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
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - pcnd5584

Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 13
#21
Organ registration / Re: Minimum specification of small organ
February 06, 2015, 09:58:54 PM
Quote from: David Drinkell on February 06, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
pcnd is right - the bourdon at 32' pitch with the 'acoustic' effect in the bottom octave only is the most likely to be successful.  One can draw the Open Wood at 16' pitch to beef it up anyway.

Binns used to produce some pretty hefty 32' resultant basses, but his stuff tended to be hefty anyway.  The effect on a relatively small instrument with a pedal consisting of 32, 16,8, all taken from a beefy bourdon, must surely have put the fear of God into many a northern heart.

Ha!

I have just remembered an even weirder version of an acoustic 32ft. Pedal stop. It is on the two-clavier organ in Holsworthy Methodist Church, North Devon. It was last rebuilt by Geo. Osmond & Co., Taunton*, in 1953, but restored by Ray Greaves, of Plymouth, in 1976). The Pedal Organ consisted of the following five stops:

Acoustic Bass  32ft.
Open Diapason (W)  16ft. (Not huge scale.)
Bourdon  16ft.
Octave  (W+M; ext.)  8ft.
Bass Flute  (Ext.)  8ft.

The Acoustic Bass was 'wired' (pressure pneumatically speaking) as follows:

F30 down to C#26 - 16ft. pitch.
C25 to C#14 - Open Diapason, quinted on itself (16ft. + 10 2/3ft.)
C13 to C1 - also Open Diapason, quinted on itself (16ft. + 10 2/3ft.)

Presumably this was an error - even Osmonds would not have done this deliberately (surely?) -  but I think that I was the only person ever to notice.




* 'This organ has received our best attention to-day'....)
#22
Organ registration / Re: The British Choir/Positive Organ
February 05, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 05, 2015, 12:48:14 AM
Quote from: pcnd5584 on February 02, 2015, 09:26:39 PM
However, I would consider replacing the G.O. Blockflute with a second-hand (Hill, if possible) Harmonic Flute - even if the Blockflute is pleasantly voiced). The Blockflute is also not something which I should expect to find on a Hill G.O. I made a similar change here a few years ago, dispensing with a particularly nasty Koppel Flute, and substituting a second-hand Harmonic Flute. I have not regretted the change for one second.[/font]

Quote from: Ludus57 on February 02, 2015, 10:53:55 PM
I am glad that seeing the full spec has made things clearer for you. I would answer your remarks on the 4 foot Block Flute, with the fact that it is an Harmonic Flute - we might rename it as such. Played an octave lower, it does the job perfectly - the end of the Adagio from Vierne 3 is a prime example of how I use it.
It isn't actually harmonic, Ludus57! It uses pipework from the old Harmonic flute, but the holes were filled in and it is currently just an open metal flute! (photo here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4r0nhgmy0n2h892/DSC_1834.JPG?dl=0 , 4' flute is visible as the 3rd slide from the left, the largest set of pipes next to the trumpet. (the mixture sits between the two.

The Block flute doesn't contain the characteristics normally found in stops by the name, and I think it's name is simply from the 60's trend! The plan is to re-name it "Open Flute" in the rebuild. It did actually replace the old harmonic flute in the 60's scheme!
We may also add a Lieblich Gedeckt (stopped metal, in hill style) to the great to give the option for a quieter 8' flute. The Hohl flute is lovely but can be a little big when you can't use the swell. (if you're soloing on the oboe for example).

Thank you for this.

A nice, tidy sound-board (although I am glad to see that yours is dusty, too....)

This makes sense - although you could always go the whole way, and restore the Harmonic Flute by re-opening the holes.

At least Hohl Flutes by Hill were useable - the Harrison examples which I know are all huge; and an instrument in a church near here (where I was formerly organist) had one on the Swell, prior to rebuilding. It was so enormous (with a fat 'oily' sound), that our organ builder used it to keep his family warm over the Christmas period. There is now a beautiful Lieblich Gedeckt residing on the slide.
#23
Organ registration / Re: Minimum specification of small organ
February 05, 2015, 10:17:01 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 05, 2015, 12:43:03 AM
Quote from: David Drinkell on February 03, 2015, 08:57:22 PM
I see no point, in nearly all cases, in providing a 10 2/3 quint all the way up the board.

It works, especially if voiced well and tuned pure. I play a 1991 Walker (III+P/40) with an independent pure quint rank all the way up and it really works in the acoustic, much better than a derived quint.

