News:

If you have difficulty registering for an account on the forum please email antespam@gmail.com. In the question regarding the composer use just the surname, not including forenames Charles-Marie.

Main Menu

The End of the Internet

Started by revtonynewnham, July 09, 2013, 10:23:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

revtonynewnham

Hi

Some light relief - especially since the board has been rather slow lately.

http://hmpg.net/

Every Blessing

Tony

David Pinnegar

Dear Tony

You deserve a medal for that one. Hilarious!

Best wishes

David P

pcnd5584

Quote from: revtonynewnham on July 09, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
Hi

Some light relief - especially since the board has been rather slow lately.

http://hmpg.net/

Every Blessing

Tony

However, this may turn out to be counter-productive, if we desire a little more action on this board - people may simply do exactly what the link suggests....

Perhaps someone should come up with something outrageous (and therefore, of necessity, entirely fallacious), in order to generate some lively debate.
Pierre Cochereau rocked, man

mf2701

Why should something outrageous be, of necessity, entirely fallacious? It is hard to think of a fictitious outrage that has not been based on fact, analogous or otherwise .

But have there been any universal outrages; any act that outraged every single person who was properly informed about it? I think not because the perpetrator, one or many, was likely not outraged by his own actions at the time. Most likely he was outraged by some previous event. Or perhaps he was out of his mind. Can a mad man commit an outrage?

Dragging this down to our own level, the destruction of the organ in the Great George Street Chapel, Liverpool was an outrage to those who care about these things. But was it a good organ? I never heard or saw it, but I have seen Hill organs of the period. None were satisfying. Hill had many more mistakes to make before York Minster was put right (by the standards of the time) and Birmingham Town Hall was not ever right in his lifetime. The restoration of the organ at St Mary at Hill in the City is, I believe, contentious. Was it restored simply because it was old and bore the name Hill or because it was a fine art piece that satisfies most who hear and play it?

Yes, I am calling for a Public Inquiry into the work of William Hill (1789-1870).

MF

David Pinnegar

As someone who has spent three decades in conservation I have to question preservation for preservation's sake. Perhaps I might have used my talents to benefit society more . . . so why do I choose to choose preservation? Of course it has to be a matter to some degree of self justification and seen by some possibly as self indulgence doing what I like to be doing . . . But isn't that how a satisfying life to be lived? Especially if it benefits other people? So how?

In this train of thought the subject of preservation action only is justifiable if the perceived heritage has thought to give us - evidence that enures beyond the changes of fashion. Heritage has the imperative right to preservation only if it is capable of marking a point or tracing a story in time that gives us the evidence with which to think, to question, and therefore to make a valid and worthwhile contribution to the future.

Best wishes

David P

David Drinkell

Quote from: mf2701 on July 14, 2013, 10:19:29 AM

Dragging this down to our own level, the destruction of the organ in the Great George Street Chapel, Liverpool was an outrage to those who care about these things. But was it a good organ? I never heard or saw it, but I have seen Hill organs of the period. None were satisfying. Hill had many more mistakes to make before York Minster was put right (by the standards of the time) and Birmingham Town Hall was not ever right in his lifetime. The restoration of the organ at St Mary at Hill in the City is, I believe, contentious. Was it restored simply because it was old and bore the name Hill or because it was a fine art piece that satisfies most who hear and play it?

No one now living knew the George Street organ in its Hill form, and there can be few who remember it at all, but it was remembered as a fine old war-horse by such as Stainton Taylor, who knew it for many years.  By that time, it had been rebuilt by Willis and many registers had been altered, moved transposed or revoiced.

The St. Mary-at-Hill organ was a fine one.  I remember playing it shortly after HN&B rebuilt it in 1971.  Its present form is very near to the original, lacking the later addition of a third manual (it had two Choir Organs in its time, the 1971 HN&B one replacing an earlier, though not original, scheme), and I should imagine that it is still very impressive indeed.  St. Peter's, Cornhill was another early Hill.  It has been rebuilt several times, most recently by Rushworth in 1959.  At that point, it lost two II rank mixtures from the Great (typical 'insular' English stops) but otherwise the Great and Swell retain something close to their original schemes.  I have never heard or played it, but I am told that it sounds rather restrained these days, so perhaps there has been a lot of revoicing or the speech has got tired with age.  It will be interesting to see how it comes up after restoration, as and when tha happens.

