built at all, but the fact remains that it was, and it is also very possible that money problems might be one of the reasons why the design of it is so seriously flawed.

From the organist's point of view, I'll start at the console.
Seven manuals - with the uppermost being placed at such a ludicrous angle, making the execution of any real keyboard technique impossible. 455 ranks of genuine pipework, not really so much more than other very large instruments then, if you include mixtures, but blown up into 1,255 'speaking stops', with so much borrowing, extension and duplication as to be virtually beyond comprehension. And for what, to make the whole thing just look far more impressive at the console to the uninitiated?  Several complete 'departments' are not really there at all, but contain an assortment of different registers all borrowed from elsewhere. Does this reflect lack of money, or was it originally designed to be like this? If lack of money was an issue then I can understand to a certain degree, the reasons for such chaos.
       It has been proudly stated that to take a tour around the entire instrument takes four and a half hours. Compared with the amount of time an organist is going to need to find his or her way around, to try and find out exactly what is there and what is not is going to take many months or even years. When he or she draws a stop on one department, only to find it already in use on another is going to be more than just extremely frustrating to say the least. One of the first fundamental rules in designing pipe organs is that one pipe cannot be in two places at once.  Borrowing and extension to a certain degree is fine, but usually on much smaller instruments, and mostly in the pedal, where no more than two notes are played together, unless in a duet. The sharing of a common bass for the bottom octave between two 8ft stops on secondary manuals to save space and money is also perfectly acceptable. This has been done for centuries, but the only reason to invent whole 'phantom departments' is a purely cosmetic and superficial exercise, and of no musical value whatsoever.
       Another worry concerns the long compasses of the three lowest manuals, and it now seems that this was employed by this specific firm on several other occasions. Perhaps the reason for it was a reluctance by older organists to accept standard German keyboard compasses, just like it was in England a century before. Other than that, I have no idea. However, it has also been already said that the reason it was done was because of the various piano attachments needing a longer compass to be effective. This might indeed be the case, and if so then it proves what I've already said, that this organ was never intended to be a serious instrument at all, but the kind of one-man orchestra in the style of a cinema organ, rather than a proper pipe organ with any real musical integrity.
       This, however, is another fundamental mistake; it will never work, especially in a building as large as this. Stringed instruments and pipe organs never stay in tune with one another. As soon as the temperature rises, then so does the organ's flue work. The piano attachment on the other hand will pull in the opposite direction, and go flat.....
       Herr Handel found that out in the 18th century when he entertained audiences between acts of his operas on his Cembalorganum, a standard harpsichord with a chamber organ of around five stops attached to it underneath. The thing would never stay in tune, which is the main reason why most of these instruments were soon broken up and hardly ever survived complete. The original idea was a valid attempt to combine the initial attack of the harpsichord together with the sustaining power of the organ, but the laws of physics intervened to ensure that it would never be successful.

I am also surprised to see that this instrument is now being described as a national treasure. I don't understand why, because it has never been so described before. It's probably due to some misplaced nostalgic longing for the past which always seem to be so much better after the passing of time. It might also be due to the labelling of it being the world's largest musical instrument, although it had been just sitting there, languishing for decades, unloved and completely ignored.
       The generation that built it couldn't have been that impressed with the end result either. The organ had only been fully working for twelve years before the hurricane came and seriously damaged it. If it had really been such a national treasure, then don't you think that steps would have immediately been taken to repair and restore it to fully working condition? Yes, the war hadn't yet finished and so once again, money as well as manpower might have been an issue. However, during the fifties and sixties, when everyone was able to pursue the so-called 'American Dream' that we hear so much about today, then why wasn't something done about it then? The reason is because the United States, like everyone else had long moved on. The Convention Hall organ was now regarded as a dinosaur from an age when sensible organ design hadn't really mattered, and so once again, it's just another question of timing.