Although I would agree with David - I think the point that he was making was that from the second octave up, it is surely better to have the Bourdon 'wired' at 32ft. pitch - with the quint in the lowest octave only. No doubt David will clarify the matter, if I have mis-understood his meaning.
#24
Organ registration / Re: Minimum specification of small organ
February 04, 2015, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: David Drinkell on February 03, 2015, 08:57:22 PM
The real killer seems to be if the rank supplying the quint is too loud, although other considerations have to be made, such as placement and acoustic.  Although by the laws of physics it's wrong, a better effect can sometimes be had by wiring the fourth below (i.e. 21 1/3) for the top seven notes of the bottom octave and the fifth above for the remaining five.  I see no point, in nearly all cases, in providing a 10 2/3 quint all the way up the board.

Indeed.

Just for the record, the Compton instrument in the North Transept of what used to be the Anglican Church of Saint Osmund, Parkstone, has a 'separate' 21 1/3ft. Sub Quint on the Pedal Organ. (The inverted commas are due to the fact that this stop - like several others - is actually derived from the Pedal Sub Bass which, in this case, surely merits the description 'overworked'.)

However, there is one example of an interesting variation on this theme: the Roger Yates rebuild of the organ in Kilkhampton Church, North Cornwall. In 1892, T.C. Lewis supplied a Sub Bass (32ft.), which is an extension of the Pedal Sub Bass (16ft.). This gives 32ft. tone down to G (in the lowest octave), then it is 'quinted' in fourths below the fundamental, for the lowest seven notes. Even in this dry acoustic (for what is not a particularly large church), this is one of the most effective 32ft. stops I have ever met.
#25
Organ registration / Re: Minimum specification of small organ
February 03, 2015, 07:53:16 AM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 02, 2015, 11:38:39 PM
Quote from: pcnd5584 on February 02, 2015, 09:40:18 PM
The Principal - this is a valid point. In which case, perhaps you could allow yourself one stop over the limit, and derive a Quint from the Bourdon.

Derived quints never really work well. I play a 40 stop walker with an independent quint, meaning it can be tuned pure, and the result is fantastic under full swell closed!

No - agreed, but it is sometimes better than nothing. At least it is better than the usual Acoustic Bass, which often derives both the fundamental and the quint from the same large open wood pipes.

I deally, the Bourdon wired at 32ft. pitch for the top eighteen notes of the pedal-board, with an independent quint for the lowest twelve notesw can work well.
#26
Organ registration / Re: Minimum specification of small organ
February 02, 2015, 09:40:18 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: pcnd5584 on February 01, 2015, 10:38:28 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 01:03:34 PM
In my humble opinion, the most important thing in any instrument is a good foundation and good integrity
If I had to use, say 15 stops, I would recommend something like this:

Pedal
16' Bourdon (voiced to support the whole organ while not being to dominating)
8'   Principal
8'   Flute
G/P
S/P
SO/P

Great
8'   Open Diapason
8'   Stopped Diapason
4'   Principal
2'   Fifteenth
II   Mixture (19.22)
S/G
SO/G

Swell
8'       Chimney Flute
8'       Salicional (tuned just sharp enough to beat with the flute, but not too sharp that it can't be used alone for ppp effect)
4'       Principal
2'       Super Octave
1 1/3  Quint
16'     Contra Oboe
8'       Trumpet

Swell Octave
Swell Unison Off

Thoughts?

One or two: my preference (for tone colour) would be to ditch the 1 1/3ft. stop on the Swell Organ and substitute a mild string undulant of some kind (though not too keen); then the Salicional can be re-tuned 'dead'. This is likely to be more satisfactory. A string (even a mild type) would probably not to beat convincingly with a Chimney Flute; I have seen one or two examples where this expedient has been attempted, but did not feel that it worked in practice. Secondly, I should gladly forgo the Contra Oboe and have the stop at unison pitch. This stop is such a useful colourant that its limitation at sub-unison pitch actually makes it less flexible. At the lease, it should be extended to 8ft. pitch - and with a separate stop to control it. (Octave and Unison Off couplers only are no good; as such, the Oboe could then only be used as a solo stop at unison pitch, unless one wished for the whole Swell Organ to be an octave higher.)

Otherwise the scheme looks to be okay. (Although I might prefer a separate stopped Quint 10 2/3ft., to the Pedal Principal.)

On second thoughts I would agree there, a standard "dead" string would be better.
However I wouldn't replace the principal with a Quint. While my new instrument has an independent quint which has tremendous effect, the Principal allows three independent lines for trio playing.

