An interesting radio programme on BBCi Player about the Willis organ building company http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0103wyx/Loud_Organs_His_Glory/
A good radio programme, well worth a listen
Hopefully more will understand the wonders of the instrument
I was glued to that edition. Fr. Willis is certainly a source of inspiration.
Though he'd have been toast without his brother George and his son Vincent, arguably the greatest voicer and inventor in the whole family ;D
Quote from: AnOrganCornucopia on April 06, 2012, 08:42:43 PM
Though he'd have been toast without his brother George and his son Vincent, arguably the greatest voicer and inventor in the whole family ;D
Hi
I think you rather overstate the case here! Undoubtedly George & Vincent made big contributions to the firm, but would it have succeeded without Henry's skill - and business sense, not to mention his tonal ideas which were somewhat different to the norms of the time.
Every Blessing
Tony
Quote from: Holditch on April 08, 2011, 12:58:49 AM
A good radio programme, well worth a listen
Hopefully more will understand the wonders of the instrument
It is indeed interesting - and I would agree that it would be good to think that it introduced the organ to a wider audience.
However, I am not sure why they featured the organs of Winchester Cathedral and the Royal Albert Hall. Having played Winchester for both service and recital work (on a number of occasions), and having heard it many times under the hands of the sub organist at the time, I would say that it is not really recognisable as the work of FHW. It certainly lacks the vivid tone colours of, for example, the organ of Salisbury Cathedral. To me, Winchester appears to be devoid of any real personality, or tonal identity. I do not intend for this to sound harsh, just simply to query the choice of the first two instruments.
In the case of the RAH organ, I should have thought that the difference was glaringly obvious - this has not been a 'Willis' organ since the 1920s, when Arthur Harrison commenced his rebuilding and re-designing of the entire instrument - which entailed re-voicing, re-scaling throughout, together with much new work and with a major revision of the wind pressures. One only has to read the correspondence section of periodicals such as The Organ, to realise what a radical transformation it was. Whilst it was Willis' largest concert hall organ, I should still have thought that the instrument in Saint George's Hall, Liverpool (even in its present state) would have been closer in style to the work of FHW.
I wonder why the organs of Hereford or Salisbury cathedrals, Saint Mary's, Edinburgh* or those at the town halls of Oxford or Reading were not chosen? Or, indeed, that the instrument in Truro Cathedral was not featured more prominently.
* Although this has been rebuilt and restored by H&H, arguably the FHW sound is more recognisable than it is at Winchester Cathedral.
Quote from: revtonynewnham on April 07, 2012, 10:50:16 AM
Quote from: AnOrganCornucopia on April 06, 2012, 08:42:43 PM
Though he'd have been toast without his brother George and his son Vincent, arguably the greatest voicer and inventor in the whole family ;D
Hi
I think you rather overstate the case here! Undoubtedly George & Vincent made big contributions to the firm, but would it have succeeded without Henry's skill - and business sense, not to mention his tonal ideas which were somewhat different to the norms of the time.
Every Blessing
Tony
=======================
Of Fr Willis's skill I have not the slightest doubt, but of his business skills I have considerable doubts, considering that he was a profligate spender, had a huge motor-yacht, (with a full-time permanent staff) and left the company almost bankrupt.
Amusingly, I cannot resist quoting Henry IV in "Howard Goodall's Organ Works,"when he said.....(I hope I get this right from memory).....
"My great grandfather was not inhibited by the 1889 briberies and corruption act. (Ed: I'm not sure if such an Act of Parliament was ever passed!) The usual thing was to have two patrons, each unkown to the other; with each patron paying a half and the church paying the other half. This made certain organ-building quite profitable."
Then he went on to reveal, "My great grandfather, thanks to a certain vicar, married his first wife's sister, which was then illegal. To this day, there is a Willis organ in the church, for which they did not pay and which doesn't appear in the books."
He was certainly a character!
MM
Absolutely right, MM. FHW was no angel and indeed left the firm and family bankrupt. Really, what survives today, while it claims the Willis identity, is actually Lewis - John Courage's Lewis & Co (sans founder) having taken over the bankrupt Willis company. Somehow the Willis family managed to wrestle back control of it all and Willis & Lewis & Co just became Willis again...
PCND is also dead right - Winchester and RAH really don't sound like Willises. Exeter, Salisbury, Truro, Carlisle, Lincoln, Saint Paul's, Edinburgh - all better examples of the Willis cathedral organ. As for concert organs? Admittedly somewhat altered, there is still Huddersfield TH and St George's Hall Liverpool, plus other examples in places like Aberdeen, Ally Pally etc. One which I think should have been featured was one of FHW's personal favourites, that of Saint Dominic's Priory, Hampstead - it may only be 3m/35ss but it's instantly recognisable for THAT Willis sound, amply demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZjJISUGJo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZjJISUGJo)
Here's also a gratuitous opportunity to hear Truro being put thoroughly through its paces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35GNrZnJyds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35GNrZnJyds)
It's about time an hour-long (at least) TV documentary was made of Father Willis and his work. 27th February 2021 will be FHW's 200th birthday - that would, I think, be a good date towards which to work, giving plenty of time to produce a thoroughly high-quality assessment, which I hope would also showcase some of the Willis firm's present-day work, perhaps convincing people that they're no longer in the doldrums and are producing what I think are the best organs being built today in Britain...
Does anyone know what the pre-Courage, post-FHW Willises were like? CC URC Port Sunlight's 4/41 is quite a notable example... Also, what of FHW's last organ, St Bees Priory? That any good? Very odd spec - no flue double nor strings on the Swell! You'd have to couple it to the Choir almost all the time... St George's Gateshead is quite well known, but no-one seems to be able to give a definitive answer as to whether it's FHW or HW2...
The Huddersfield Town Hall organ has been severely messed with over the years, but fortunately, the Swell and Great remain very recognisably Fr.Willis, if one avoids the new quint Mixtures. The Choir organ was altered to include mutations by Willis, (possibly in the 1950's), but it was never a success. The later Harrison pipework could only be an improvement, but of course, that means that the Choir organ is not remotely Willis these days.
The NPOR entry is lacking detail, because in 1965, I worked on this organ when Laycock & Bannister cleaned and overhauled things.
I think, as far as Willis organs go, this is a fine but not a-typical Fr Willis in character.
MM
Thanks for that info.
Some other notable unaltered FHWs to consider including a selection of:
1864 - Reading Town Hall 4/37 (was 3/33 until 1882 when Solo became Choir and new Solo was added)
1866 - Saint Katherine Cree, Leadenhall Street in the City of London - 3/27, recent historic restoration by David Wells
1871 - Saint Augustine Kilburn 3/38 (should be 4/48 but Solo, several Pedal stops and Great Contra Tromba prepared for)
1873 - Saint Michael Tenbury 4/55 (not unaltered but still largely FHW, though incl. earlier pipes by Flight and Tom Harrison)
1877 - Union Chapel, Islington 3/37 (recently awarded a large sum by the HLF, so will be working beautifully by 2021)
1880 - Saint Dunstan Edge Hill, Liverpool 3/31 (sadly long unplayable - we can only hope that it could be restored by 2021)
1880 - Saint Stephen Edinburgh 3/32
1883 - Saint Dominic's Priory, Newcastle-upon-Tyne 3/30 (built alongside Hampstead, 5 stops smaller, otherwise nearly identical)
1888 - Saint Peter Brighton 4/43 (albeit the 17ths in the mixtures are now 26ths - easily reversed?)
1890 - Saint Martin Scarborough 3/38
1891 - Blenheim Palace 4/52 (how could I have forgotten this?! Spent many happy hours with this wonderful beast...)