Back in the mid 1920's, a new interest had started to develop in organ music of earlier times, especially interest in the baroque age, the time of Johann Sebastian Bach. This awakening started in Northern Europe and slowly spread across the world. In 1958 the faculty at Harvard University commissioned a new organ from the Dutch organ builder, Dirk Flentrop, who had been a key figure in the revival of classical organ building practices which had their roots in the Dutch and German organ building techniques of the 16th - 18th centuries.
       This organ proved to be a revelation in America, who up until that time had based all their organ building practices on the 19th century British organ and adapted it to their own particular preferences, which usually meant increasing the wind pressures and scaling up the pipework in order to make a noise of church-shaking proportions. Now, suddenly, here was an organ, built with mechanical action, slider chests and low wind pressures which sang, rather than just shouted, but which still effortlessly filled the substantial room in which it is housed with a strong, clear and beautiful sound.
       This soon altered everything quite dramatically. Many of the age-old, larger companies that had dominated the American organ building landscape for many years, but who were unable or unwilling to adapt to the new way of doing things, slowly began to close up shop and disappear, to be replaced by other firms, many at first quite small, who were then able to take full advantage of this new awakening.
       And so it is today. The art of organ building is alive and well again and flourishing in America, although they have not been immune from the pressures of the economic situation any more than anyone else. Very many companies are doing excellent work and can proudly take their place amongst their European colleagues as equals, which is just how it should be and hopefully, the future of pipe organ building will remain bright and profitable for everyone.

So after all of this, don't you think that simply reviving something that is only going to prove to future generations just how bad the state of organ building had become at that time is such a good idea?  Don't you think that correcting the worst mistakes of the past should at least take some priority, especially when the instrument in question is so well known throughout the world, and not just for the sound it either makes or does not make?  Oh and yes, I have been there, on more than one occasion as well so I could see at first hand what kind of problems would have to be overcome to build an organ in such a large space. A building as large as that will have its own 'mini-climate', so before any organ is built there this would have to be addressed first. No information as far as I know had been released as to how they intend to achieve this before the instrument is to be restored, but I sincerely hope that it will be a priority, otherwise the whole project is doomed from the start; the organ will never function properly for long. 

Firstly, the organ chambers need to be lined in a non-porous material which will help stop them becoming damp with condensation which will affect the action and soundboards. This would also provide a good opportunity to direct the sound downwards, towards the people for maximum effect, so the sound will not just waft around the entire building. Once that is done then each chamber needs to have its temperature and humidity carefully regulated so that every part of the organ can function properly together, because this will vary considerably from when the building is empty to when it is full of people, regardless of what the weather is doing outside. The comment I made in my original rant was not to be taken too literally. Of course, much of the pipework will, and should be retained. That is the historical precedent, but as to the question of wind pressures and revoicing, I would not be able to comment on without knowing the results of a full-spectrum acoustical analysis of the building, something that could never have been done when the organ was built. For only then can these factors be properly evaluated and new pipe scales be planned. One thing is certain however: lose the ridiculous reeds on 50-100 inches of wind, they are impractical to maintain and completely unnecessary. How are you going to be able to stand next to them to tune them for a start?  Such a horrendous volume will irretrievably damage your hearing, and will probably not be permitted now in any case due to health and safety issues, and while we're on the subject; those awful Diaphones, based on the foghorn principle and which make a completely unmusical noise, should also be one of the first things to be removed and replaced with real organ pipes.
       Invented by the wonderfully eccentric but tragic Robert Hope-Jones, they never proved to be much of a success, and as with most of his organ building innovations, not very much survived for long. After his unsuccessful attempt to set himself up as an organ builder in the United States, just before he committed suicide, he sold the remains of his business and patents to a German immigrant. His name?  Rudolph Wurlitzer of Cincinnati, Ohio.

And thus this subject turns full circle!       

This has to be the greatest musical white elephant of all time.
Even after spending squillions of dollars on getting it all working again, who is going to provide the money to maintain it?
Far better than to rip it all out and start again, and build an organ with some artistic and musical integrity,
with properly designed divisions, standardised manual compasses and sensible wind pressures.