The Principal - this is a valid point. In which case, perhaps you could allow yourself one stop over the limit, and derive a Quint from the Bourdon.
#27
Organ registration / Re: The British Choir/Positive Organ
February 02, 2015, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 11:20:17 PM
Interesting. I think the name Piccolo was on the list purely as an english replacement as Sifflote doesn't really translate. Surely unsteadiness is a problem and not a stops intended nature!
The idea of having the mixture at 19.22.26 is in keeping with the rest of the instrument and was actually the suggestion of the organ builder. The current Great mixture is a Hill Quint mixture, at 19.22.26. It's interesting you mention odd breaks, as our one existing quint mixture has no such issues and actually adds an interesting bright quality without shattering glass!
Ludus57 and I both dislike high mixtures unless there is a lower mixture too (as with our current swell organ) as it can be difficult to add without it making a huge sudden difference. It would also not be in keeping with the William/Arthur Hill tonal designs to add such a mixture.
It is possible that the great mixture may be increased to four ranks (added 29th), but this is not certain. Final decisions are a long way away yet!

The tuba is huge despite the relatively low pressure, and it's new position will give it much more presence in the building. The transfer will also allow for dialogue between the full organ and the Tuba, as in the Elgar Sonata etc. Also, remember that you don't need to accompany on full to mixtures with swell reeds, quite often accompanying the tuba on 8 4 2 is pleasant and Cocker even asks for that in his Tuba Tune, this is the main reason for the transfer. Also, the technology already provides the ability, so it wouldn't cost anything to add!

The present specification is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1su7ee7qyilq1d1/current%20spec.pdf?dl=0


Alex.

Alex - thank you for this. Now that I have seen the scheme, a number of things are clearer.

In fact, the Cymbale should still be practicable, particularly if you do add the twenty-ninth rank to the G.O. Mixture. In fact, my own church organ has a similar mixture scheme:

Pedal:  (19-22-26-29)
Positive: (29-33-36)
[G.O.: (12-17) Sesquialtera]
G.O.: (19-22-26-29)
Swell: (22-26-29)

The 'pyramid' effect works perfectly (although we did have Dennis Thurlow as the voicer and finisher): the G.O. Mixture is the first to be added, then the Swell Mixture (in which the breaks are arranged to fall at a higher pitch, so it does not simply duplicate the top three ranks of the G.O. Mixture); then the Positive Cymbal is added - and (aside from the rather arid acoustic), it really could be an seventeenth century Dutch west end organ to which one is listening. I must admit, I do not see the point of duplicating the present G.O. three-rank mixture. In any case, the present Positive Organ is also not in keeping with the William/Arthur Hill tonal design. If you are largely to retain the Positive, I think that a convincing case could be made for the inclusion of a Cymbale. For the record, there is not even a hint of 'broken glass' here, when I draw this stop - just a glorious brightness and astounding clarity. It is probably the best example of its kind which I have ever played.

However, I would consider replacing the G.O. Blockflute with a second-hand (Hill, if possible) Harmonic Flute - even if the Blockflute is pleasantly voiced). The Blockflute is also not something which I should expect to find on a Hill G.O. I made a similar change here a few years ago, dispensing with a particularly nasty Koppel Flute, and substituting a second-hand Harmonic Flute. I have not regretted the change for one second.

I am interested yo hear about the Tuba - presumably position has a lot to do with its 'presence'. Fair enough, in this case, the transfer coupler would be useful. I would like a 'Claviers I and II Exchange' on our organ - and (after yesterday morning) a stop engraved 'Pulpit Trapdoor' (And I want it connected, too....)

Sean
#28
Organ registration / Re: 32ft on a manual
February 02, 2015, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: Ludus57 on February 02, 2015, 03:53:29 PM
I played the organ in Paisley Abbey last August. It must be one of the most exciting organs in the country! The quiet stops sing, the flue choruses have just the right feeling of presence and refinement, and the tutti is devastating in all the right ways! Harrisons did a phenomenal job building on the 1968 Walker/Downes work. It just has to be heard and played to be experienced. I cannot speak too highly of it. Make the trek to Paisley and experience it for yourself. As an added treat, meet with Dr George McPhee, the organist. He is a real enthusiast, and is clearly - and justly - proud of such a fine instrument. I rate him as one of our greatest organists, and as a former Germani pupil ( thus a member of a very select band), maintains the highest standards as a player. I am very pleased to be able to put so many superlatives in one paragraph. I mean every one! Go there and be astounded.
I would add that it makes a very interesting exercise to look at the 1928 HNB instrument on the NPOR
and look at what the Walker rebuild did to it.

I really must try to get to Paisley - perhaps this summer. I am very interested in your thoughts on this organ. In addition, a full description of the 1968 re-designing of this instrument (together with its previous incarnation and its original Cavaillé-Coll stop-list) can be found in Ralph Downes' book Baroque Tricks.

What of the acoustic ambiance - is it lively, or dry?
#29
Organ registration / Re: 32ft on a manual
February 01, 2015, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 01:25:07 PM
Has anyone heard the organ at Paisley Abbey?

