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

St. Bartholomew's Church, Crewkerne, Somerset

Started by KB7DQH, September 24, 2010, 05:58:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

will o the wind

Although the topic has deviated slightly there some interesting points arising from the discussion on electronics. The loudspeaking and amplification equipment can be engineered to suit local conditions but the aspect of authentic generation of the sound sources is the key to proper organesque quality. Few, if any, commercial machines have more than a single clock generator from which all the notes are mathematically derived resulting in a sterile quality of sound which Lesley speakers and other phase shiftng devices attempt to mask. On the other hand, a pipe organ will have 100s or 1000s of independent voices.
(The Miller Organ Company built multiple generator analogue organs in the 1960s) .
A good analogy is to compare a chorus of 20 violins playing in unison with one amplified the equivalent of 20 times.

Making electronic organs, digital or analogue with 1000 or so voices would be cost prohibitive.

will o the wind.

David Pinnegar

Quote from: will o the wind on May 16, 2011, 05:22:14 AMThe loudspeaking and amplification equipment can be engineered to suit local conditions but the aspect of authentic generation of the sound sources is the key to proper organesque quality. Few, if any, commercial machines have more than a single clock generator from which all the notes are mathematically derived resulting in a sterile quality of sound

Hi!

Certainly this is true with off the shelf instruments. It is particularly apparent in the excellence of quality of the sound of the Hammerwood instrument where, originally in order to overcome defects on two stops and then to provide versatility, the instrument uses at least 9 generators on different clocks and when an organist registers on a mix-n-match basis choosing stops from the different sections, the effect leaves any sense of electronics receding into the background. If however, an organist is tempted to choose all the stops from the original Great for full organ, the sound is good but recognisably electronic. Overcoming these problems is not possible from an off the shelf solution.

However, speakers are crucial. I don't like _any_ two way speakers except possibly Tannoy Dual Concentrics with which I am experimenting currently although have reservations about the crossover frequencies. I was thrown out of the Hauptwerk Forum for suggesting that Mackie active monitors were really not designed for presenting the sound of an organ pipe as a real pipe . . . and the current generation of software geeks are two young to know much about 1950s - 1970s hifi where physics of acoustic principles sorted out problems that the current generation think are best soluble by software, which they are not. Conventional hi-fi or PA approaches will lead to a sound which is as good as conventional hifi or PA and no better. I started to hint at a philosophy of approach to making a loudspeaker sound like a real pipe but annoyed many by refusing to specify a definitive approach publicly as it is against the interests of pipe organs to enable parishes such as this one referred to in this thread firstly to think (even mistakenly) that they can get an instrument as good as their pipe organ let alone to publish details publicly of how to go about it . . . (to the best that anyone can, although it still cannot be as good as their original instrument!)

Best wishes

David P

John

With respect to the two authors of the above, and I mean respect because they are talking a language I don't understand, their posts have nothing whatsoever to do with St Bartholomew's Crewkerne.   Perhaps a new and completely seperate Topic and Subject should be started, I don't understand how that works either!

I and many others are concerned about a magnificent 15th century building, the pretty OK Rothwell that resides there and the ridiculous situation the PCC have got themsleves into due to pressure from - who knows where? - some of us do!

Regards ........ John

organforumadmin

Quote from: John on May 16, 2011, 05:29:44 PM
With respect to the two authors of the above, and I mean respect because they are talking a language I don't understand, their posts have nothing whatsoever to do with St Bartholomew's Crewkerne.


Dear John


It's probably that the authors above are pointing out the extent to which in swapping their good pipe organ for a commercially produced and promoted product off the shelf they will be sold a pup. Those responsible for fundraising of course won't want to admit that for some considerable time after the poor decision has been taking and music at the church will suffer for at least a generation until the newfangled confounded thing packs up or bores the congregation away. Some priests are like that too.


When one has a winning formula that's then broken, it's a much bigger problem ever to recover. In this case, repair of the pipe organ and repair of the roof are clearly the winning formulae.


Best wishes


Forum Admin

KB7DQH

#64
I quite agree the roof really needs to be dealt with first... Others on this forum have been witness to what can happen to an otherwise serviceable pipe  instrument that isn't designed to be used outdoors :o :(

I can only imagine the deterioration for which their current instrument suffers has been needlessly accelerated for lack of prompt action on the roof...  and under these conditions an electronic substitute
relying on water-soluble electromechanical transducers won't last anywhere near as long as "advertised"... and certainly would have considerably diminished resale value in the event the pipe organ does receive the attention it deserves.