I have just heard that there are plans being drawn uo to demolish this church and replace it with an apartment complex, although incorporating a much smaller church. Of course when this kind of thing happens, the last thing that anyone ever gives any thought to is the organ, in this case a small three manual Rushworth & Dreaper (III/25) installed new when the church was completed in 1949. I believe it has an entry on the NPOR but I cannot find it at the moment. The organ received quite major attention by the Willis firm in the early 1990's when the pneumatic action was replaced with electric and some of the pipework revoiced.
I have actually played it but not for a very long time but it was in quite satisfactory condition back then. In fact, I was told by the organist there that it wasn't really used that much, most of the time it spent just playing quietly in the background but as I have never been to a Christian Science church for a service, I cannot say. The organ has no case, it is wholly contained in a chamber behind the "stage" at the front, behind a grille. The console is also in a very strange position, being in a room below this platform, with a rectangular hole at the front so you can look down into it and see the organist, but perhaps this is normal for this kind of building!
As far as I can tell, this idea has only just passed the planning stage but I am trying to stay informed over what's happening and if, or when the building is torn down, what is going to happen to the organ, because usually in these kind of situations, the pipe organ is removed and replaced with.......well you know exactly what.....!   

Good News!

I have received an update on the status of this organ.

A new home has fortunately been found for it in the Parish Church at Owslebury, near Twyford in Hampshire
The organ is basically in good condition but on installation some leatherwork will replaced as well as some
Kopex conveyancing with traditional lead and the case pipes will also be restored.

Therefore, one happy outcome for a redundant organ at least!

Best Wshes from Ian

Max Reger will always hold a special place in my life as I started to learn to play his organ works at quite an early age so have grown up with them. Starting with his chorale preludes (Op.135a) when I was about twelve, I progressed through the repertoire until I was able to tackle the more technically demanding works when an organ student. Of the three great Choralfantasia's, the second "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme" is the one I most frequently perform in concerts, and sometimes performing the Fugue alone after church services, especially during Advent and the Christmas period.
       Many organists I know, when playing his works, forget for which type of instrument they were originally conceived, the late German Romantic instrument. Performance today, especially on recordings I have heard are usually played on a modern, more eclectic instrument, which is not wrong, but does sometimes distort the original intention of the composer: too faster tempos and style of performance etc.
       As regards 'Urtext', for Max Reger this shouldn't really apply, for there are many publications that reproduce the intentions of the composer from the original score. Any that don't are obviously due to some whim of a particular editor and should therefore be avoided.

Incidentally, tomorrow (March 12th) is the 75th anniversary of the death of Charles-Marie Widor and I hope to be able to spend the afternoon with him by playing some excerpts from his now, neglected ten Organ Symphonies, probably mostly to myself but for anyone else that decides to wander into the church to listen!

Best Wishes from Ian   

It has just come to my attention that the organ in this church has recently been put up for sale on Ebay and has now been sold, but to where and to whom isn't exactly known.
       This organ was built by William Hill and is of an early date, possibly as early as 1840-50. I believe it is a one-manual and pedal with approx eight ranks of pipes but am not certain. There is a picture of it on the NPOR (DO 4249) but no other details are there. The organ was acquired by this small church c.1902  and has been standing there in original condition ever since, until a few weeks ago when the church decided it was taking up too much room and so replaced it with a digital pipeless monstrosity.
       This is more than a little worrying because of it's age and pedigree, being built by an English organ builder that has an international reputation, so any early instrument by him that is in original condition deserves to be jealously preserved. After several phone calls I have not been able to find out if the organ has been properly dismantled and relocated by a competent organ builder or whether, as I suspect, has been pulled apart by enthusiastic amateurs.
I anyone knows, therefore, of it's whereabouts and what exactly has happened to it I hope they will be able to put my mind at rest. I have heard a rumor that has gone to a church in Winchester, but to which I don't know

       

With all printed organ music, the tempo depends completely upon the size of the organ and the type of acoustic it sits in, whether wet or dry. This matters much more of course if you are playing to please others or just for your own pleasure. If that is so then you only have to worry about how it best sounds at the console and with Max generally, the larger the organ, the better!

It should be remembered that in the Barock age, the most important thing was the music itself, the instrument on which it was performed on was a secondary consideration. Bach's Passacaglia for instance, was written for performance on either the pedal harpsichord or the organ, although performance on the latter of course is infinately more satisfactory as it can provide far greater differences in dynamics and registration for each variation.