That has a very french character (C-Coll heritage of course!) and a great Sub-Octave. I would think that a SO would be more useful than a 32', as the music where such pitches are required (french romantic) were written primarily for organs with such stops.

Interesting nonetheless! I think some organs have stops simply because they look impressive! (this is certainly the case at Liv Anglican! There are some wonderful stops on the Liverpool organ, but several stops don't really seem to have much purpose other than being there for showing off! The Tibia is particularly notable.

I have only heard this fine instrument on recordings (which is, I realise, no real test).

I am inclined to agree with you regarding the G.O. Sub Octave coupler - in this instance. However, this device only really works with French (or, at least, quasi-French voicing); otherwise, an unpleasantly muddy and confused effect is likely to result. One thing which I noticed when playing larger instruments by Cavaillé-Coll (for example, S. Etienne, Caen), is that the use of the G.O. Octaves Graves - even with the Montre, Bourdon and Bombarde drawn  (all at 16ft. pitch), results in a wonderfully grand and full sound (if one does not play too low down in the compass). The same effect, if tried on the average large three-clavier English organ, is likely to result in the aforementioned problem. This is due partly to the voicing of the double reed, which generally has a more slender bass, with a freer tone - and, importantly, much less 'body', than, say, a Willis Double Trumpet - or (God forbid), an Arthur Harrison Contra Tromba.

The organ of Gloucester Cathedral (also re-designed by Ralph Downes) has  such a device - although here it is limited to the West G.O. flues. The engraver was probably paid in vintage single malt for his work on this draw-stop alone, since it reads: 'West Great Flues Sub Octave'.... (I think he was given a nice bottle of Baron d'Artigues 1971 Armagnac for the other tricky one: 'West Great Flues on Man. IV'.)
#30
Organ registration / Re: Minimum specification of small organ
February 01, 2015, 10:38:28 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 01:03:34 PM
In my humble opinion, the most important thing in any instrument is a good foundation and good integrity
If I had to use, say 15 stops, I would recommend something like this:

Pedal
16' Bourdon (voiced to support the whole organ while not being to dominating)
8'   Principal
8'   Flute
G/P
S/P
SO/P

Great
8'   Open Diapason
8'   Stopped Diapason
4'   Principal
2'   Fifteenth
II   Mixture (19.22)
S/G
SO/G

Swell
8'       Chimney Flute
8'       Salicional (tuned just sharp enough to beat with the flute, but not too sharp that it can't be used alone for ppp effect)
4'       Principal
2'       Super Octave
1 1/3  Quint
16'     Contra Oboe
8'       Trumpet

Swell Octave
Swell Unison Off

Thoughts?

One or two: my preference (for tone colour) would be to ditch the 1 1/3ft. stop on the Swell Organ and substitute a mild string undulant of some kind (though not too keen); then the Salicional can be re-tuned 'dead'. This is likely to be more satisfactory. A string (even a mild type) would probably not to beat convincingly with a Chimney Flute; I have seen one or two examples where this expedient has been attempted, but did not feel that it worked in practice. Secondly, I should gladly forgo the Contra Oboe and have the stop at unison pitch. This stop is such a useful colourant that its limitation at sub-unison pitch actually makes it less flexible. At the lease, it should be extended to 8ft. pitch - and with a separate stop to control it. (Octave and Unison Off couplers only are no good; as such, the Oboe could then only be used as a solo stop at unison pitch, unless one wished for the whole Swell Organ to be an octave higher.)

Otherwise the scheme looks to be okay. (Although I might prefer a separate stopped Quint 10 2/3ft., to the Pedal Principal.)
#31
Organ registration / Re: The British Choir/Positive Organ
February 01, 2015, 10:25:37 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: pcnd5584 on January 26, 2015, 02:02:34 PM
The Hill pipe-work will almost certainly be regulated at the feet, whereas the newer HN&B work will probably have open-foot voicing. Any attempt to raise the pressure is likely to result in the need to re-voice entire ranks of pipe-work in the Positive Organ. At best, they will overblow or be off-speech. Raising the pressure even by this amount is a bit of a jump; you would almost certainly end up with the need to revoice several (if not all) of the Positive stops. This will be expensive, since it is a highly skilled job and needs someone really good - not just an organ builder happy to 'have a go' at it.

As someone who used to play this organ on a very regular basis (I was Assistant to Ludus57 before taking up my new post) and still does play it when in the area visiting; I can help you there:
I did alot of research on the organ in question during the beginnings of the rebuild process. The Hill pipework is indeed regulated at the feet, some of the positive has been voiced open-foot, but the 4' Prin, the bass of the 8' Rohrflöte, and all but the top two octaves of the 4' Flöte are regulated at the feet as they originate from older pipework. Under inspection from the organ builders who currently care for the instrument, who is a very skilled and respected builder, I might add!, The pipework can be adapted to a slightly higher pressure. A newer, more immediate location will also help the division project into the building. At the moment it is buried in the corner where the old choir organ was. It should also be noted that the names of the stops will be Anglicised of course! (i.e. Rohrflöte becomes Chimney Flute, etc.)