I never caught the general enthusiasm for old Hills. There are exceptions, but one can never be sure how much this is due to later alteration.  Here are some examples:

I am not a huge admirer of the organ in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, and if one restricts oneself to the original stops, it is not quite big enough for the building. Some of the Mander additions, egged on by the late ebullient Lord Dunleath, are arguably too much, particularly the Solo mixtures.  The Harrison in St. Anne's Cathedral had more of that elusive character known as "class" and many recitalists preferred it because it had two swell-boxes.  On the other hand, I always admired the lesser-known late Hill in Londonderry Guildhall,  rebuilt by HN&B in 1978.

In Brighton some years back, I was impressed by the little-known Father Willis in St. Peter's, but shortly afterwards left rather cold by the famous Hill in All Saints, Hove.

The old Hill in Big School, Christ's Hospital, Horsham, has been acclaimed, but it does nothing for me!  I accept that it is long overdue for a restoration and may be sounding tired, but I still didn't care for the basic character.  I did like the Rushworth in the Chapel, although it's not as good as Holy Rude, Stirling.  An organ builder friend, who has a good reputation for conservation, described the Rushworth as an impressive big machine and the Hill as a musical instrument.  I couldn't agree with that.

I can think of a number of similarly lack-lustre Hills.  St. Thomas, Belfast is another, despite a much-publicised (and Lottery funded) restoration some years ago.  Local tradition had it that a previous organist had the upperwork toned down but it wasn't opened up again at the restoration.  I played this organ regularly for several months and could never get enthused about it.


Then again.....

The 1865 Hill which has stood since 1919 in Kilmore Church, Co. Armagh, is one which certainly deserves the description "grand".  Chester Cathedral is outstanding and so is St. Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork. And All Hallows, Gospel Oak (although I can't help thinking a Father Willis of similar size would have been more flexible).

I think it's fair to say that, with Hill, you get what you see.  Other builders sometimes gave more scope to the imagination.

revtonynewnham

Hi

My admittedly limited experience of Hill organs is rather different to David's - I like them.  In recent years I've played 3 - one almost original and 2 that have been restored to original (or in one case, near original) condition.

The first was the 3 manual formerly in St Mary Magdalene, White Abbey, Manningham - http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?Fn=Rsearch&rec_index=D03229  As far as we know, this has never been significantly altered tonally, and despite being in a rather parlous condition when I played it to make a private recording before the church was closed, it had a fine sound IMHO.  Thankfully, the organ was saved and is now in Christ Church, Wanstead.

The others are both cathedral organs - Chichester and Arundel (Roman Catholic).  Chichester is far from pure Hill, as can be seen on NPOR http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?Fn=Rsearch&rec_index=N15562  It still was reminiscent in sound to the other Hills that I've heard - and a very nice job our hosts here have made of the rebuild.  Arundel however is very much as Hill left it - except for matters of stop control - http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?Fn=Rsearch&rec_index=E01240  A very impressive organ in a very reverberant acoustic.

Every Blessing

Tony

David Drinkell

Yes, I liked Arundel when I played it a few years before the last (David Wells?) rebuild.  I've never heard Chichester, although I played the Allen.....

Good buildings acoustically - I suppose most organs would sound good in them.  I think that maybe in a parish organ with 15 or so stops, I'd have more fun with a Walker or a Willis.  There are exceptions, but I'm suddenly reminded of the St. Barnabas (ex-St. Martin's), Colchester, Hill, which takes the biscuit for gormlessness!

http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?Fn=Rsearch&rec_index=H00575

Other builders perpetrated schemes like this, of course - the principal being to provide the stops most used on a cathedral organ to accompany the choir, plus a big diapason - but I'm pushed to think of one that feels as dull as this one.

revtonynewnham

Hi

From what I hear, Arundel changed significantly in the latest restoration.  I never got to hear it before the Wells work was done, despite living fairly near.

Anyway, any well built and designed organ has its advantages - and it's part of the skill of the organist to find & exploit the instrument's strengths.

Every Blessing

Tony

David Drinkell

Arundel had been pepped up in a neo-baroquish direction.  Like so many such treatments, this was later felt to be incongruous and David Wells' work seems to have restored and amplified along more appropriate lines.

"Anyway, any well built and designed organ has its advantages - and it's part of the skill of the organist to find & exploit the instrument's strengths."

Absolutely!  If only people would take the trouble to understand the character of each instrument and register acordingly.

pcnd5584

#10
Quote from: mf2701 on July 14, 2013, 10:19:29 AM
Why should something outrageous be, of necessity, entirely fallacious? It is hard to think of a fictitious outrage that has not been based on fact, analogous or otherwise .