As far as the discussions begun as a result of me drawing attention to the plight of a church congregation feeling squeezed financially and thus their organ in danger of being lost in the future due to neglect... none have really strayed horribly "off-topic".  All have contributed to a better understanding of issues facing other congregations the world over.  Other posts elsewhere on this forum celebrate the results of church organizations who have managed to overcome these difficulties 8) ;)  in the hope that the scene so graphically depicted on the forum front page...
doesn't happen... again.

Eric
KB7DQH

The objective is to reach human immortality—that is, to create things which are necessary to mankind, necessary to the purpose of the existence of mankind, and which have become the fruit that drives the creation of a higher state of mankind than ever existed before."

John

@ Eric        To clarify - the organ in St. Bart's is nowhere near the chancel but in the south transpet, well away from any dodgy roof.   The present action problem is not the result of ingress of water but of wear, as pointed out in the report I posted a few days ago.   That report is not by me but passed to me by a person with intimate knowledge of the innards of this instrument.

Also I have previously made it clear that the funds for roof repairs and funds for the purchase of a toaster are two entirely separate, ongoing appeals so there is no question of one before the other, though I quess they will get the £10K before the £100K.   In that case let's hope they put the stupid thing in the chancel and it gets rained upon!!     

@Admin      You beautifully and concisely paraphrase the long and technical contributions from David and will o the wind with your "sold a pup" - perfect.   The trouble is that it's the next generation that will have to put right the silly wrongs of the current PCC.

ATB ............. John


will o the wind

I  admit that I may have assisted in steering the topic off course but I was keen to point out  the fundamental weaknesses of commercial toasters which are not always appreciated by would be punters.
Back to the topic proper now and having read the various posts I wonder if there is a hidden agenda which has little to do with the technical integrity of the instrument. For example, is it thought that the church's finances could be improved given the mistaken belief that maintenance costs are zero
as result of ceasing the tuning contract?
Just a thought.

will o the wind.

Jonathan Lane

I'm sure they have been told by buting an electronic the maintenance costs are zero, however, I know from the thousands that have had to be spent on relatively new electronics to keep them playing this is simply untrue.

As regards the roof, I would not do any work to the organ while any part of the roof is at risk, even if there was no risk of damp, the dirt and dust risk to the organ, even hundreds of feet away, and even if properly sealed while the work is being done, is far too severe.

As for this thread being off topic at any point, I think it has stuck pretty well to the real versus electronic argument, and the detail goes a long way to help make the case at Crewkerne.

As said before, if there was a real desire to do something, we would be happy to look and quote, but I think the PCC are blinkered on this.

A final anecdote.  When I was taking my ARCO, I lived in a little village in Dorset.  The church was 'lucky' enough to have two organs, a two manual Viscount and the old one manual, short pedalboard, Walker.  I did nearly all my practice for ARCO, Bach, Messiaen, etc., on the Walker!

Jonathan

Barry Williams

"............a two manual Viscount and the old one manual, short pedalboard, Walker.  I did nearly all my practice for ARCO, Bach, Messiaen, etc., on the Walker!"

This is fine at ARCO level, but for a pupil at Grade Four a reasonably standard pedal board is essential.  Indeed,
the ABRSM might even insist on it.

In respect of Crewkerne, I wonder what all the erudition of pipe versus electronic instrument on this Board is intended to achieve.

Has anyone been  invited to addresss the parochial church council in a measured way, taking into account all the factors? There may well be important factors that should be taken into account which have not been mentioned here.

My concern is that a situation has been publicly discussed on this Board without those in Crewkerne being given an opportunity to respond.  That seems to me to be inherently unfair and inappropriate.

Ultimately, the decision on Crewkerne will be taken by the Diocesan Chancellor, a professional judge, who will consider all the facts, evidence and information put before him.  That will be an objective and measured decision and will have due regard to the parish church as a centre of worship and mission, not just the desire to have a pipe organ, however meritorious that aim might be.