Quote from: pcnd5584 on January 28, 2015, 06:02:54 PM
In preference, I would choose the 1870's scheme. There is a good variety of tone-colour and, compared to the miserly 1901 scheme, it would be a far more useful department. The Positive (in all but name) is all very well - I would guess that the voicing is fairly spiky - but if you want to accompany a choir, it is not particularly useful. Incidentally, I note that the Tuba speaks on a rather low pressure (175mm/7" w.g.). It would be helpful to know what this sounds like (and how useful it is). Is the 4ft. extension (I presume it is thus) of any real use? I would guess that the top octave of this runs into flue pipes, unless it becomes harmonic at some point. I would also guess that the 1963 scheme is unenclosed - is this correct?

For the record: what about the soundboard to the Choir Organ. The 1870's scheme had eleven ranks, with a stopped bass - presumably to the Dulciana and Clarabella (and possibly the Keraulophone?); however, the 1901 scheme had seven ranks, with a separate higher-pressure chest for the Tuba (presumably). Then, the 1963 scheme has grown to nine ranks, plus the Tubas. (Incidentally, was the Tuba chest extended, to provide the Octave Tuba, or was a top-note machine with twelve flue pipes supplied?) So, does the 1870's soundboard still survive (albeit with new or patched upper-boards, altered rack-boards and two blank slides), or was it renewed or replaced at some point?

A couple of further points: does the 'Positive' chorus form an effective foil to the G.O., or is it too flute-like in intonation? (Sorry, I should really have asked for the full stop-list of the present instrument, as well. Any chance of this, please?)
Perhaps a fairly important point: what do you want the organ to be able to do - or perhaps, what is its primary function? (Leading hymns and accompanying a choir - if so, what type of repertoire do they sing?). Or, is it mostly for congregational hymns and voluntaries? What about recitals? (Any/occasional/none?)

Lots of questions, but it would be helpful to know the answers to all of the above, in order to stand a chance of imparting useful information.

The Positif at present is very much a separate division, although the flutes work well in accompaniment. The hope is for the rebuilt Positive to be dual purpose, being able to stand as a secondary great when needed, and also retain its solo stops for use when required.
The tuba is N&B, 1901/2, although it currently has a very William/Arthur Hill character, a truly fantastic stop. It is Harmonic from middle C, the extended top octave being fluework. The tuba was placed on a two new chests at that time, but sited in the same location. It is worth mentioning that the swell 8' and 4' reeds are also harmonic in the treble and also have fluework for the top octave.

The fluework voicing on the positive isn't too aggressive, it can easily be retained in the scheme, just slightly re-voiced to accommodate the new pressure and tonally be in keeping with the rest of the organ.

The Positif's current chest is the old choir chest with a clamp added for the 1'. New top-boards were made and the under-actions re-leathered but no other changes were made. The work will include a new 12-slide chest. The other three divisions will simply have their chests restored and new under-actions fitted. The old Electro-Pneumatic drawstop machines will be replaced with Electro-Magnetic Solenoid action.

Hope this answers your questions! let me know if you have any other questions I can help with.

The new Positive specification will be something like this:
* indicates pre-1963 pipework in part or whole rank.

16'      Gedeckt (from redundant Hill pipework, if possible)
8'        Open Diapason (new)
8'       Chimney Flute (revoiced) *
4'        Principal (revoiced) *
4'        Stopped Flute (revoiced) *
2 2/3'  Nasard (revoiced)
2'        Octave (revoiced)
1 3/5'  Tierce (revoiced)
1 1/3'  Larigot (revoiced)
1'       Piccolo (revoiced)
III      Mixture 19.22.26 (new)
8'       Cromorne (new)
         Tremulant
         Positive Chorus on Great
8'       Tuba *
4'       Octave Tuba *

The Chorus on Great transfer will allow the Tuba to be accompanied by both the Great and Positive choruses, which will be beneficial as the Positive will also be acting as a sort of West-Great for those listening in the nave.

Thank you for this, londonorganist.

This does help somewhat. (Although I am wondering why it was necessary to fit the Sifflöte on a clamp, if the original Choir Organ sound-board was still in use; it was larger than both subsequent incarnations of this division - in one case, by four stops and more recently, by two ranks. Even allowing for the Stopped bass being twelve bass pipes only, in order to supply the lowest octaves for the Dulciana and Clarabella - presumably - there still appeared to be eleven slides on the 1870's Choir Organ.)