Gottfried Silbermann's organs sound just as well in a 'dry' acoustic as in a 'wet' one. Go and listen to the small organ in Pfaffroda (built 1715) whose sound is perfectly suited to this small church. (although when I played it a few years ago the 16ft Pedal Posaune was suffering from a bad cough!)

Another important point, not well known by many is that Gottfried Silbermann was almost single-handedly responsible for the development of the early piano in Germany. He called it 'Cembalo d'Amour' and three examples of his pianos were owned by Frederick the Great which Bach himself performed on them for him at Potsdam in 1748, the result of which was  "The Musical Offering' (BWV 1079) Two of these pianos are still there and although I have seen them, I had no chance to play them at the time but hopefully that can be remedied sometime in the future.


With best wishes

Ian

There are many who are unaware of the difference between a Harmonium and an American Reed Organ.
The main difference is that whereas in the Harmonium the wind is blown outwards from the bellows, as with a pipe organ but the American Reed Organ actually sucks the air into it, the foot bellows therefore creating a vacuum. This can have a marked difference regarding the tone. One of the best Harmonium makers was Alexandre, Pere et Fils of Paris. One of the reasons was that this company actually endeavoured to reproduce the sound of a small pipe organ and were actually rather successful at it.
The American Reed organ was designed to be more of a domestic instrument, although they were widely used in chapels during the days of the wild, wild west it would seem.
The expression stop, found on both types of organ fulfill the same function, to cut off the reservoir bellows and connect the soundboard directly to the foot pedals, thereby a sudden burst at fff can be acheived, although how or why this was originally employed, I'm not sure. Both instruments employed the divided register technique so that a different registration can be employed between bass and treble.
The Harmonium also has forté stops, usually at each end of the stop jamb which operates small swell louvres for bass and treble whereas the American Organ has knee swells that open the front of the windchest directly. It also often containes an octave coupler and a small fan tremulant, usually for the treble section only. As this organ is pictured, it most definately is of the French Harmonium type, since it is of the classic chest-type case which apart from opening at the front for the keyboards, should also open up again at a 45 degree angle to allow the sound to be heard properly.

At one time I had an example of both types, an Alexandre of Paris, single divided manual and eight bass and treble stops, including a percussion stop and the swells employed as described. It had a pencil squiggle inside the windchest which stated that it was made in 1870. It came from a music shop that had for many years had hired it out for use in small orchestras and when accompaniment for voices was required so it was in first-calss condition. Of course, that didn't stop me from taking it apart to find out how it was constructed. The main chorus was constructed of 16, 8 and 4 which, if you played it one octave up, it did sound very much like a small pipe organ. Not contet with this however, I decided to change the 8' percussion stop to 5.1/3 to give the chorus a bit more 'bite', by moving the reeds up a fifth.
The American organ was pipe Esty Organ Co of Brattleboro, Vermont and I acquired it from a builder who had bought an old house in order to renovate and resell it and had inherited the organ which had been left in the house. Of course he didn't know quite what to do with it so I offered to take it off his hand which he was very pleased about. This organ had five stops divided between bass and treble, an expression stop, an octave coupler and a fan tremulant (which did'nt work at first) It also contained a 16ft Subbass which operated between C - g in the bass. The compass of this organ was C - f''' (54 notes) whereas the Harmonium was 'F - f''' (61) similar to that of a harpsichord. The American orga also contained a row of open metal dummy pipes in the front casework which I tried to get to speak, but was unsuccessful, due to the languids inside not being properly formed.

Unfortunately, due to moving house several years ago, I had no option but to let both instruments go, making sure that they both went to good homes, but it is of great regret to me that I don't have them now, especially the Harmonium.

With best Wishes - Ian 



 








 


 

This is the sort of thing You Tube was created for. It's a pity there wasn't a video camera around!

