Organ matters - Organs matter!

Quote from: revtonynewnham on October 01, 2012, 09:20:32 AM
Hi

A true Christian is someone who can say - and mean "Jesus is Lord".  It's as simple and as complex as that - think about the implications of that word "Lord".  "Jesus is Lord" is probably the earliest Christian creed.

That said, it's easy to try and ignore the miracles - but theologically, the virgin birth was necessary, as was the resurrection.  I regard them as non-negotiable - even if they can't be explained by science.  I also disagree about the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 and it's partner miracle, the feeding of the 4,000.  I think they are miracles of creation - the people had been out for longer than anticipated - although the "sharing" explanation does make a valid moral point.

For clarification, the Levites were descendants of Levi - one of the original tribes, and served as workers in the temple, a branch of the family stemming from Aaron formed the hereditary priesthood of Israel.  Pharisees were, as Wikipedia puts it:- " were at various times a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews during the Second Temple period beginning under the Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE) in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt."  Some were scribes (i.e. teachers & enforcers of the law) - and they in general, didn't like their somewhat privileged position challenged - at least as they appear in the Gospels.

Every Blessing

Tony

Dear Tony,

I don't regard the Virgin Birth as remotely necessary, and the evidence is distinctly iffy. It is also a re-working of an older religious idea....possibly Indian?  The Ressurection makes sense in either an actual or a philosophical way, so it needn't be a mircale.

As for feeding miracles, I once bought a wand, which didn't do what it said on the box. I threw it to one side as a twelve year old, but later ressurected it as a baton. Since then, I've had a magical control over people.


So it's true....mircales are everywhere.


Best,

MM

QuoteHi!

You pose an interesting set of points.

Belief in a biologically virgin birth? Perhaps not. Stories about Jesus living after being Crucified? Certainly - but most certainly the ideas that he gave surviving long after the physicality of his earthly existence.

Increasingly I'm coming to realise the function of the nature of the Epic Story and the Epic Storyteller keeping alive teachings and wisdom, sometimes stressing something a little here and there, sometimes embellishing some aspect to the delight or better understanding of his audience. In the nature of the Gospels having been written down rather later than the time of the events to which they related, the stories that we read will have come through that process.

So what is important to them? As you say, to the people who follow these Gospels, what is important to those who consider themselves Christian specifically?

To me, personally, the understanding of a property common to all the universe, common to all matter and to all living things and people which we call God, the Creator. So as to avoid anthropomorphic confusion, I like to thing of the Creator as a force, the Construction Force or Force or Thrust of Creation.

Beyond that, what is special about Jesus' teachings? The Jews had a problem, not dissimilar to that of some branches of Islam today: the teachers believed that you got to heaven by following rules - rules written by Scribes and interpreted by Levites (and no doubt someone here will fill in for rusty memories like mine where the Pharisees come in . . . ). In contrast, Jesus taught us that we have to learn not what the universe (including us does), not merely rules, but how it works, how it operates, behaves - and why.

Learning how the universe works enables us to fit in with the universal laws of creation that made us and all that we experience: it teaches us not what to do but how to think, and therefore how to adapt appropriately in different situations.

Thus "Love Thy God", he said, "and your neighbour as yourself" and "that's all you have to do". It's a way of thought and a way of life. As for being all one needs to do, it's a tall order and a hard task to follow.

To the early Christians, therefore, being a Christian was not about following rules but doing more than that and as living examples manifest telling the good news of how it was possible to get people to live in harmony with others.

One of my favourite stories from the Gospel is that of the feeding of the five thousand. The miracle was not of magic creation of food but that it was possible to get people to break down their barriers and cooperate.

Obviously the crowd had come together from lots of people hearing that Jesus was in town. For this number to have come together, many would have come from long distances. They would have brought food with them to sustain them on the way and for as long as they needed during the time they expected to hear Jesus' teachings. But when it came to food time, none of them wanted to admit to having food nor producing it for fear of no-one else having come with food. The individuals could hardly stuff themselves seeing their neighbour go hungry. So no-one dared show what they had. That is, until . . . Jesus encouraged a few to get out their food from pockets and bags and pass it round . . . and as it was passed round, on the way everyone could bring out their food pretending it was the food that Jesus had got the first ones to produce at the beginning.

So in this way, Christianity was a really practical philosophy, a way of thought to guide the follower's thinking and micro-decisions. Jesus and the Father of Thought, God, was not just another fairy story . . .

The problem was that these first Christians were singled out, because giving a more intelligent and enlightened view of life, they were the serpents in the Garden of Eden to those whose heaven was found only in the comfortable following of rules . . .

Is this an helpful explanation?

Best wishes

David P

Dear David,

What a refreshing take on the miracle of the 5,000, which is the way it was explained to me perhaps 45 years ago.

Amusingly, I recall an old priest who had seen most things in life, and had a weary look. I remember asking him about the feeding miracles, and he gazed across the church hall, where the ladies were preparing food for the Parish celebrations.

"My dear boy, when you have seen how far Miss Potts can make two tins of salmon and a bag full of breadcrumbs go, the feeding of the 5,000 is but a culinary sleight of hand."