There have been a number of cases where an electronic instrument has been installed whilst building work is undertaken, the most famous case being that of Chichester Cathedral.  Jonathan's wise words should be heeded by all those involved in organs.  Far too often expensive work is spoiled by dust and dirt. 

Barry Williams

will o the wind

#69
Barry Williams is quite right  that  the church should state its case and I assume that is what many of us are waiting for. According to John's post on April 24th they were advised of the existence of this topic being ventilated on this site so they have had ample opportunity.

As to the Chancellor's judicial review I was assuming that this is a stage everyone was hoping would be avoided and the whole thing nipped in the bud before the formalities kick in. If the donations for the toaster are achieved this will put pressure on the DAC; ie the achieved financial target being the essential evidence a professional judge would undoubtedly take into account.
Given the various problems which seem to abound reading these posts and reading John's recent one, a 'little dust' here and there will seem 'small beer'!

will o the wind

Barry Williams

"As to the Chancellor's judicial review I was assuming that this is a stage everyone was hoping would be avoided and the whole thing nipped in the bud before the formalities kick in. If the donations for the toaster are achieved this will put pressure on the DAC; ie the achieved financial target being the essential evidence a professional judge would undoubtedly take into account."

May I comment on what may be a common misconception here?

Every faculty petition requires a decision by the Diocesan Chancellor, whether or not there are objections.  A Consistory Court is sometimes held when there are no objections, but the Chancellor considers the case should be tested.  Sometimes the Archdeacon is instructed to oppose the petition (whether or not he or she supports it) in order to test the evidence.

In my experience the raising of funds for a particular course of action has no influence whatsoever on either the DAC or the Chancellor.  Indeed, under charity law, it has been necessary, in other cases, to offer to refund donations for an unsuccessful scheme.

I cannot but feel that we may not know all the facts.  Having dealt with many such cases as a Diocesan Organs Adviser I know that these cases are rarely simple and do not turn on merely 'pipe versus electronic'.

Barry Williams


will o the wind

I take Barry's points about the issue of fund raising although one hopes any treasurer
would make  meticulous records of contributions. My main thrust was the avoidance of 'due process' ie the principle of avoiding the petitioning issue by ensuring a  proper technical evaluation by an independent adviser which by all accounts has not happened here. From the info. so far
posted it seems that there is not a great deal wrong with the Rothwell but presently no scope for a fund for its essential maintenance. In other words acquisition of a toaster seems to be an end in itself rather than the means.

will o the wind

John

Gentlemen - we are all going around in circles here!

Yes, I did inform churchwarden JC about this site and this thread.  I recall his words  - "the issue has been discussed at the PCC, a resolution to purchase a digital organ has been passed, the matter is put to bed and will not be reopened".    Their stance is clear and I guess little can be done about that.  The phrase I have used before (and I notice Jonathan has picked up!) is that they appear to be both blinkered and deaf.  Therefore it is highly unlikely that anyone from Crewkerne PCC will be bothered to look here and see all the posting about their church and organ. However, there are many in the congregation who are unhappy with this state of affairs.   I am hoping to organize a meeting of some 'sympathetic' folk but whether they can be stirred enough to make their voices heard at this late stage is a matter for conjecture.  As I have said before, strong-willed people seem to have pushed this through.

By the way, JC assured me the treasurer is keeping a note of who donates what,  I was told it was very little to date, that was several weeks ago.

Yes, I do believe there is a hidden agenda here and I will be quite open - if I have gone too far and this is libel will Admin please remove, but leave it long enough for members to read first.

(1) It is possible the organist is embarrased by some of the ocassional short cyphers and perhaps he is making out the situation is worse than it really is.  (2) Maybe he has been a bit seduced [is it possible to be a BIT seduced?!!] by all the stopknobs, pistons, power and 'shiny' bits of the Makin that was on loan for a couple of weeks.   (3) There may have been a threat of resignation.
 
Probably there is more to it but I don't have any other inklings.  Yes, it could well be as petty as that.

I imagine work on the chancel roof to be years away and I'm sure that if Michael Farley is still attending the Rothwell he will make sure it is well protected with plastic sheeting, as he did for my Tickell at Honiton when part of the aisle ceiling collapsed.

Just about everything everyone has said is valid and it's good the Barry yet once again lays out the legal aspect.