1894 - Saint John the Baptist Cardiff 3/38
1897 - Oxford Town Hall 4/35
1897 - Haberdasher's Aske's Boys' School, Elstree, Herts, 4/36 (ex Hove Town Hall - soon to be restored)
1895 - Saint Luke, Kentish Town 3/33 (the Wedding-present Willis, which has had some renovation, redundant church reopened at Christmas as HTB Church Plant like St Peter's Brighton - organ used and cherished)
It would be interesting also to include some of his smaller organs - one of his small 2m village jobs like Saint Mary's Fetcham (which is much more powerful than its 12 stops or so would suggest) and then something like All Saints Hastings' 3/25 which thinks it's much bigger than it actually is...
Absolutely right, MM. FHW was no angel and indeed left the firm and family bankrupt. Really, what survives today, while it claims the Willis identity, is actually Lewis - John Courage's Lewis & Co (sans founder) having taken over the bankrupt Willis company. Somehow the Willis family managed to wrestle back control of it all and Willis & Lewis & Co just became Willis again..
Actually this is not correct!
HW1 did leave things in a mess in 1901, but that didn't bankrupt either the firm or the family: The family did want to wind everything up and share out the 'dibs' but HW2 resolved to pay all fhis father's debts (when at that time they could actually have walked away from the situation) and in so doing he put both himself and the firm in a difficult position - which ultimately resulted in his failing health and mental breakdown. He died in 1927.
After Lewis got his own firm into financial difficulties (not for the first time) he was bailed out by John Courage, whom he knew through the Architect, Bentley and it was Courage who set up Lewis & Co. in 1901 - under the Co. Reg. No. 70718. Bentley designed and built the new Lewis factory premises at Ferndale Road in Brixton, again funded by Courage.
After the end of WW1 Lewis had lost the greater part of its Staff, John Courage had had enough of losing money via organbuilding ventures and Willis were looking for larger premises: it was 'arranged' that the Partners in Henry Willis & Sons would purchase the shareholding in Lewis & Co. This had to be the case since at that time it was legally impossible for a Partnership - i.e. a non-limited Company - to take over a Limited Company. The sale of the shares was assisted by Courage himself who took a debenture over the Company with its new "Willis" Directors, loaning the money of the purchase of the shares by the Willis partners. Due to the legal requirements, on the purchase of the Lewis shares, in 1919, the Company was then renamed Henry Willis & Sons and Lewis & Company Limited.
Of course the same thing had occurred in 1915 between Hill & Son & Norman & Beard Ltd..
John Courage remained on the Board of the Company for several years (his name/signature appears regularly in the Directors meetings book) and in 1926, or thenabouts, the Lewis part of the name was dropped - presumably there was a seven-year rule to be passed before the new 'owners' could revert to their own name.
I was appointed as Managing Director in October 1997 and arranged the purchase of the entire shareholding from the remaining family share holders in November of that year and it was as a part of THAT process that I discovered that, even though it had all been repaid, the Coutrage Debenture still remained on the Companies House records and an application for its removal was submitted and accepted. We (Henry Willis & Sons Ltd.) are still the same Company, registered under the same, originally Lewis & Co., registration number, 70718.
It's about time an hour-long (at least) TV documentary was made of Father Willis and his work. 27th February 2021 will be FHW's 200th birthday - that would, I think, be a good date towards which to work, giving plenty of time to produce a thoroughly high-quality assessment, which I hope would also showcase some of the Willis firm's present-day work, perhaps convincing people that they're no longer in the doldrums and are producing what I think are the best organs being built today in Britain...
We have been approached by two documatary makers in the recnt past, but are stuill unsure as to whether anything will come of this - I think much depends on funds for research.
Thank you for your very kind remarks regarding our new organs! The newest, in Auckland, New Zealand, is being iopened by Olivier Latry on the 9th of June. I'll post details of the prgramme under another thread after finding my way around the rest of the site.
There are a few YouTube clips of our new organ at The American Church in Florence - this is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3aaf0S1HWY
I hope that the above has cleared up the matter of Willis & Lewis and that the Willis firm was never 'Bankrupt'!
David Wyld
Managing Director
HENRY WILLIS & SONS LTD.
What happened to the Ferndale Road works? I tried finding it on Google Street View but it seemed to have been demolished. Are there any photographs of it?
Meanwhile, I look forward to further successes from the Willis firm - I am eagerly anticipating the reopening of the rebuilt Carshalton PC organ. I am also praying for a large new Willis split across the Quire of Gloucester Cathedral (seeing as the HN&B isn't going anywhere - nor should it) and also for Willis to rebuild the emasculated Canterbury Cathedral organ... Let me think about a few others for a while and I'll get praying!
How goes Leiden?
Also, can you tell us what happened to the ex-St Jude Thornton Heath all-enclosed Willis III?
Oh dear!
Poor David always feels obliged to fly to the defence of the company, which must be very irksome. I think, if I were he, I would just go with the flow of organ folklore, because far from diminishing the company, I think it actually elevates it and confirms the strong will of the company founder.
Fr Willis was far from conventional, and in that respect, quite typical of so many great pioneeers and innovators.
A bit of sauce and whiff of scandal never did anyone any harm a few generations down the line, and in an odd way, it is the Fr Willis antics which always keep the name of the company at the forefront of the mind, and make for such excellent after-dinner conversation.
Another of my favourites concerns the time that the local headmistress wrote to the company complaining about the noise from the factory, when voicing-work had commenced on the heavy-pressure reeds for Liverpool Cathedral. This didn't include the Tuba Magna at that time; prompting Willis to respond with the knockout line:-
"I fear that there is worse to come."
Organ-builders are ten a penny to some extent, but great characters and eccentrics are rare.
MM
Oh dear!
Poor David always feels obliged to fly to the defence of the company, which must be very irksome. I think, if I were he, I would just go with the flow of organ folklore, because far from diminishing the company, I think it actually elevates it and confirms the strong will of the company founder.
It is irksome, but not for the reason you suggest: I don't only fly to the defence of the company, but I do OFTEN have to prevent the re-writing of history! I was alerted to the above by a past member of this group who felt that he could not respond himself.
I don't blame anyone for this, it appears to be the nature of things that items of "information" - whether fact or fiction - get repeated often enough to become truth. I have heard several "truths" over the years, including that of the Willis family getting their fortune from Brewing: obviously drawn from the Courage connection but totally 'made-up'.
As you say MM, the characters of some of my predecessors have provided dinner table stories for over a century, but when Bankruptcy is erroneously discussed, on Internet forums, then this will lead to the re-writing of history that we should ALL prevent, notwithstanding a good story!
I did thank Mr. OrganCornucopia for his very kind comments on our new organs!
By the way, I'm not usually awake at this hour, but I only returned from Auckland again on Sunday and am wide awake at 2.30 am !
DW
The Thornton Heath organ went to Japan or China, I have emailed Carlo Curley to try and find out what the precise situation is regarding this instrument. I will make a post when I have received a reply from CC but this may take a while.
Best wishes
Barrie
Hi
Many thanks to David Wyld for putting the record straight on Willis history - and for joining the forum - welcome!
I'd much rather have the real facts than the sort of hearsay that abounds in the organ world, and can make research very trying. It's something that we run up against all too frequently on NPOR. The sloppy reporting in the media - when they deign to say anything about organs - is equally infuriating. A local news report has attributed Sheffield City Hall organ (http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi?Fn=Rsearch&rec_index=N01130) to Father Willis!
Thanks again David
Every Blessing
Tony
Quote from: David Wyld on April 10, 2012, 04:06:16 AM
As you say MM, the characters of some of my predecessors have provided dinner table stories for over a century, but when Bankruptcy is erroneously discussed, on Internet forums, then this will lead to the re-writing of history that we should ALL prevent, notwithstanding a good story!
DW
=======================
Yes, I can understand the point being made, which is important. There is a world of difference between a company being "stretched", "insolvent" and "bankrupt," with the latter being rather terminal.