Something similar happened to me about a year ago.
There I was, happily getting into the last piece of 'going out' music at the end of the service, Max Reger's Praeludium in D-Major Op.63 if I remember correctly, nothing too way out to make the LOL's (Little Old Ladies) scurry out of the building at haste, like they often do with Messiaen or something similar. During this time, several members of the junior choir were generally milling around behind me when one of them managed to drop his 'Game Boy' (there no doubt to provide a little welcome relief during the sermon) onto the organ pedals at the back which also slid down into the centre of the pedalboard. Initailly I hadn't noticed this and continued playing. He though decided to kneel down and try to retrieve it, grovelling around under my feet. However, during this I managed to bring my heel down firmly on his left hand causing him to let out an almost close to death scream, which did manage to halt Max in his tracks. After which I turned around and almost said a rude word in church, while he had now got to his feet and was jumping around somewhat in agony. I did then jump off the organ bench and examined the hand which was beginning to turn red and throb a bit although I quickly realised there had been no major harm done so after asking him if he was alright I leant back over and picked up the computer game and gave it back to him saying, "Next time just wait until I've finished, the organ can be a dangerous beast at the best of times!" Of course his other friends all thought it was great fun and took off with him to the choir vestry laughing. As for me, while I was locking the organ I was wondering if I wasn't going to be in trouble with the parents, accusing me of some sort of child cruelty. However, he was back again for the evening service, still nursing a sore hand but told me that he was okay, but I noticed that he kept well away from the organ after that!

I too played an organ by Miller many years ago, the early seventies to be precise and I can remember being very impressed with it, given the fact that it was electronic and remembering what the normal standard of reproduction of organ tone was back then. It was during an organ festival at Cranleigh in Surrey where three organs were featured, the church pipe organ and this Miller and another one by the American Conn company which featured so-called 'elecronic pipes' which were a set of brass tubes (with no mouths) and stood on a small stand by the side of the organ. The Miller was of standard British console dimesions with angled drawstop jambs for the manuals while the pedal registers were on tabs just below the music desk. The reason why I remember this organ so well was because I described it to the audience at the time that although being trained as a pipe organ builder, I regarded this organ as a serious musical instrument.
Althiugh I realise things have moved on from that time it made me realise that there one day maybe a serious contender to the pipe organ, especially for small installations. I cannot remember the price of it now but it was very reasonable, compared with the Conn organ there, which, to my mind still had a very long way to go to be a serious contender to pipes.
The Miller organ was being marketed by a company called Southern Organs at the time and if I remember correctly, was the subject of some serious business malpractice several years later but by that time I had moved back to the Netherlands and don't know the details of it.