Two thoughts: firstly, I would suggest keeping the 1ft. as a Sifflöte - Piccolos always seem to be unstable in tuning (even those by FHW, although naturally these never went above 2ft. pitch). A Sifflöte implies a wider scale and more robust voicing - we have one here on the Positive of our own instrument and it is used quite often.

Secondly, I would urge you strongly to re-consider the Mixture. I dislike a 19-22-26- Mixture, partly because of the un-covered quint rank on the top; in addition, obviously it contains two quint ranks more often than it does unison ranks - unless the breaks are managed artificially (and with odd jumps). I should recommend a good old-fashioned (well, for the 1960s, anyway) Cymbale, commencing at (29-33-36), and breaking back one rank every six notes or so; small pipes, blown fairly hard. With your existing Larigot and 1ft. stop, the Mixture as you propose will not cut that much ice. (Yes, I realise that the mutation and the 1ft. rank are voiced and scaled as flutes, as against the diapason-scale of the mixture, but even so, I think that its substitution with a Cymbale will transform the instrument.) We have such a chorus mixture here, on our Positive Organ and whether used to top this division, or whether added to the choruses of the G.O. and Swell Organ, the result is truly electrifying. When the time comes for the restoration of the instrument, I shall ensure that not one pipe of this wonderful stop is altered.

One further point - the Positive Chorus on Great - will this be really necessary? If the Tuba is voiced on the surprisingly low pressure of 175mm, would it stand up to the combined resources of these divisions, particularly in single notes? There are many examples of Willis (and even Harrisons) voicing ordinary chorus reeds for their G.O. divisions, in quite large buildings, on a similar pressure; in none of the examples which I have played, would the G.O. Trumpet stand up to anything like this combination. Of course all tings are relative - and it depends on the voicing and position of the various ranks. However, I would be surprised if a Tuba on such a low pressure (even Hill rarely, if ever, used less than 250mm for Solo reeds - and 350mm was more normal), was able to exploit such a device.

Your information was helpful - although it would still be both useful and interesting to see a full scheme as it stands today, please. (Including couplers and accessories, if you have the time, please.)

Many thanks.
#32
Organ registration / Re: Couplers on Pistons
February 01, 2015, 10:12:50 PM
Quote from: londonorganist on February 01, 2015, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: pcnd5584 on July 13, 2011, 04:10:09 PM

If one were playing on another clavier than the G.O., then the H&H device of Pedal to Swell Pistons is most useful. This gives a separate Pedal combination to match whatever is drawn (or pressed) on the Swell Organ. Exeter Cathedral is again an example of this.

The H&H system of separate Pedal combinations is, as you say, extremely useful, as it allows you to build the pedal without upperwork, which often can dominate if the swell is closed!
It is worth mentioning though that HNB pioneered this stop, although their system used a more basic function, where it kept the pedal one divisional step behind the swell. (I. E. Swell 5 would draw Pedal 4, etc.)

I use it when accompanying psalms as I tend to use the swell alone quite alot.

Interesting - I did not know of the HN&B system - despite playing a number of their instruments.  However, I should still prefer the H&H system, since it is rather more flexible. Pedal Seven as against Swell Eight on a large instrument would still be likely to over-balance the Swell  Organ.
#33
Miscellaneous & Suggestions / Re: 125-year old pipe organ
January 28, 2015, 06:48:12 PM
Thank you for the photographs and information, Paul.

Neatly played, too. The sound quality is certainly good enough to get a general idea of the tone qualities of this instrument.

Here is a link to the stop-list: http://www.npor.org.uk/NPORView.html?RI=C00154
#34
Organ registration / Re: The British Choir/Positive Organ
January 28, 2015, 06:02:54 PM
Quote from: Ludus57 on January 28, 2015, 12:40:38 AM
I am glad my original post has started an interesting debate!
Here are the Choir/Positif specifications of our instrument, from Hill in the 1870's to today:

1870s                                         1901                                    1963
Dulciana                          8         Dulciana             8                Rohr Flote      8
Stopped Diapason (Bass)  8         Harmonic Flute    8                Prinzipal        4             
Clarabella                        8         Leiblich Gedackt  8                Flote              4
Harmonic Flute                8         Gamba               8                Nazard            2 2/3
Keraulaphone                  8         Suabe Flute        4                Octav              2
Gamba                           8          Orchestral Oboe  8                Terz                1 3/5
Principal                         4          Clarionet             8               Larigot             1 1/3
Flute                              4          (all enclosed, except)            Sifflote             1
Fifteenth                        2            Tuba (7 ins wind) 8                Rohr Schalmei  8
Piccolo                           2
Orchestral Oboe             8                                                      Tuba                8
Clarionet                       8                                                       Octave Tuba     4

I hope this is of assistance, and shows where I am coming from.
                       