As David knows, the Willis sound would not be my first choice, but I think I can also agree with the fine tonal and build quality of modern Willis instruments. My own preference would lean towards a little more Lewis-style bodlness in the flues, combined with Willis style reeds, which I've always admired.
The propblem then, is that we would have an English version of the American Classic wouldn't we?
MM
"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
Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 10, 2012, 07:07:49 PM
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.
====================
I'm sure you're right Pierre, but having lived with one of the best Fr Willis organs in the land, (absolutely full of character), I felt that it had quite severe limitations in several important respects. I didn't like the fact that the Great flues lacked the towering sonority of Lewis, the fact that the Pedal organ was a collection of booming basses dominated by a hideously loud Ophicleide and the fact that the (unenclosed) Choir organ was fairly useless. On the plus side, the full Swell was probably superior to that at St Paul's Cathedral, and the pear-shaped Vox Humana the loveliest example outside Paris.
I'm less concerned with history than with what is happening to-day, which seems to be taking us back to all the same mistakes of yesteryear. In fact, I would probably look towards America for inspiration these days.
MM
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
Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 11, 2012, 07:16:49 AM
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
==================
It's not a question of opinion or of taste IMHO.
If I were to re-design a symphomy orchestra which eliminated violas, clarinets, timpani and french horns, and then replaced them with kazoos, a vacuum-cleaner, a spin-dryer and a small, wind-up toy monkey banging cymbals together, I would expect to be heavily criticised if not stoned to death.
On the other hand, if I am an organ-consultant, it seems that no-one would disapprove if I threw out all the mixtures, replaced everything above 4ft C with Claribel Flutes and Harmonic Piccolos, eliminated anything above 8ft on the Pedals, then buried the whole thing in a concrete bunker with whole trees as individual swell shutters. I may even be considered a tonal-visionary and an innovator.
There is, after all, a certain void in the thinking processes which, on the one hand, created the Schnitger organ at the Jacobikerk, Hamburg, and on the other hand, that which created the Wurlitzer organ at the local flea-pit. Although I am quite happy to credit each with musical value, and quite happy to consider them both to be pipe-organs, in terms of musical philosophy, they are on different musical planets; the first being the planet black & white, and the other being the planet purple. In point of fact, so enormous is the musical void, I think it may be fair to state that a modern digital organ would be nearer to the Hamburg instrument in philosophical terms than the theatre organ could ever be.....unless it was a Compton....but that's another story.
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. That is also true of the orchestra, in which we find whole "families" of strings, woodwind and brass; each quite complete within themselves, but capable of combining with the whole tutti ensemble. Furthermore, although the orchestra has evolved to include more individual colour and expressiveness, no-one has yet sought to eliminate the sonic inclusion of complementary families or "choruses" of sound.(Even electronic synthesisers follow the same pattern).
If we go back to first principles, perhaps the greatest tragedy for the English organ, is that it developed out of the idea that one should accompany turgid metrical psalms with funereal registers, and then play pretty voluntaries on Cornets and Trumpets. Indeed, had they known then what we know now, they could usefully have created the theatre organ without having to wait for Hope-Jones. God knows, James Nares (1715-1783) was a small voice crying in the wilderness through much of 18th century England.
Whether we like it or not. most organ music in England has been lightweight in character for a very long time, and the few exceptions are all the more remarkable because of it.Indeed, dare I suggest that an awful lot of early British organists were not terribly well trained or educated, but were seen to go to the right schools and come from the right families?
In organ-building terms, everything before perhaps 1840 had evolved very slowly from what Snetzler had established, and it is was probably in the North of England rather than the South, that a new impetus built up, as the City of Manchester developed industrial, artistic and cultural links across the world. Having discovered that truly great music and organs existed beyond out shores, is it surprising that the names of Cavaille-Coll and Schulze should become synoymous with progress by the mid-19th century? The Hill/Gauntlett revolution was the home-spun version of the same growing awarenes, and it's interesting to compare how different organ-builders initially responded to the "German" movement, and then absorbed and incorporated the more symphonic qualities of Cavaille-Coll.
I can't help but think that of all the better quality Victorian organ-builders, those of Fr Willis were the most individual and the least classical in concept; irrespective of the very complete specifications of instruments such as those built for St. George's Hall, Liverpool and the Royal Albert Hall, London. Reed dominated and highly colourful, I can understand the appeal, but in terms of mainland European classical heritage, far more removed than, say, the organs of Thomas Hill, Schulze, Lewis and even Brindley & Foster.
What happened after that is, for me, largely a matter of regret, no matter how colourful or beautiful the individual effects; the glorious exception being the organ of Liverpool Cathedral.
However, let me put this into perspective, and take the hypothetical case that I was commanded to provide music 6 hours per day for the purposes of public education and entertainment, and had the choice of six possible venues from which I could choose only one.
Would I choose Hereford Cathedral, Blackburn Cathedral, St.Bart's, Armley, Liverpool Cathedral, Beverley Minster or the ex-Trocadero Wurlitzer, London?
For fear of being labelled an indecisive hypocrite, I think I would have to kill myself, because I love them all.
MM
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
Quote from: MusingMuso on April 11, 2012, 02:05:51 PM
If I were to re-design a symphomy orchestra which eliminated violas, clarinets, timpani and french horns, and then replaced them with kazoos, a vacuum-cleaner, a spin-dryer and a small, wind-up toy monkey banging cymbals together, I would expect to be heavily criticised if not stoned to death.
On the other hand, if I am an organ-consultant, it seems that no-one would disapprove if I threw out all the mixtures, replaced everything above 4ft C with Claribel Flutes and Harmonic Piccolos, eliminated anything above 8ft on the Pedals, then buried the whole thing in a concrete bunker with whole trees as individual swell shutters. I may even be considered a tonal-visionary and an innovator.
Hopefully I'm not alone in wishing to thank both Pierre and MM for engaging in a debate both of erudition and entertainment in which a sense of innate humour triumphs; in the latter respect the description above is so brilliant.
The concept of families of strings, families of brass and families of woodwind is exemplified by the Oboe and the Bassoon - the Haut Bois - High Wood and the Bas Son, low sound. The development of the instruments that we are familiar with from the Baroque into the 19th century orchestra has its parallels and ancestry still alive with organs of the different periods of which we are aware. The Cornet as an Haut Bois in which the reed is replaced by the lips, and the families of cornet from Sackbut or Serpent through to the treble, developing into our family of brass from Tuba to Trumpet of quite a different nature to the woodwind family into which the reeded versions developed is so intriguingly different to the synthesis of the same reed sound by the combination of flute harmonics of which we are familiar as the Cornet stop on the organ.
Best wishes
David P
Quote from: David Pinnegar on April 12, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
Hopefully I'm not alone in wishing to thank both Pierre and MM for engaging in a debate both of erudition and entertainment in which a sense of innate humour triumphs; in the latter respect the description above is so brilliant.
The concept of families of strings, families of brass and families of woodwind is exemplified by the Oboe and the Bassoon - the Haut Bois - High Wood and the Bas Son, low sound. The development of the instruments that we are familiar with from the Baroque into the 19th century orchestra has its parallels and ancestry still alive with organs of the different periods of which we are aware. The Cornet as an Haut Bois in which the reed is replaced by the lips, and the families of cornet from Sackbut or Serpent through to the treble, developing into our family of brass from Tuba to Trumpet of quite a different nature to the woodwind family into which the reeded versions developed is so intriguingly different to the synthesis of the same reed sound by the combination of flute harmonics of which we are familiar as the Cornet stop on the organ.
Best wishes
David P
Pierre's reply is difficult to argue with if we look at history and the regional organs of Bach's Thuringia, but there is a slight fault-line in the pursuit of historical "authenticity."
What if we look at things from a musical perspective rather than an historical one?
So much was happening in Bach's time, and during his lifetime, we come across enormous strides in the development of instruments generally, (the piano is one such example), as well as great changes to notation, great developments in the architecture of music, (but not many innovations with Bach), as well as new methods of tuning etc.
