Organ matters - Organs matter!

Back to the reality !

A 1736 organ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM77Wa2zXlU&feature=channel&list=UL

Traversflöte (open, 8'), Viola di Gamba, Gemshorn; those organs had all such things - the first
the neo-baroque period condemned-. And a little Principal chorus afterwards, in the next
video which follows. Expect nothing like in the previous post.

Best wishes,
Pierre

Quote from: MusingMuso on April 25, 2012, 03:07:17 PM
It sounds very good to me, but then, I'm only an organist who plays Bach's music.

MM

Indeed it is "good", i.e. a beautiful organ that pleases our ears. This is one thing.
Here is an example of an excellent modern chorus up to Mixture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl8Mpt8oJNA

This is a completely endorsed, recognized as a neo-classical job by its -excellent- builder,
Bernard Dargassies of France.
And we like it -myself included- as an art creation of our time. We like to hear Bach played
that way on that kind of organ.
But our taste is one thing, the reality is another one; no ancient organ ever sounded that way.
To our modern ears, they are rather rough, bizzarely tuned, incredibly colorfull, awkward, strangely
voiced and regulated. We need a training to be able to listen to them, like you cannot jump into
a 1913 Rolls-Royce without some help if you only drove modern cars previously.

We need first to forget about our habits, tastes and training. Listen and see like a child, our critical
sense set to "OFF"; enter another world, another logic. We see that "Mixtur", that "Scharff" knob
(whose orthograph may vary widely!); but what does stay behind it ? Something you do not expect,
this is the only thing you can take for granted.
And then the adventure starts, bringing you towards new horizons !

Best wishes,
Pierre

Not really, he was content to criticize its tonal finish.
But again: the Mixture of this organ are modern. And they do sound
strangely modern, with very little blend, as if you could draw them alone....

A disturbing organ, a disturbing sound; had it been in the western part of Germany,
be sure it would have been demolished up to the last nail. But Fakt ist, this is what
J-S Bach had in his ears as a tone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LT3A5x4qA

.....And to modern ears, it sounds off-tune, so that we need to re-educate ourselves
if we want to hear Bach in his true colors. Alternatively, we can imagine "Bach never
played organs he liked save while in the North" etc.

Best wishes,
Pierre

Some days ago we talked about Mixtures, and corroborating ones.
Here is an example of a 16th century organ which exemplifies to the extreme
wath "corroborating" is all about. The blend is so achieved that the result is
nothing short of a wall of sound -a true chorus-:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MiLj-ySrgI&feature=autoplay&list=ULdzHibGRyNME&playnext=1

Here a quite interesting Video for those who like the northern "Stylus phantasticus",
on a perfectly suited instrument, but withouth any neo-baroque drawbacks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWx9qYq22hI&feature=share

Of course we do not agree about some of those "Bach" organs. But they are all
fine anyway.


Best wishes,
Pierre

.....Not to forget Müller's companion, Johannes Schnetzler, trained by Egedacher.
(And who, somewhat later, built the closest things to  Bach organs that ever existed
in Britain).

Best wishes,
Pierre

Indeed it would be, MM. For my part, I have found the Schnitger organs indeed somewhat
vigourous in small churches, but nor crude ! And his working methods were less standardized
than those of the Silbermanns. Remember, moreover, that he quite often re-used ancient pipework.
The volume of sound must always be understood, with Schnitger's work, holding in mind that the first
aim of his organs was not our today's "ti-tu-tah", but the accompaniment of the congregationnal
singing.