Thank you for this, Ludus57.

In preference, I would choose the 1870's scheme. There is a good variety of tone-colour and, compared to the miserly 1901 scheme, it would be a far more useful department. The Positive (in all but name) is all very well - I would guess that the voicing is fairly spiky - but if you want to accompany a choir, it is not particularly useful. Incidentally, I note that the Tuba speaks on a rather low pressure (175mm/7" w.g.). It would be helpful to know what this sounds like (and how useful it is). Is the 4ft. extension (I presume it is thus) of any real use? I would guess that the top octave of this runs into flue pipes, unless it becomes harmonic at some point. I would also guess that the 1963 scheme is unenclosed - is this correct?

For the record: what about the soundboard to the Choir Organ. The 1870's scheme had eleven ranks, with a stopped bass - presumably to the Dulciana and Clarabella (and possibly the Keraulophone?); however, the 1901 scheme had seven ranks, with a separate higher-pressure chest for the Tuba (presumably). Then, the 1963 scheme has grown to nine ranks, plus the Tubas. (Incidentally, was the Tuba chest extended, to provide the Octave Tuba, or was a top-note machine with twelve flue pipes supplied?) So, does the 1870's soundboard still survive (albeit with new or patched upper-boards, altered rack-boards and two blank slides), or was it renewed or replaced at some point?

A couple of further points: does the 'Positive' chorus form an effective foil to the G.O., or is it too flute-like in intonation? (Sorry, I should really have asked for the full stop-list of the present instrument, as well. Any chance of this, please?)
Perhaps a fairly important point: what do you want the organ to be able to do - or perhaps, what is its primary function? (Leading hymns and accompanying a choir - if so, what type of repertoire do they sing?). Or, is it mostly for congregational hymns and voluntaries? What about recitals? (Any/occasional/none?)

Lots of questions, but it would be helpful to know the answers to all of the above, in order to stand a chance of imparting useful information.
#35
YouTube and other MP3 recordings of organs and organ music or other music of relevance / Re: Cameron Carpenter - Damaging the organ scene or Himself
January 28, 2015, 05:45:51 PM
Quote from: Paul Duffy on January 28, 2015, 04:27:38 PM
QuoteTurning up at major venues to play, wearing leotards and 'wife-beater' undershirts.....

Most amusing, I must say. Some of you chaps certainly have a way with words.

Do said undershirts come complete with beer stains down the front?

Best wishes,
Paul.

No - but you should see the hessian nethergarments....

(Or perhaps not.)
#36
YouTube and other MP3 recordings of organs and organ music or other music of relevance / Re: Cameron Carpenter - Damaging the organ scene or Himself
January 27, 2015, 10:03:59 PM
Quote from: David Drinkell on January 27, 2015, 09:15:57 PM
I used to be in awe of his technique, but not by his orchestration.  Recently, however,  listening to him on YouTube, I'm put off by the note fluffs in some performances.  Virgil Fox used to have masses of these sometimes, but.....

Indeed, David.

There were also a few instances of him cancelling UK recital engagements at short notice - occasionally for somewhat unsatisfactory reasons.

#37
Organ registration / Re: The British Choir/Positive Organ
January 27, 2015, 09:57:02 PM
Quote from: David Drinkell on January 27, 2015, 09:11:00 PM
I bet I can think of a particular old Conacher to which pcnd is not referring - lol

Yup - I bet you calne....
#38
YouTube and other MP3 recordings of organs and organ music or other music of relevance / Re: Cameron Carpenter - Damaging the organ scene or Himself
January 27, 2015, 07:10:51 PM
Quote from: Holditch on November 11, 2014, 10:25:06 PM
I think you are all being a bit unfair to Cameron Carpenter.

Yes, most organ aficionados think he has no appreciation for what has gone before him and lacks etiquette and finesse in playing the classical organ repertoire, however he does stand out, he does try and raise an interest from outside the very small closeted world of the pipe organ, perhaps in vain but at least he is doing something different. ...

It is not so much about him showing off - it is partly his tendency to wear outlandish outfits - I doubt that this aspect would attract the 'average' person. Turning up at major venues to play, wearing leotards and 'wife-beater' undershirts is more likely to guarantee people not taking him seriously. Added to which, his playing at the Promenade concerts a couple of years ago I found to be unnecessarily showy, unattractive and occasionally bizarre.