In some ways, David's reply is nearer to the truth, because the various families of instruments had a profound impact on the development of the organ. Anyone who has heard a large, original Arp Schnitger organ, will find it curious that the reeds are quite separate from the flues, and those leathered Posaunes are a clear imitation of the brass consorts so familiar to those who know the music of Gabrieli, for instance. They act as a quite independent chorus, and are uncannily close to the real brass instruments of the period. The same is also true of the various woodwind registers, which again, are often incredibly accurate to their orchestral counterparts.
The flutes on baroque organs are quite close to that of their orchestral counterparts, and especially the recorders, and as Pierre knows, there were many experiments in voicing an organ flute to imitate the sound of the traverse flute of the orchestra.
I think we can therefore surmise that throughout Bach's life, tonal experiments occupied the minds of many organists and organ-builders, and as a consequence, the rules which have been associated with Schnitger and Silbermann, are probably themselves examples of "regional variation."
So if we look for "rules"we can easily become confused.
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.
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?
This, I think, is the difference between the historical quest for the "authentic sound," and the search for the most appropriate musical idiom. I know that 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.
Those registrations proved to be classic choruses for the great Preludes & Fugues, and utterly beautiful solo colours in the form of Cornets and various reed registers for the choral preludes. The sole means by which I arrived at these combinations had nothing to do with history, and carried only the authority of a musician's "inner ear." However, that "inner ear" was well versed in Consorts of Viols, the Harpsichord, Baroque Orchestras and Brass Consort music.
I'm quite sure that if one were to do an analysis of the physics of pipe organs, string and brass consorts, the sonorities of the harpsichord and families of recorders, there will be certain "rules" which dictate how the instruments are made, what size they are and how they are shaped in such a way that they sound agreeable and work in perfect harmony.
It is, for this reason, that I state my case against history, and defend the right of musicians to seek and find the best sounds and combinations of sounds AS THEY RELATE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MUSIC.
MM
Dear MM
Interesting thoughts as always.
One might wonder the extent to which the instrument was an instrument in its own right or to the extent to which it was imitative of the collections of instruments at the time, whether brass bands in the nature of instruments of the French Baroque through to the symphonic of the latter days.
Whether "correct" or not, the use of such an instrument in France as a brass band works well for Bach as demonstrated by Pierre Bardon which I (naughtily) recorded and put on YouTube ("St Maximin Bach D Minor"). (That performance was such a triumph that perhaps I might be excused for having wickedly captured the spirit of the moment.) Whether or not such brass bands are equally suited to Mendlessohn (YT "Mendlessohn organ sonata St Maximin") might be a matter of debate and opinion, but the performance was particularly exhiliarating at the time.
Best wishes
David P
PS By the way, in my post above, of course I should have referred to "The Cornett as an Haut Bois in which the reed is replaced by the lips,"
Actually, Haarlem was in and playing eighteen years before Bach's death.
Oh, and I challenge ANYONE to call the Trost organ in the Altenburgschlosskapell - which Bach played and adored - inferior to a Silbermann. It survives unaltered to this day, testament to its maker's skill as organ-builder and voicer. It is, quite simply, fabulous - and possessed of a powerful, almost boomy Pedal division with a colossal 16' Posaune!
Here it is, in a competent (albeit not flawless) performance, apparently captured on a rather flying visit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2QtMwpa9aM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2QtMwpa9aM&feature=related)
And now for a different extreme, here's an organ in which theatre and classical meet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqvpkkx6MBU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqvpkkx6MBU)
Now, to get back to Willis, I challenge ANYONE to question the boldness of these diapasons... just because they aren't the same thing as Armley doesn't mean they lack brightness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZjJISUGJo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZjJISUGJo)
Though, yes, THOSE REEDS. I really don't think Willis was as far from Cavaillé-Coll as MM suggests - though I prefer Willis chorus reeds to those of C-C, and I don't think an unaltered C-C Clarinette is anywhere near as fine as a Willis Corno di Bassetto. I also love the sheer impact of a Willis Ophicleide... but would you really think that organ is only 35 stops? Just goes to show what the Willises' expert voicing and a generous acoustic can achieve. That the organ's entirely original action had the speed of response and repetition to cope with such a demanding modern composition is, I think, also testament to its makers' genius.
If I was asking David Wyld to build me a new organ, I would ask that the Great and Swell choruses contained both 17.19.22 and 19.22.26.29 mixtures, I think...
What about Arthur Harrison? His bigger organs would often have both a large quint mixture and a tierce mixture on the Great, or more often the four-rank Harmonics 17.19.flat21.22 - Newcastle City Hall being an example of this. There are actually mixtures everywhere but the Solo - 12.15.17.19.22 on the Pedal, 15.19.22 on the Choir, 15.19.22.26.29 and 17.19.flat21.22 on the Great, 12.19.22.26.29 on the Swell.
Meanwhile, everyone here should check out last Tuesday's The Organist Entertains on the BBC iPlayer - great episode of what I find to be a programme of rather variable quality (or at least interest to this classically-minded fan of classical and theatre organs, but not much of Hammonds). It rounded off with Tom Trotter playing "The Three Elizabeths: Youth of Britain (Princess Elizabeth)" by Eric Coates at Brum Town Hall - what a STUNNING organ that is. All the chorus boldness Colin wants and all the orchestral richness Pierre or I could ever wish for... and in a glorious acoustic too. It's off the "Thomas Trotter: The Town Hall Tradition" CD/DVD, available on Regent Records. I could bankrupt myself just buying organ CDs, but that's one I'd like to get.
"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
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
This is very interesting indeed, but I fear a tad off-topic! Might it be an idea to separate them out into another thread?
Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 13, 2012, 08:11:16 AM
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 hesitate to suggest that Pierre has missed the point a little, because the "rules" to which I refer have nothing to do with stop-lists or the existence or otherwise of Tierces. However, just to set the record straight, I think that he will find even larger quint mixtures in the organs of Hilderbrandt than in those of Silbermann, and they would be quint mixtures with possibly a separately drawn, narrow-scale tierce. As Bach and Silbermann went to inspect the organ at Naumberg built by Hilderbrandt, it is quite likely that Bach drew 8.4.2. and a purely quint mixture; possibly with or without a 16ft as well.
This business of "werkprinzip" layout is also a bit of red-herring, because the most important thing is the depth or otherwise of an organ-case. True baroque organs tended to be built very shallow,(usually in a west gallery position), meaning that the back wall is just behind the pipework in the majority of instruments. Obviously, there will be exceptions to this, but the shallow organ was perhaps the commonest way of building them. So in effect, the organ-case was one giant tone-cabinet, with the back wall acting as the reflecting surface.
The next point being missed is the nature of the voicing. Trost may have been a bit weird in pursuing strange new sounds, and one could never accuse him of being a successful businessman; taking so long to build organs and voice them, he probably forgot where he had been and where he was going half the time. The impression I get of the Altenburg organ is that of a man self-possessed, who got there in the end after a lot of trial and error. Still, if nothing else, his style does remind us that organ-building was a very localised and even parochial affair, just as Germany was at the time. Even the Lutheran mass would vary from parish to parish, with some using Latin and others German; each church having its own, unique prayer-book. There was no real unity of purpose, but there were certain ways of doing things within a spectrum of considerable diversity and variety; perhaps reflecting the constant search for new ways of expression in a newly individualistic age.
I'm quite sure that J S Bach would have enjoyed the diversity of organ sound, and found ways of expressing himself accordingly; making best use of what was available to him.
What Pierre must understand is the fact that the true baroque organ works WITH the principles of music and physics, rather than against them. This is because the pipes are left to speak naturally, with no nicking or only slight nicking of the languid. The leathered Posaunes of Schnitger, (and presumably others), were the major exception, for this was a deliberate attempt to create smoother, imitative reed-tone as a foil to the flue-choruses; hence the separation of reeds and flues, where the reeds are highly individualistic and imitative.