Best wished from Ian

Can someone please explain to be as to what on earth is "a Bach organ"? As far as I know, none of the Bach family ever built organs, although it is true that the great Johann Sebastian was often asked for advice regarding new instruments that were to be built around his homeland.
       One such instrument was the aforementioned organ in the Schlosskapelle in Altenburg, south of Leipzig and eventually built by Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost of Bad Langensalza (not far from Erfurt), competed in 1739. This is an organ I know personally very well, and apart from its visually stunning case, is both a pleasure and delight to see and play after its comprehensive rebuilding in 1976 by Hermann Eule of Bautzen which included replacing most of its front pipes that had been sacrificed for metal reserves during the war.
The tonal design if this organ does seem to generally conform to what little knowledge we actually have as to Bach's preferences in tonal design. This includes a large selection of 8ft ranks and of course, his known fondness for 32ft reeds. Silbermann never made one, though he did consider including one for the organ at Zittau. It is also said that Bach originally wrote the Praeludium & Fuge in Es-Dur BWV 552 to play during his opening recital on the Altenburg organ, it certainly dates from this time.
       The other fact that needs to be taken into account is that this organ was originally contracted to be built by Gottfried Silbermann
in 1736, but he found that he wasn't able to deliver on time, so then 'giving away' the contract to Trost.
       Apart from this organ, mentioned above, the organ in Trodheim and the Hildebrandt organ in St Wenzel, Naumberg, Bach never played, or probably never even knew about, especially not the organs in the Netherlands.
       The organ in the Michaeliskerk in Zwolle was entirely newly built in 1721, the contract being signed in 1718 by Arp Schnitger and completed by his youngest son, Frans Caspar. Whether Arp had any hand in the actual construction is highly debatable as he was miles away when he died, working on his final organ at St Laurents in Itzehoe. I see that the organbuilding family of van Hagerbeer
is also mentioned here but the fact remains they had not, or never had, built an organ in this church. The previous instrument was completed as far back as 1505 by Johannes Jacobsz van Bilsteyn, with 3-manuals, containing a 34-rank Blockwerk, a Rugpositief of 4 voices and a Bovenwerk of 4 or 5 voices with attached pedal. Jan Morlet III completely rebuilt it in 1643, which included splitting up the Blockwerk and making its lower ranks playable on the Pedal. Then in 1669 the church tower burnt down after being struck by lightning which badly damaged the organ but because of lack of money, the organ was dismantled and stored. Thereafter the congregation worshipped without an organ for over 50 years until in 1718, the local physician and mayor of Zwolle, donated 12,000 guilders for a new organ, with his brother donating another 2,000 guilders.
        The organ in the St Laurenskerk in Alkmaar, which happens to be in my home town, was given a comprehensive reconstruction by Frans Caspar Schnitger in 1725 from the original instrument by the van Hagerbeer family of Leiden, completed in 1645 although it had already received some modification from the Duyschot family earlier. Today it is often known as a van Hagerbeer/Schnitger organ and indeed still contains about 25% of its original pipework from 1645, all in completely altered form, however. Schnitger used much of it within his new independant Pedal department. The only stipulation given at the time was although he could do what he liked within the interior, he was not allowed to alter the casework to accomodate any of it, which of course to us would seem abhorent today, but at the time this was more to do with passing off the rebuild as 'repairs', rather than any conservation exercise.
       As regards the Mueller organ in St Bavo,Haarlem, although a very famous and noteworthy organ, due mostly to its Handel and Mozart connections, cannot today be regarded as in any kind of original tonal condition, having been rebuilt several times since conception. Christiaan Mueller, it is thought, worked extensively with Frans Caspar Schnitger on his arrival in the Netherlands from the Harz mountain region of Germany, before setting up business on his own. Much of the St Bavo organ's so-called 'wild tone' may be more than a little due to the restoration carried out by Marcussen between 1959-61, which unvelievably included adding two large quint-mixtures to the Hoofdwerk and Pedaal (the originals contain third-sounding ranks) and enlarging the compass of the pedal from d' to f' (27-30 notes). Such blatent violation to an organ of such historical significance would never be considered today - well at least I hope it wouldn't!





























   

The organs of Charles Brindley of Sheffield deserve to be included in a list of the best English organ builders of the 19th/early 20th century. I believe he also received a great many commissions for instruments in Australia and New Zealand
In line with this thread, here then is the specification of one of his small instruments which stands in virtually original condition
in St Peter's Church in Hascome, Surrey, England;

GREAT

Open Diapason 8
Stopped Diapason 8
Dulciana 8
Principal 4
Lieblich Flote 4


SWELL

Stopped Diapason 16
Open Diapason 8
Vox Angelica 8
Principal 4
Mixture II 
Oboe 8


PEDAL

Bourdon 16


COUPLERS

Great to Pedal
Swell to Pedal
Swell to Great

Compass:  C - e'  (29-Pedal)  C - g'''  (56-Manuals)


The Gt Std. Diapason and Dulciana share a common bass, otherwise there are no extentions or tramsmissions
The Vox Angelica is not tuned to beat with the Open Diapason and is of a far too smaller scale to do so anyway
It may also be the only tonal alteration to the instrument since it was first built, the writing on the engraved stop knobs is slightly different to the others. It is, however, a very early alteration if  it actually is one.

The church was built in 1864 and the organ in 1869 and as said, is in remarkable original condition,
including the retention of the original narrow and straight pedalboard.

Musically, there are some problems with balance between both manuals, since the Great soundboards are in their own case, suspended on the north choir wall above the player while the Swell is behind, buried behind the wall.
It was last restored in the early 1990's by the organ builder, Saxon Aldread.

I hope this is of interest - with best wishes, Ian.