I am sorry - I disagree that we are being unfair to him. He is more in danger of becoming a liability if he carries on in this manner. In any case, he keeps getting in the way of the music, with his dress and showy persona. I am not suggesting that all recitalists should wear a pinstripe suit and a sombre tie, or that repertoire should be limited to long, serious works which require great concentration on the part of the listener, but there is surely a more reasonable middle course in all this nonsense.
#39
New Pipe Organs / Re: Manchester Cathedral - Kenneth Tickell
January 27, 2015, 04:46:37 PM
Quote from: David Drinkell on January 27, 2015, 02:59:53 PM
I agree - all that you mention seems odd.  But for the period I think it was a rather daring and forward-looking scheme.  In particular, the Solo had a lot of potential for interesting registration and the little cymbal could have been coupled and various pitches to increase the interest on any other manual.  I imagine Cocker specified a viole cornet there and Allan Wicks got it changed. Likewise, the overall Mixture scheme was, I believe, Wicks's and presumably had to fit in with what was already prepared in a scheme which was well-advanced when he took over.  The Great Nineteenth could have been quite useful in chorus building, particularly when one remembers that there were octave couplers on the Great.  I, too, don't care for principal-toned tierces (I had one at St. Magnus Cathedral).  Francis Jackson had a Larigot on the Great at York.  At one time, Holy Rude, Stirling had the Great twelfth transposed to make a nineteenth.  While I instinctively felt that it was wrong to alter Rushworth's masterpiece (other things happened, too), I also had a sneaking feeling that it was more useful (I often think a lot of twelfths are not much use, although now and again I come across one which is just right).

Some excellent observations, David - I agree with all that you say. In particular, Stirling should be left as it is - a masterpiece of late Romantic organ building. I was interested to note that the mixture scheme was Wicks' own. Do you have any further details regarding changes which he was able to make, please?

Incidentally, although I have never played at Kirkwall Cathedral, I am in two minds about it - I think I almost prefer the original stop-list - at least on the Choir Organ. (As far as I am aware, you were not there in 1971, so I am hoping that it was not you who drew up the revised scheme....) However, I admit that the Pedal is more comprehensive (although I assume that the 32ft. is still acoustic, despite being re-named), the G.O. and Swell chorus work looks to be better, too. I would be interested to know what you thought of it, please.
#40
New Pipe Organs / Re: Manchester Cathedral - Kenneth Tickell
January 26, 2015, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: David Drinkell on January 26, 2015, 05:02:15 PM
It was different, certainly, but I'd be interested to know in what ways you find it weird.  I don't think I would have wanted so much duplication of solo stops to different departments, although I can see where Cocker was coming from.  For the rest of it, I think it's a clever, forward-looking scheme.

It's rather big for a building that size (in the UK, anyway - in the States I suppose it would be small!).

There are a number of things. Firstly, as you state, the multiple duplication of certain G.O. and Solo Organ reeds. Given that Cocker was also a cinema organist, I too can imagine what he may have had in mind - but I still regard this as wasteful.

Secondly the mixture scheme. As built in 1952-57, the G.O. had a miserly little three-ranik compound stop, commencing at 22-26-29. True, in 1979 the Nineteenth rank was added to the Mixture, and itself replaced by a Seventeenth. (God knows why - there was already a separate Tierce on the Choir Organ and a two-rank Sesquialtera  of 12-17 on the Swell Organ; I certainly would not want a diapason Seventeenth as well.) However, also in 1979, the Swell Mixture was reduced from five ranks to four, the thirty-third rank being dispensed with. This now left both chorus mixtures as 19-22-26-29. Given that the Choir Organ culminates in a Twenty Second, but has no compound stop and the Solo Organ has a slightly odd scheme (I shall return to this aspect), as far as I am concerned, this large instrument is deficient in upper-work - particularly for the period.

Then there is the Solo Organ - which simply does not know what it wants to be. It has a family of strings (though no Cornet des Violes), but then it has a really odd flute chorus, based on a Spitzflöte. However, the 4ft. is a  Flûte Harmonique - then there is a Nazard, a Blockflute and a Flageolet (the latter at 1ft. pitch). What was Cocker thinking? No Romantic Solo unuison flute, a mixture of scales and voicing for the rest. Presumably the Nazard, Blockflute and Flageolet are all fairly wide-scale, so these are unlikely to mix with the Flûte Harmonique. Then this is capped by, of all things, a Tierce Cymbel. (I know it is not labelled as such - but it contains 31st rank). There are undoubtedly some uses for such a stop - the one on the Swell at Gloucester does add materially to the tutti - but there are far more uses for a Cymbel which consists of quint and unison ranks. In any case, a Cymbel would be far more useful on the Choir Organ, with the Solo Organ having a better selection of quiet orchestral reeds. There is only one Clarinet (on the Choir Organ), no Orchestral Hautboy or Cor Anglais - and no quiet reed at 16ft. pitch
Pages 1 2 3 4 ... 13