When pipes are scaled relative to each other, (using whatever scales were common practice for a particular organ-builder), and voiced as naturally as possible, the end result is a certain harmony in the choruswork, which is how it should be. This is the unwritten rule of organ-pipe building, where the various pitches combine to complement the chorus effect. Really, the inclusion or otherwise of a Tierce rank does not change the natural ensemble, but it certainly does make the effect harmonically richer and even slightly out of tune.
The very idea of "harmonic corroborating stops" is a piece of nonsense from Casson and from Audsley in America, because low-pressure voicing, where the scales are right, will result in good choruses if the voicer is skilled enough to make best use of the pipework by tailoring the end result to the acoustic of the room into which it speaks.
Of course, once you can raise enough wind with a machine, blow the pipes very hard, nick away at the pipes until they could appear on the film-set of "Saw," place dumbell-like weights on the reeds and make Dulciana scale mixtures scream like banshees; you are into the business of bending the natural laws of physics, acoustics and organ-pipe choruses. If your name is John Compton or Fr Henry Willis, you can do it, but it takes an exceptional voicer to make it work musically. It could even be said that by using the extension principle, John Compton was obliged to work within the confines of a certain scaling and voicing discipline, where pipes of similar scale and treatment formed acoustically related choruses; albeit by using the trickery of the telephone exchange mechanism.
The people concerned with 'Orgelbewegung' may have made mistakes and come to wrong conclusions, but the one thing they got absolutely right, was the need to make organs as tonally natural and inter-related as they could be, without recourse to harmonic sleights of hand or things which are the musical equivalent to international diplomacy; getting organ-pipes to do what you think people need to hear. Harmonic corroboration is probably the organ equivalent to espionage and double-agents.
"Now look here Bond, this is called a Harmonics. Pull the knob thus, and everyone, (including Johnny Foreigner), will be your friend."
It all comes back to harmonic relationships....the idea of "Conserted music".....the Consort of Viols, the Consort of Brass and families of Recorders; perhaps even the idea of a "choir" or "chorus."
If the idea of conserted anything hints at communism, then you can always do what Hope-Jones and Wurlitzer did, by ditching the Diapason Chorus completely. That was probably the most honest thing they ever did, because it freed them from the tyranny of counterpoint.....or should that be "counter-agents?"
MM
PS: I enjoyed writing the above. 8)
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
Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 15, 2012, 11:17:16 AM
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
With regard to regional and specific variations on a theme, I'm sure it wouldn't be very difficult to find exceptions to just about every pre-conception we assume occupied the minds of the "Orgelbewebung," but I believe that their cause was very necessary; so far had the instrument strayed from its original conception and classical heritage. The only real truth is that there were no specific "rules" as such, but then, certain things work and certain things don't, and if something sounds good then it has to be good, irrespective of specific details.
Of course, in England, we circumnavigated the problem of powerful reed basses by the simple expedient of missing out the pedal organ altogether....a master-stroke IMHO, which must have cut down practice time enormously and permitted organists to indulge themselves in gourmet food and fine wines instead. It always strikes me as curious that no-one thought to fill in the shallots as a means of reducing power, yet they went to the trouble of leathering them and making the pipe resonators of wood. As for the thinner treble sounds of low-pressure reeds, the Cornets and Sesquialteras probably played a vital part in re-inforcing the power of the reed trebles, in the absence of higher wind pressures and harmonic trebles.
I don't agree that the idea of "natural tone" is specifically that of the "Orgelbewebung" movement. Didn't Silbermann jest about the awful string registers on South German organs, which took several seconds, (minutes?), to settle into the fundamental tone? It took a builder of fair-organs in the 19th century to sort out that little problem, with the invention of the harmonic-bridge or "Frein Harmonique." (The organ builder was the Frenchman with the unlikely name of Gavioli). I suspect that Silbermann would have laughed out loud at Trost's equally preposterous "Traverse Flute."In fact, it's not surprising to find "string" registers which, on closer inspection, turn out to be reed registers.
As I said previously, there was a lot of experimentation going on during the baroque era; not all of it a great success by any means.
I am slightly bemused by Pierre's comment concerning baroque voicing.
Has he never heard an Arp Schnitger organ in a small church?
It may be a deeply iconoclastic view, but wasn't Arp Schnitger the Fr Willis of his day?
He built organs to a set voicing formula, and I doubt that he did much more than regulate the pipes at the mouth. In a huge church, the effect is absolutely electrifying, but in a smaller building, utterly overwhelming. Arp Schnitger organs are far from subtle, unlike the later organs of F C Schnitger, which have tonal richness and sonority, but not necessarily overwhelming power. The Laurenskerk organ at Alkmaar is the greatest example of this, but Zwolle isn't far behind, even allowing for the rather underwhelming 32ft reed.
When it comes to nicking, it is said that after Marcussen rubbed out all the nicking on the languids at the Bavokerk, someone pointed out that Muller often finely nicked his pipes, and therefore, the nicking found in the pipes of the Bavo-orgal were probably original. A definite "Whoops!" moment, if ever there was one.
I would also dispute the assertion that in the 1970/80's little or no voicing was carried out in "the neo-baroque" organs of the day. Certainly, one hears stories about organ-buiulders suggesting that they should , "Leave the pipes a bit rough,the way they like 'em," but such comments would not have been uttered by the best builders and voicers such as Marcussen, Thos.Frobenius, Flentrop and others. Indeed, the organ I play, with just 8.4.IV (quint mixture) & II (Sesquialtera) acting as the pleno, is the equal of anything from antiquity, but obviously less rich than an organ with a 16ft chorus, multiple mixtures and reeds.
I think I can recognise a poor neo-baroque organ when I hear one. God knows, I've played many. That stated, I also know that a good voicer could soon rectify the roughness and work miracles on many a poorly conceived Mixture register. When it comes to good neo-baroque voicing, the organ in the Bavo-kerk is still probably the finest in the world, and lest we forget, that is probably more Marcussen, (at their best), than it is Muller.
MM
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
With regard to just one of MM's points - I believe that there is a string stop on the Saint-Sulpice, Paris organ, of Cavaillé-Coll's manufacture, which is in fact a small, delicate reed. Whatever one can say about the Baroque builders, one cannot argue that C-C used them in the absence of the skill necessary to voice proper strings well!
Now, as I have already pleaded, PLEASE can we return to topic and farm off this very interesting and worthwhile debate into another thread!
Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 15, 2012, 07:21:04 PM
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.
On refection, a poor choice of words on my part. I meant voicing rather than regulation, but I think what I had in mind was something I've read previously about Arp Schnitger, that he used more or less standard scales/cut-ups etc.
I'm not sure oi I can remember where I read this, but I'll see if I can find it again. I found it very interesting.
MM
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: Pierre Lauwers on April 16, 2012, 10:26:26 AM
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.
Best wishes,
Pierre
I've impressed myself by finding the quote concerning Arp Schnitger; it must have been five or six years since I last came across the words of wisdom, which were written by the late Stephen Bicknell.
Much of his writing is still to be found in the archives of piporg-l, and they make for fascinating reading.
Here are a few excerpts, which I think Pierre will agree with:-
1)
Not all old European churches are resonant. Some are very resonant of
course, but the great works of Arp Schnitger and Gottfried Silbermann (for
example) are distributed about equally in rooms with big acoustics on the
one hand, and tiny wooden churches with no reverberation whatever on the
other hand. Neither builder made any change whatever in technique for the
different conditions. The sound of the organ was an 'absolute', and
remained pretty much immutable.
2)
.....there was no one 'Golden Age'. The craft has flourished in many very different ways. The skill generously applied to these organs,in addition to their many other merits, is that of voicing.
How seriously did the organ builders of the past take the art of voicing?
The evidence is that they took it very seriously indeed.