I found back a good example on Youtube, Hollern: a 24 stops Schnitger in a little church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyRALMwz7o

Another video with H. Vogel presenting the organ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgJJYRliYQw&feature=related

Best wishes,
Pierre

Quote from: MusingMuso on April 15, 2012, 08:28:51 PM


How many Belgian chocolates do I get for a complete Tromba?   ;D

MM

100,00 Pounds, plus a complete rank of 1970 Cymbel ;D

Poor baroque builders, I hope that, from where they are, they cannot read the post above.
Actually, the open-toe voicing was a diffcult, delicate, and quite time-consuming process. It was even
hazardous -fires happened during voicing sessions.
Regulating at the flue did not mean that, towards the feet, nothing happened. The holes for the pipes in the sound-board were made intentionally somewhat narrow, in order that they could be adjusted by heating
(with little iron barrels that were heated to the red; hence the fire risks). Among others, we know that the
Casparinis worked that way.

The whole voicing matter is somewhat more complicated than only regulation. Here is a link that might
be interesting:

http://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/ICA2010/cdrom-ISMA2010/papers/p57.pdf

....Save maybe about the 19th century.

Of course Silbermann, who was trained after the french manner (and thus, regulating both a the flue and at the foot!) of a rather quick speech, may have found the baroque Gambas somewhat curious affairs indeed. But ihn fact, as we know from a note from Joachim Wagner, their very slowness was seen as an asset, as those stops were mainly used...in quick passages, where their transients were used as a kind of percussion !
Those slow-speaking, quite rich in harmonics stops, came from Italy, where they especialized in sweet, soft, mellow and rich tones -to the price of a dedicate slowness-. All this with....Open toe voicing !
So much for the "natural" voicing...

Best wishes,
Pierre

"why do we wish to perpetuate a perverse quirk of musical fashion which, at best, lasted less than 50 years?"
(Quote)

Simply because it works, as a growing majority of people busy with the organ (I mean organists, organ-builders...) in continental Europe recognize it. But no worry, you may continue to export those stops (and, by the way, the complete organs that surround them) by the tons, wr will be happy to rescue and enjoy them.

Best wishes,
Pierre

The Hildebrandt's Mixtures at Naumburg seem quite modern; indeed, they are not original, but one may
admit that -contrarily to another Silbermann's ex-worker, J. Wagner- Hildebrandt built them like Silbermann,
i.e. after a rather french manner.
As for the depth of the cases, well, there are many in eastern Germany that are rather deep; the Rückpositiv
did not exist any more, while the Brustwerk was sometimes replaced by an Hinterwerk ("Work behind"). Moreover,
the Pedal was often at the back !

The leathering of the shallots was done by nearly all german builders, at least in the bass part of the compass of the deepest reed stops. The purpose to this was to eliminate the rattle, but first to tame the basses somewhat to get a better balance between bass and treble, so avoiding the roaring basses that engulf all the rest, like one can esxperience with many a french organ (There are reasons for french baroque organs having no Bombarde on the Pedal, but rather on a manual, with moderate scales, and with a strong Cornet).

As for the "natural tone", well, this is typically a neo-baroque idea, which lended to the "nearly no voicing at all" fashion in the 1970's-1980's. Actually, the baroque builders paid an enormous attention to the voicing. But, of course,
they did not have the means for, for example, deep nicking, which costs wind. But they soon tried to combine
italian voicing goals -if not the techniques- to differentiate the strenghts of stops of similar character, i.e. "Principal amabile", "Lieblich Gedackt" etc. In short, any well-preserved ancient organ displays a stunning achievment precisely in that matter: the voicing !

As for corroborating stops: what is meant here are blending mixtures, whose aim is to reinforce the natural partials of the foundation stops, or some of them. So not to create new ones, "synthetic" tones, nor to shimmer alone, wide apart from the rest.  Neo-baroque Mixtures are something radically different, nearly solo stops. Composers like Olivier Messiaen perfectly used such stops, in a completely new way.