It need not - but my post did exactly what I wanted - it engendered a response from another board reader.

Quote from: mf2701 on July 14, 2013, 10:19:29 AM
But have there been any universal outrages; any act that outraged every single person who was properly informed about it? I think not because the perpetrator, one or many, was likely not outraged by his own actions at the time. Most likely he was outraged by some previous event. Or perhaps he was out of his mind. Can a mad man commit an outrage?

Dragging this down to our own level, the destruction of the organ in the Great George Street Chapel, Liverpool was an outrage to those who care about these things. But was it a good organ? I never heard or saw it, but I have seen Hill organs of the period. None were satisfying. Hill had many more mistakes to make before York Minster was put right (by the standards of the time) and Birmingham Town Hall was not ever right in his lifetime. The restoration of the organ at St Mary at Hill in the City is, I believe, contentious. Was it restored simply because it was old and bore the name Hill or because it was a fine art piece that satisfies most who hear and play it?

Yes, I am calling for a Public Inquiry into the work of William Hill (1789-1870).

MF

It is true that Hill made many mistakes - Mendelssohn himself criticised the almost impossibly heavy key action at Birmingham Town Hall (as first constructed).

However, This was a period of fertile imagination and great experimentation in organ building. Hill did make improvements and innovations. It could be said that, whilst FHW made mechanical innovations throughout his life, tonally he actually went backwards (compare the instrument in Saint Michael's College, Tenbury - as it was - with Lincoln Cathedral, with its paucity of upper-work). There are several other organs built by FHW which can be used to make similar comparisons. Whilst this may be considered off-topic, my point is that there was probably no British organ builder who got everything right - particularly not at this time (the organ in Great George Street Congregational Church was built in 1841). Again, compare this Hill instrument with the almost contemporary organ in Gloucester Cathedral (FHW, 1847): http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?Fn=Rsearch&rec_index=N07429. Given that Gloucester Cathedral is considerably larger than the former chapel in George Street, Liverpool. the Liverpool instrument is almost double the size of that at Gloucester. In addition, the Liverpool organ possessed a Tuba Mirabilis, which was winded separately from the rest of the Choir Organ. Furthermore, the Gloucester organ had only 'Pedal pipes' (probably twenty-nine of them, although the existing stop-lists are not clear - all except the lowest twelve note could have been supplied by couplers only). However, the Liverpool organ possessed three independent Pedal ranks (from 16ft. C), which included a full-length reed.

As David Drinkell observes, no-one now living remembers the Liverpool organ (or, for that matter) the first Willis instrument in Gloucester Cathedral). However, even with a heavy action, I should still prefer the Hill organ.


Pierre Cochereau rocked, man

pcnd5584

Quote from: David Drinkell on July 18, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Arundel had been pepped up in a neo-baroquish direction.  Like so many such treatments, this was later felt to be incongruous and David Wells' work seems to have restored and amplified along more appropriate lines.

"Anyway, any well built and designed organ has its advantages - and it's part of the skill of the organist to find & exploit the instrument's strengths."

Absolutely!  If only people would take the trouble to understand the character of each instrument and register acordingly.

Indeed - I agree entirely.

Although I have not played the organ of Arundel Cathedral, I prefer greatly the stop-list after David Wells' restoration work.
Pierre Cochereau rocked, man

pcnd5584

Quote from: David Drinkell on July 17, 2013, 11:46:45 PM
Yes, I liked Arundel when I played it a few years before the last (David Wells?) rebuild.  I've never heard Chichester, although I played the Allen.....

You have my sympathy.... (regarding the toaster).

I have been fortunate to play the restored pipe organ at Chichester Cathedral on several occasions; as Tony has observed, this instrument has strayed somewhat from its Hill roots. However, I regard it as one of the most beautiful and musical of our cathedral organs. And, whilst I rejoice that this organ now possesses a Swell to Choir, I do wish that the G.O. had been designed to include a second quiet 8ft. flute (perhaps a Hohl Flute) and a Cone Gamba. I cannot think of any Hill G.O. which originally included a 2ft. Flute and a separate Tierce. In any case, there is a perfectly serviceable Cornet on the Solo Organ.
Pierre Cochereau rocked, man

pcnd5584

Quote from: revtonynewnham on July 17, 2013, 09:40:56 AM
... Chichester ... and a very nice job our hosts here have made of the rebuild. ...

Um.... that would be the other discussion board - hosted by John Mander, Tony....
Pierre Cochereau rocked, man