3)
It does not take long to realise that there is at least a possibility that the craft of
voicing was seriously damaged by the Classical Revival in organ building.
4)
Indeed we have been though a period of exceptionally thin and bright sounding organs, for however beautiful the results achieved by Frobenius, Flentrop and Marcussen the vast majority of their contemporaries went a bit too far as far as brilliancy and articulation are concerned
5)
The world discussed a flue voicing style which combined low pressures, low cut-ups, large
footholes and no nicking. This put an accent on attack and brightness never
attempted in organ building before.
6)
Arp Schnitger, Gottfried Silbermann and Francois-Henri Clicquot all seem to
have used some nicking.
7)
In romantic organ-building the voicer was exalted. To the Organ Reformers
the idea of precision regularity was anathema and a whole generation chose,
in effect, not to be trained in the art of voicing. Instead they set out to
teach it themselves from the ground up. An account of such a process is an
important part of Ralph Downes' fascinating book "Baroque Tricks."
8 )
Ralph Downes learnt by experience that, if he was to achieve his desired ideal tone, then the precision
required was fantastic. He was right, and this is in its simple form the truth of the ancient 'secret'.
9)
At Alkmaar Franz Caspar Schnitger spent a great deal of time and trouble on the musical
beauty of his work. The result is stunning.
This is all very significant stuff, and Pierre is right to draw attention to it. I can also state with some certainty, that the difference between the organ I play and most other neo-baroque instruments, is the fact that it was actually VOICED very meticulously, with much evidence of very light nicking and variable cut-ups. I know that when I've played some of the finest old organs in the Netherlands and returned home, I've always felt that although I may be downsizing, I am never downgrading tonally. That is, I suppose, the ultimate statement of respect and admiration.
Elsewhere, Stephen Bicknell draws attention to the organs of Central Germany, and goes so far as to suggest that the organs of Arp Schnitger, (so beloved of the 'orgelbewebung'), are good for Reinken, Bruhns and Buxtehude (etc), and not much else. They are not really Bach organs at all. On the other hand, he does suggest that the true Bach organ was probably the style of Hilderbrandt, (especially at Naumberg), rather than that of Trost or Herbst, and Naumburg certainly has that combination of gravity and grandeur so appropriate to the music of J S Bach.
My comment about "the best Bach organs coming after Bach's death" was half right and half wrong, but of course, Bach would never have known them, which is the more important point. I was particularly interest to learn that when F C Schnitger departed for the Netherlands, there wasn't an immediately comparable organ-builder of the same stature in his native region. Furthermore, I've also learned in the past few hours, that Christian Muller came from the Harz mountain region close to Thuringia and the Central German school. This possibly explains why both Alkmaar and the Bavo-orgel are so perfectly suited to the music of Bach, and are often the first choices for the finest Bach scholars and performers.
MM
.....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
I was going to post a few Youtube examples of "Bach" organs to illustrate the points made, but I ran into terrible problems with the layout, and therefore post them separately, thus:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouJ3O2T4ZI0 Naumberg –Hilderbrandt organ - E minor Bach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QJN6Q8OG3I&feature=related – Chapuis – E minor Zwolle - organ by F C Schnitger/Hagabeer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6MlY3MVQ0&feature=fvsr - O mensch – Trost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK2L1Gt8Mg – G major Prelude - Trost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4It95IHsA8 – Alkmaar – G major - F C Schnitger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMQKu7cPhpI – Herbst organ – 2 manual with 32 reed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghjTrkUGqfU - Joachim Wagner Organ - Trondheim - restored by Ahrend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSZRf9fvoEo - Gilleian Weir - BWV565 - Haarlem
What a feast!
MM
And just in case anyone thinks we've strayed far from the original broadcast about Fr Willis.....not a bit of it!
The name of Fr Willis and many of the above organ-builders, all combined in "Howard Goodall's Organ Works" on TV.
How's that for continuity?
8)
MM
Of course we do not agree about some of those "Bach" organs. But they are all
fine anyway.
Best wishes,
Pierre
Can someone please explain to be as to what on earth is "a Bach organ"? As far as I know, none of the Bach family ever built organs, although it is true that the great Johann Sebastian was often asked for advice regarding new instruments that were to be built around his homeland.
One such instrument was the aforementioned organ in the Schlosskapelle in Altenburg, south of Leipzig and eventually built by Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost of Bad Langensalza (not far from Erfurt), competed in 1739. This is an organ I know personally very well, and apart from its visually stunning case, is both a pleasure and delight to see and play after its comprehensive rebuilding in 1976 by Hermann Eule of Bautzen which included replacing most of its front pipes that had been sacrificed for metal reserves during the war.
The tonal design if this organ does seem to generally conform to what little knowledge we actually have as to Bach's preferences in tonal design. This includes a large selection of 8ft ranks and of course, his known fondness for 32ft reeds. Silbermann never made one, though he did consider including one for the organ at Zittau. It is also said that Bach originally wrote the Praeludium & Fuge in Es-Dur BWV 552 to play during his opening recital on the Altenburg organ, it certainly dates from this time.
The other fact that needs to be taken into account is that this organ was originally contracted to be built by Gottfried Silbermann
in 1736, but he found that he wasn't able to deliver on time, so then 'giving away' the contract to Trost.
Apart from this organ, mentioned above, the organ in Trodheim and the Hildebrandt organ in St Wenzel, Naumberg, Bach never played, or probably never even knew about, especially not the organs in the Netherlands.
The organ in the Michaeliskerk in Zwolle was entirely newly built in 1721, the contract being signed in 1718 by Arp Schnitger and completed by his youngest son, Frans Caspar. Whether Arp had any hand in the actual construction is highly debatable as he was miles away when he died, working on his final organ at St Laurents in Itzehoe. I see that the organbuilding family of van Hagerbeer
is also mentioned here but the fact remains they had not, or never had, built an organ in this church. The previous instrument was completed as far back as 1505 by Johannes Jacobsz van Bilsteyn, with 3-manuals, containing a 34-rank Blockwerk, a Rugpositief of 4 voices and a Bovenwerk of 4 or 5 voices with attached pedal. Jan Morlet III completely rebuilt it in 1643, which included splitting up the Blockwerk and making its lower ranks playable on the Pedal. Then in 1669 the church tower burnt down after being struck by lightning which badly damaged the organ but because of lack of money, the organ was dismantled and stored. Thereafter the congregation worshipped without an organ for over 50 years until in 1718, the local physician and mayor of Zwolle, donated 12,000 guilders for a new organ, with his brother donating another 2,000 guilders.
The organ in the St Laurenskerk in Alkmaar, which happens to be in my home town, was given a comprehensive reconstruction by Frans Caspar Schnitger in 1725 from the original instrument by the van Hagerbeer family of Leiden, completed in 1645 although it had already received some modification from the Duyschot family earlier. Today it is often known as a van Hagerbeer/Schnitger organ and indeed still contains about 25% of its original pipework from 1645, all in completely altered form, however. Schnitger used much of it within his new independant Pedal department. The only stipulation given at the time was although he could do what he liked within the interior, he was not allowed to alter the casework to accomodate any of it, which of course to us would seem abhorent today, but at the time this was more to do with passing off the rebuild as 'repairs', rather than any conservation exercise.
As regards the Mueller organ in St Bavo,Haarlem, although a very famous and noteworthy organ, due mostly to its Handel and Mozart connections, cannot today be regarded as in any kind of original tonal condition, having been rebuilt several times since conception. Christiaan Mueller, it is thought, worked extensively with Frans Caspar Schnitger on his arrival in the Netherlands from the Harz mountain region of Germany, before setting up business on his own. Much of the St Bavo organ's so-called 'wild tone' may be more than a little due to the restoration carried out by Marcussen between 1959-61, which unvelievably included adding two large quint-mixtures to the Hoofdwerk and Pedaal (the originals contain third-sounding ranks) and enlarging the compass of the pedal from d' to f' (27-30 notes). Such blatent violation to an organ of such historical significance would never be considered today - well at least I hope it wouldn't!