One of the best example of harmonic-corroborating ranks (in this case: stops!) dates not back to Audsley, but back to the 15th century:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7BK92j-PZ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqtFO3rX8x8

Best wishes,
Pierre

The "Harmonics" stop must be compared with the "Grand Cornet", which role it actually has, not with the
Mixture stops like Fourniture and Cymbale.
The Tromba kind of reed has much advantages, though.
Consider first the problems provoked by its contrary, the french chorus reeds.
In many places in France and in Belgium, those stops dominate strongly all the rest. And as they are quite more
powerfull in the bass part of the compass, whenever the acoustics is a bit generous, the result is a roaring,
unique note that prevails, and one hears nothing more from the right hand of the player !
The Tromba, on the other hand, has its basses tamed down by the (nearly) closed shallots, and there is a better
balance between bass and treble.
The Harmonics -with only one break, and the highest possible- is indeed there to add brillancy, and even a hint
of treble ascendancy.
The concept existed on the continent with some post-romantic builders like Weigle, who added septime ranks to Kornett-Mixtur stops, in order to cope with high-pressure reeds. So there is a logic behind it.

Best wishes,
Pierre

There has been much misunderstanding about the mixtures during the 20th century; The Orgelbewegung saw them merely as a color, not as corroborating stops.
"Quint-and-octaves-only" Principal choruses were to be find in Italy (indeed, it was the complete organ then), and in France since the second part of the 17th century, when the organ was litterally divided into two parts.
And then there was the british Diapason chorus (open 8', stopped 8', Principal, Twelfth and Fifteenth), but above that there was nothing, or a Mixture that often had a tierce rank and lended to add the trumpet as well.
So the limitation to quint mixtures only is in fact a generalization of the french fashion from the 18th century, where the lavish Principal choruses, topped by extremely rich Fournitures and Cymbales, was a kind of seperate full organ, and used as such, in chords, never for polyphonic music.
Now when people like Marcel Dupré decreted that even Bach had to be played with such mixtures, it soon became evident the 5 1/3', or even 10 2/3' ranks (Isnard, de Joyeuse, Clicquot) would be a problem, so those ranks were
avoided as far as possible. Dupré permitted the 5 1/3', if any, only in the last octave of the compass....But remember that to him the compass was 61 notes !
So we had quite brillant stops which did not blend at all with the rest, nor corroborated anything, as a color one could actually add to whatever registration (It is noteworthy that E-M Skinner understood them exactly that way as well).
It is indeed a post-romantic concept rather than a baroque one.
The baroque masters built mainly corroborative stops that were meant for loud registrations, not to be heard by themselves.

I believe it is time to change our conceptions in that matter, and that we accept the fact there are countless different mixture designs which existed and deserve preservation. This answers the question about Atlantic City...

Best wishes,
Pierre

So far, so good. Now some examples of thuringian organs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2QtMwpa9aM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG4dEu5mlWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY53wYOKt7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5WUJSouEw

Quite interesting, with orchestra:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlpcjsAK-Ng&feature=related

....So that Albert Schweitzer's choice to favor the builder Dalstein & Haerpfer -the actual builder of the "Silbermann" organs he recorded with- was perhaps closer to the historic facts that what followed with the Orgelbewegung:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Hs_XTYj7c
Anyone will have noted the Mixtures of those organs have tierce ranks. The only exception to this was indeed Silbermann (who sometimes provided a separate tierce rank, reluctantly, he names "Sesquialter" though there was no Quint rank!). Indeed, when one sees the Specifications of those mixtures, one soon realize they are actually
"Kornett-Mixtur" stops. Ending in the treble with something like 8-4-2 2/3'- 2- 1 3/5' (1 1/3').
This disturbed strongly the Orgelbewegung people, because their vision of the Mixtures was the one of Marcel Dupré and his followers: the Plein-jeu one side, the Grand-jeu the other one.
So they were quite happy to have the organs of G. Silbermann, which allowed them to have all the others forgetted, which they remained so up to the fall of the iron curtain.
But one thing we can already hold for sure: something like 8-4-2-Quint Mixture Bach never drawn in his life, save maybe during his months in the north !
The baroque "rules" did not exist with those organs, and we may even believe Bach was responsible for something with this evolution, "raising the hair of the listeners" with his registrations.