Going back to the sentiment of my opening statement - do we all, myself  definitely included, read, mark and inwardly digest what has previously been posted before dashing off a reply?  just a thought.

Peace and Love :) ......... John

Barry Williams

Looking at NPOR and the church's website it appears that about nineteen of the thirty five speaking stops are either not original, or have been re-voiced, or altered in some way.  The console is not original.  The stop list suggests that this instrument has been subjected to the 1970s style of neo-baroque additions, insofar as the choir organ is now a 'Positive'.  According to NPOR the instrument does not have the original Rothwell action seemingly alluded to on this Board in earlier posts.  In 1982 there was as 'conversion to EP action'.

Is the organ in Crewkerne now an example of a Rothwell meriting conservative treatment?  It seems that it has undergone significant alteration that may well have affected its character and tone.  There is a photograph of it in its original state in Stephen Keeble's excellent book on Rothwell.

I recall, with much discomfort, tonal alterations of the type apparently undertaken at Crewkerne, in a fine church on the south coast with a superb music tradition.  A magnificent romantic organ underwent 'neo-baroque' additions and has never sounded well since.  It is certainly much less effective in the accompaniment of divine worship than it was before various stops were altered. 

I do wonder whether Crewkerne has suffered similar ill-judged alterations.  If it were in its original condition, tonally at least, or something like it, the parish might have been able to obtain some grant money, which would encourage them to restore the pipe organ.  As it appears from NPOR and the church's website, the organ has been drastically altered in a manner I hope no-one would now do.

Barry Williams




A

will o the wind

Quite possibly, Barry but then again most of the cathedral organs in the land have been messed about with by someone; some quite severely.

will o the wind

Barry Williams

Absolutely, and some of them not very well. 

However, cathedrals use their instruments so often that they have to have them in good order, so repair and restoration is invariably a must. 

Parish churches, particularly those without an established musical tradition, use the organ for perhaps two hours a week.  That is not a powerful driver for restoration.

Interestingly, one early post (by a former board member) suggested recovering the pipework that has not been altered and using it in an otherwise new instrument.  It was that post that made me look at the NPOR.  I do wonder if the sympathetic folk in the congregation are aware of the extent to which this organ has been changed, apparently out of its basic character.

I hve only played a couple of Rothwells, but I found them to be effective and beautiful in tone, even though the idiosyncratic stop controls were difficult to get used to.  The pipes were extremely well made as were the consoles.  I understand that the stop controls were very complex and had many moving parts, which made them expensive to repair.  The 1907 photograph of the original console at Crewkerne, however, has conventional draw stops and looks well in a fine, if slightly heavy, case.  The new console lacks the simple dignity of the original, though any organist would welcome the pistons, etc., that electrification usually brings.

Let us hope that the parish will see fit to restore their organ and, hopefully, make some effort to recover  something of the Rothwell tonal conception. 

Barry Williams


David Pinnegar

Quote from: Barry Williams on May 18, 2011, 03:44:37 PMMy concern is that a situation has been publicly discussed on this Board without those in Crewkerne being given an opportunity to respond.  That seems to me to be inherently unfair and inappropriate.

I wasn't aware that it was that difficult to join this forum and engage in discussion . . . . ?

Best wishes

David P

organforumadmin

Quote from: Voix Cynique on May 19, 2011, 07:43:49 AM

Said member has returned under a new name, older and hopefully wiser...


From one post that we had to delete the other day made from his brother's account surreptitiously, the final adjective might still not be appropriate  . . .


Best wishes


Forum Admin

will o the wind

I think we need a chairman to keep this on track; I being one of the 'guilty'.

A couple of points please:
1) I have found it  very unreliable to judge an organ by its paper specification;
   go and hear it!  There are many organs with their creators' original spec. which are tonally
   indifferent and very restrictive.

2) As I see it this all started with a report  concerned solely with the reliability of the
   St Barts. organ action. From what I see there have been no reports of  inadequacy
  of the tonal quality over the years and, from John's previous post, a rebuild seems
  not necessary so why is the stop list now on the agenda?

The problem with this thread is that essential  past information seems to be lost to the
mind as time goes by.

will o the wind

Barry Williams

"...go and hear it! "

What a good idea.

Do you have details of anyone to contact who might permit access please?

Barry Williams