Quote from: Ian van Deurne on April 17, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
Can someone please explain to be as to what on earth is "a Bach organ"? As far as I know, none of the Bach family ever built organs, although it is true that the great Johann Sebastian was often asked for advice regarding new instruments that were to be built around his homeland.
One such instrument was the aforementioned organ in the Schlosskapelle in Altenburg, south of Leipzig and eventually built by Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost of Bad Langensalza (not far from Erfurt), competed in 1739. This is an organ I know personally very well, and apart from its visually stunning case, is both a pleasure and delight to see and play after its comprehensive rebuilding in 1976 by Hermann Eule of Bautzen which included replacing most of its front pipes that had been sacrificed for metal reserves during the war.
The tonal design if this organ does seem to generally conform to what little knowledge we actually have as to Bach's preferences in tonal design. This includes a large selection of 8ft ranks and of course, his known fondness for 32ft reeds. Silbermann never made one, though he did consider including one for the organ at Zittau. It is also said that Bach originally wrote the Praeludium & Fuge in Es-Dur BWV 552 to play during his opening recital on the Altenburg organ, it certainly dates from this time.
The other fact that needs to be taken into account is that this organ was originally contracted to be built by Gottfried Silbermann
in 1736, but he found that he wasn't able to deliver on time, so then 'giving away' the contract to Trost.
Apart from this organ, mentioned above, the organ in Trodheim and the Hildebrandt organ in St Wenzel, Naumberg, Bach never played, or probably never even knew about, especially not the organs in the Netherlands.
The organ in the Michaeliskerk in Zwolle was entirely newly built in 1721, the contract being signed in 1718 by Arp Schnitger and completed by his youngest son, Frans Caspar. Whether Arp had any hand in the actual construction is highly debatable as he was miles away when he died, working on his final organ at St Laurents in Itzehoe. I see that the organbuilding family of van Hagerbeer
is also mentioned here but the fact remains they had not, or never had, built an organ in this church. The previous instrument was completed as far back as 1505 by Johannes Jacobsz van Bilsteyn, with 3-manuals, containing a 34-rank Blockwerk, a Rugpositief of 4 voices and a Bovenwerk of 4 or 5 voices with attached pedal. Jan Morlet III completely rebuilt it in 1643, which included splitting up the Blockwerk and making its lower ranks playable on the Pedal. Then in 1669 the church tower burnt down after being struck by lightning which badly damaged the organ but because of lack of money, the organ was dismantled and stored. Thereafter the congregation worshipped without an organ for over 50 years until in 1718, the local physician and mayor of Zwolle, donated 12,000 guilders for a new organ, with his brother donating another 2,000 guilders.
The organ in the St Laurenskerk in Alkmaar, which happens to be in my home town, was given a comprehensive reconstruction by Frans Caspar Schnitger in 1725 from the original instrument by the van Hagerbeer family of Leiden, completed in 1645 although it had already received some modification from the Duyschot family earlier. Today it is often known as a van Hagerbeer/Schnitger organ and indeed still contains about 25% of its original pipework from 1645, all in completely altered form, however. Schnitger used much of it within his new independant Pedal department. The only stipulation given at the time was although he could do what he liked within the interior, he was not allowed to alter the casework to accomodate any of it, which of course to us would seem abhorent today, but at the time this was more to do with passing off the rebuild as 'repairs', rather than any conservation exercise.
As regards the Mueller organ in St Bavo,Haarlem, although a very famous and noteworthy organ, due mostly to its Handel and Mozart connections, cannot today be regarded as in any kind of original tonal condition, having been rebuilt several times since conception. Christiaan Mueller, it is thought, worked extensively with Frans Caspar Schnitger on his arrival in the Netherlands from the Harz mountain region of Germany, before setting up business on his own. Much of the St Bavo organ's so-called 'wild tone' may be more than a little due to the restoration carried out by Marcussen between 1959-61, which unvelievably included adding two large quint-mixtures to the Hoofdwerk and Pedaal (the originals contain third-sounding ranks) and enlarging the compass of the pedal from d' to f' (27-30 notes). Such blatent violation to an organ of such historical significance would never be considered today - well at least I hope it wouldn't!
A Bach organ is one best suited to the music of Bach, or one of which we imagine Bach would have approved. I think (hope?) we are aware that he and his somewhat extended family, didn't built organs.
I think we also stated that Bach would never have known the later organs built in the Netherlands (and elsewhere), but assuming that a "Bach organ" is one ideally suited to the music of Bach, the Netherlands does have something of an embarrassment of riches in this respect.
I would suggest that Bach was very aware of what was going on elsewhere, even if he didn't travel. Whatever lines of communication existed, may have been more effective than we think. (How did a Joachim Wagner organ end up in Trondheim, Norway? How did the Englishman Charles Burney get to learn of the St Bavo organ? Why was Amsterdam a music-publishing centre?) After all, Bach expressed interest in a Cantor position in Poland, but was not considered for whatever reason. Musically, Bach's outlook was virtually pan-European, at a time when most things in Germany were regional at best, and parochial for the remainder. Perhaps we tend to project our modern understanding of things on Bach's life and working environment, but I would suggest that he was never anything more than a hired musician, and the organ-builders of the period merely "tradesmen." Leipzig wasn't Lubeck, anymore than Zwolle isn't Leiden or Rotterdam to-day, and in the case of Germany, it was a collection of princely fiefdoms, where only "the best people" made important decisions.
Even in the Netherlands, certain people had the power to prevent the use of the organ during divine worship, and I don't think anyone was listening to what mere organists thought at the time.
It doesn't help that Bach almost never left any indications for registration; that being left to the anyone who still regarded his music as worthy of being played towards the end of his life. Not only had he been the hired musician, he was the "old man" who wrote pointless academic fugues; despised by the new order of young, dynamic classicists bravely moving towards "Sturm und Drang" and immersing themselves in Sonata Form.
As we can't dig "old Bach" up to ask him face to face, there isn't much prospect of ever knowing what his tonal preferences were. We might even conclude that he would always be in the position of being obliged to defer to the decisions of others: people like Mattheson; super-rich, well connected, educated and influential. (Was the Trondheim organ his doing?)
Even the fact that Bach may have played this or that organ, (as we all have), doesn't mean that he approved of everything, (as we all haven't). After all, organists are not noted for being totally content with a stop-list for very long, as The Rev Canon Sydney Smith at St Paul's Cathedral, London, pointed out.
"Organists are like broken down cab-horses; always longing for another stop."
Well let's stop here, because we don't know and never will know what Bach may have liked, despised or wanted, and to anyone who would quote his "glowing approval" of certain instruments, I would urge a modicum of caution. I suspect that there would have been consequences for anyone who disapproved of anything which had first been approved by those in a position of power and authority, and with a large family to support; I think there may well have been a hidden agenda. Unfortunately, once again, we don't know.
I would suggest that, instead of crawling around the few organs which Bach knew or may have played, and which still remain, we go to the music instead.
Rather than playing the great Preludes & Fugues on an organ, try playing them on a pedal-harpsichord. Does it work?
It most certainly does, and therein is a clue to the sort of tonal architecture required of the music. A spread of evenly rich harmonics across a wide-range, only possible with complete choruses of closely related and matched Principal tone; the very foundation of the true baroque organ.
Does Bach call for colour and variety in the Partitas and Chorale Preludes?
Listen to the cantatas and oratorios; the vocal lines and dramatic contrasts. "This is opera in church!"
Would Bach have enjoyed the gravitas of a 32ft reed or a 16ft manual flue chorus?
Listen to the opening of the St Mattheus Passion.
If that then becomes the basis of our search, (in terms of colour, variety, nobility and sonority), where do we find the best "Bach organs?"