Joachim Wagner was also an outsider, like Silbermann, but the reverse way, as he introduced this
kind of middle-southern- organ into the north-east, in Brandenburg.
He also built those early Kornett-Mixtur stops. A good example is Sternhagen, just restored (2010). Here are a series of sound files (extracts from a CD) which is quite worth a listening:

http://www.hadulla-musik.de/OrgelSternhagen/OrgelSternhagen.html

All the best,
Pierre

"I would personally argue that the music of Bach was probably never heard on the best instruments; though clearly, the Silbermann organs with which he was familiar may have been a notable exception, as would those of Hilderbrandt."
(Quote)

Indeed not. Bach disagreeded strongly with Silbermann. This said, I understand why Silbermann was a favorite
with the neo-baroque move, with his frenchified Mixtures.

"Could it be, that apart from these few exceptions, the very finest organs of the baroque period were not to be found in Bach's native Thuringia?"
(Quote)

So much so that the thuringian organ soon  superseded  the northern one after 1750, and was seminal in the development of the romantic organ.

"when I first played the organ of St Bavo, Haarlem, I didn't quite know what I would do with the stops, but after testing various things, listening to what happened and with a little prompting from my Netherlands host, I arrived at registrations which seemed to suit Bach's music perfectly, even though the organ post-dates Bach and is located a long way away from Thuringia."
(Quote)

Like Joachim Wagner's ones in Brandenburg -away from Thuringia as well- this organ is a vast synthesis -like the thuringian organ themwelves, so close to Bohemia...-. To the point there was a guy working with Müller there who came directly from the utmost southern Germany. A guy who already built Dulcianas et al...(still inverted-conical then,
a form which became the Dolce in continental Europe). This swiss guy from Schaffousen was a dedicate Johannes Schnetzler -wieso?-

Best wishes,
Pierre

In short: you like them, those british organs. But they are "wrong" because they go against "principles" -from abroad".

And you mean, for example, "principles" like this one:

"Surely, the classical organ is first and foremost an instrument based on chorus principles, in which different timbres, (contained within recognisable choruses), speak to each other and combine with each other polyphonically and contrapuntally; perhaps even antiphonally in certain instances."
(Quote)
From my own knowledge of the baroque organs, this "Chorprinzip" is by far less important than it was believed
up to some years ago, and especially since the very beginning of the 18th century. J-S Bach played organs in which
the mixtures were already made to grasp all togheter in the loudest registrations, or even "to compensate the roaring basses by reinforcing the treble part of the clavier " (Joachim Wagner himself!), and no more to top pure Principal choruses, not to mention the typical neo-baroque 8-4-2-Mixture(s!) ti-tu-tah.

(There were exceptions of course: the italian Ripieno, the french Plein-jeu, and.....The british Diapason chorus, still well present in romantic british organs up to a comparatively late period).

So we can find a this-or-that "Prinzip" in every corner of the organ world, indeed. But they are no laws, let alone "Holy truths"; there are no laws in organ design, just ideas. My teacher had a very good idea; whenever I believed to have found a general rule, he found something which contradicted it in the minute.
Recht hatte Er !!!

Best wishes,
Pierre
basses

Others could think and write the reverse, MM. That's the problem with the tastes.
And they have the same problem in the U.S. You cannot have a discussion about
Holtkamp (sr) there nowadays, so strong -and diverse- are the opinions.

Best wishes,
Pierre

"My own preference would lean towards a little more Lewis-style bodlness in the flues, combined with Willis style reeds"
(Quote)

You do not even need to cross the Channel to find that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFdBQzTHzxA

Besides this, our own tastes are one thing, but what really matters for an organ is character. Nobody would
doubt about any Willis organ to be crammed with just that.

Best wishes,
Pierre