I think our friend in the Netherlands could probably manage to find one with only the aid of a bicycle. The Laurenskerk instrument at Alkmaar spectacularly meets all the above criteria, as do the organs at Zwolle and at the Bavokerk, Haarlem.
Does it matter that Bach never played or heard them?
Is our quest historical or musical?
I hope the latter, because the passionate depth and intensity of Bach's music still has the power to make us fall to our knees.
To lighten this up a little, and as an amusing postlude, I wonder if our friend in the Netherlands expects sympathy?
Yes, Marcussen really messed up at the Bavokerk....rubbing out the nicking, re-voicing things constantly ever since, fitting a modern, suspended action and lowering the wind-pressure.
Well consider yourself lucky! They at least created possibly the finest organ in the world to-day.
In England, we didn't restore anything in the 19th century: we threw them on bonfires and called in Mr Willis to build a new organ. Then came along Mr Harrison, who (derogatory comment deleted) changed some. Then came along J W Walker, who (changed)everything that Mr Willis and Mr Harrison, (and every other organ-builder), had created before they got their paws on them. Now we're ruining the things which ruined the things which had replaced the organs we scrapped.
Why was this possible?
Money!
Had the Netherlands not fallen into relative decline after the "Golden Age," all the old organs would have been changed, chopped about, thrown into skips or sold to the highest foreign bidder.
Instead, the old organs were neglected or patched up to keep them working, and when scholars started to look again when Mr Dolmesch told us to look at history, they discovered an absolute European treasure-chest of wonderful old organs; many of them emerging relatively unscathed from the day they were built.
Poverty is good for us, and we should make the best of it while it lasts.
MM
PS: I don't think my reference to Hagabeer had anything to do with Zwolle, but if that was implied, I apologise. I'll re-read what I wrote, but I thought I was referring to Alkmaar.
PPS: After writing the above, I remembered something. Bach used,(especially in the Passions), the musical word-painting of "highs" and "lows" to make a point between "evil" (low) and "good" (high), which I believe continued an older tradition of musical representation. Another example of Bach using specific colours and timbres to convey different things.
Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 13, 2012, 08:11:16 AM
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
I listened to most of each of the first three. I only managed about a minute of the fourth, before the tuning drove me to distraction.
I am concerned that the case for suggesting that instruments built by Trost are ideal for the music of Bach is pehaps less clear-cut than is being stated. He only attempted two major projects in his lifetime - and one of those (Waltershausen) had to be finished by another builder. In fact, Trost probably took almost twenty years to build this instrument (so far, I have been unable to find a precise documentation of the dedication), but might possibly have been completed by May, 1741. ...'These historical facts seem very strange when one considers what a significant organ project was involved. In the case of similarly placed organs, such as Zacharias Hildebrandt's organ in the St. Wenzelskirche in Naumburg (also a city organ project), there was a crowning completion ceremony with famous examiners (such as Bach and Silbermann) and an opulent feast of organ music. No report of anything of this kind has been handed down to us about Waltershausen'.
With regard to the first clip, I am afraid that the fact that the instrument appeared to be quite out of tune (as opposed to tuned to another temperament) rather put me off. In any case, I found the continuous use of the Pedal 32ft. reed extremely wearisome. The effect of this type of chorus work (with the tierce mixtures) again, I found tiring to listen to. I also felt that it obscured some of the part writing.
The second clip: again, the tierce mixtures simply came over as a reedy jangle - which quickly became tiring.
I thought that the third clip was less reedy, but also lacked any real brightness - and I do not simply mean that it should have been played using a high-pitched Cymbale - but it did sound as if there was little above 4ft. pitch for most of it. If there was a 2ft., it was rather weak. Of course one does not need a plethora of quint mixtures for Bach, but this piece, to me, demands something more 'sparkling' than this.
I am quite happy to accept that some here have a liking - even a preference - for this type of sound for the music of Bach. However, I am less happy (and certainly unconvinced) that these instruments are to be considered the preferred media of his own music, by Bach.Quote from: Pierre Lauwers on April 13, 2012, 08:11:16 AM
... 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 ! ...
Pierre
I would agree with MM, here. I am not sure that we can state this as a fact. Surely the truth is that we do not know exactly what Bach would have done. We do know that, whilst he may have liked the organ at Altenburg, he also admired the instrument at Mülhausen - which did contain a number of quint mixtures.
Given his well-documented virtuosity and genius, it is not unreasonable to suppose (as MM has propounded) that Bach would have delighted in making the best out of whatever instrument he was playing and, ignoring any kind of rules of any school of thought, striven to produce the most musical result possible.
Incidentally, it does appear that the second and third pages of this thread should be split from the original title and made to form a new thread. I shall have a look at this later - unless David wishes to do this?
Quote from: MusingMuso on April 17, 2012, 06:49:23 PMIn England, we didn't restore anything in the 19th century: we threw them on bonfires and called in Mr Willis to build a new organ. Then came along Mr Harrison, who (derogatory comment deleted) changed some. Then came along J W Walker, who (changed)everything that Mr Willis and Mr Harrison, (and every other organ-builder), had created before they got their paws on them. Now we're ruining the things which ruined the things which had replaced the organs we scrapped.
I can think of certain organs in this country where historic material was well respected by the Romantic builders! There's a lot of Renatus Harris in the Chichester Cathedral Hill, for example - and when Arthur Harrison rebuilt and enlarged the 1840s classical Bishop at Jesus College, Cambridge, he left Bishop's Great and Swell (which became Choir and Echo) well alone, adding his own Great and Swell as well as a bit more of a Pedal division. Saint Peter's Cornhill - a Schmidt rebuilt by Hill and later R&D - still has much of the Schmidt pipework in it, essentially unaltered I believe but obviously tuned to equal temperament. The old Hill console survives in the gallery, disconnected and replaced by R&D's - it has pinned to the music desk a piece of paper, on which is scrawled a few bars of music and the signature 'Felix Mendelssohn'. The Bridge at Christ Church Spitalfields is another example - though why it is being restored to original condition, without pedals, when the later additions were so sensitively done is beyond me.
I am sure that others may be able to cite similar examples.
Quote from: pcnd5584 on April 17, 2012, 09:38:22 PM
Incidentally, it does appear that the second and third pages of this thread should be split from the original title and made to form a new thread. I shall have a look at this later - unless David wishes to do this?
PLEASE!
It's very valuable discussion but it's definitely in the WRONG place.
Quote from: AnOrganCornucopia on April 18, 2012, 12:52:01 AM
I can think of certain organs in this country where historic material was well respected by the Romantic builders! There's a lot of Renatus Harris in the Chichester Cathedral Hill, for example - and when Arthur Harrison rebuilt and enlarged the 1840s classical Bishop at Jesus College, Cambridge, he left Bishop's Great and Swell (which became Choir and Echo) well alone, adding his own Great and Swell as well as a bit more of a Pedal division. Saint Peter's Cornhill - a Schmidt rebuilt by Hill and later R&D - still has much of the Schmidt pipework in it, essentially unaltered I believe but obviously tuned to equal temperament. The old Hill console survives in the gallery, disconnected and replaced by R&D's - it has pinned to the music desk a piece of paper, on which is scrawled a few bars of music and the signature 'Felix Mendelssohn'. The Bridge at Christ Church Spitalfields is another example - though why it is being restored to original condition, without pedals, when the later additions were so sensitively done is beyond me.
I am sure that others may be able to cite similar examples.
Richard - on the subject of the wrong place: is it possible that you should have posted this as a reply in the Mixture Compositions thread....?
Hi PCND - sorry, should have made things clearer. I have now inserted a quote from one of MM's posts on this thread to which I was replying.
Quote from: AnOrganCornucopia on April 18, 2012, 07:15:33 PM
Hi PCND - sorry, should have made things clearer. I have now inserted a quote from one of MM's posts on this thread to which I was replying.
Now it makes more sense....