Wonderful!

Best,

MM

This why God invented churches to keep the organs dry and have other people pay to look after them.

Cinemas were much the same, but now they only show films.....what's all that about?

If I only wanted to see a moving image, I can sit outside a cafe on the steet, (weather permitting),  and watch the world go by without having to pay for the privilege.

The world has gone mad.

Best,

MM

To have assimilated the Messaien style and then created some very fine music is remarkable in itself at so young an age, but I suspect that this is only the start.

Whatever the X-factor is in composition and playing ability, Thomas Mellan has it in super abundance.

Best,

MM

It IS good to find young organists on Youtube, and they are not the only ones by any means. The instrument still stirs the heart of SOME children and young people.

I hope that EVERYONE will listen to the music and superb performing ability of young Thomas Mellan. If he isn't the next major composer for organ, I will eat my organ shoes. The boy displays real genius far in excess of his years.

Best,

MM

This is no surprise to me. Russia has become a deeply criminal country with a very powerful mafia. There is an abundance of law in Russia, but few people seem to uphold it or have much faith in it.  If you ever find yourself in Moscow, chain your luggage to your wrist.

Best,

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on September 15, 2012, 01:46:43 AM
Dear MM

I had the privilege today of tuning for another concert of the Maestro today on a Grotrian Steinweg, as far removed from harpsichord as one can get.

He performed again the Scarlatti and perhaps the recording I made may be good enough for YouTube in due course but he introduced the sonatas making a significant point that Scarlatti's father was a composer and arguably the originator of opera buffa . . . . an artform in which feeling and expression exceeded the capability of the harpsichord.

In transcribing the idiom of the guitar for the harpsichord, the harpsichord is inferior to the powers of expression of the guitar. So in this case the expressive qualities of the piano may be more appropriate. . . . and certainly audiences are enjoying his more expressive performances afforded by the capabilities of the piano . . .

Perhaps other examples of early composers may be more arguable?

Best wishes

David P

Dear David,


Working from a position of modernity backwards is never a good way of realising the intentions of a composer, anymore than is re-creating Hamlet in the street language of to-day. This is not to suggest that such a course of action is necessarily inartistic or contrived; far from it, but to suggest that re-inventing music or drama automatically comes up with something better is, I believe, a profound mistake. What you end up with is something different and any judgement of quality of artistic merit stands or falls on the basis of that elusive X-factor. Am I and others moved by it? If not, is it because I am being titlilated or irritated by the dictates of fashion or novelty?

The whole point of early music scholarship is not to discredit more modern interpretations, but to limit ourselves to those resources available to the composer, and to then explore means by which music can be played in such a way that it still moves the listener. That is terribly important, because it goes to the heart of the matter and keeps us grounded as active musicians. So many performances of early music are note perfect yet sterile, and the techniques of voice-leading, rubato  playing and balanced phrasing were the only means of expression open to the organist or harpsichordist of the day, other than changes of registration of course. I think I would argue that these basic essentials are vital to any understanding of the music, but once understood, it is perfectly possible to introduce dynamic expression as well. So many theatrical performances of Bach are ruined by an excess of dynamic, where the underlying architecture is lost to showmanship and spectacular changes of registration.

I would further argue that really expressive Bach is the preserve of the few rather than the many, whatever playing style is adopted and no matter what the instrument.

Musicianship is about knowing the difference.

The problem with Scarlatti Jr. (Domenico), is knowing exactly what type of harpsichord he played in Spain. I'm not sure that I know, but of anyone doesm please tell us.

Still, is is perfectly possible to play this music on other instruments, and here are a few examples, which I believe to be faithful to what the composer intended or implied.

Prepare to be delighted and amazed in equal measure.

The first example is the excellent Kenneth Gilbert playing Bach's BWV 847 as expressively as the original type of instrument will allow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvmCUx7NdLg

The comparison with the boy playing the same piece on a Bayern Accordion, (as expressive as it comes), lacks knowledge of structure and phrasing, but what technique!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae6SmXJG064&playnext=1&list=PLBE9189DA4ACE826D&feature=results_video

On the same instrument, (played by a performer of outstanding maturity and fabulous technique), I would suggest that this is a very faithful and musically exciting transcription with all the passion and colour of the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFNNPZsO7-Q

How about Scarlatti transcribed to guitar? What fantastic technique! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E00tVbSEaUA

Here is an example of the percussive sound of the jacks thumping back down on the harpsichord; the keyboard equivalent to the guitar bebung technique.     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=KdF_S57fyK8&NR=1

Trust that pesky accordionist to match the technique!         

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehIW0KMNRXo

Best,

MM

Dead David,


I know just what you mean about these inexpressive instruments..... 8)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPqCh21GbNI


Best,

MM

I have been harbouring a misconception for years.....I feel liberated.

I think I had been misled by the A1 roadsigns, which read "Welcome to Richmondshire"

Well that's good.....and William Hague MP is a national treasure. His speech in the commons about "President Blair" is one of the funniest in the history of parliament.  It's on Youtube, and always cheers me up when I go to it.

Best


MM

Quote from: Ian van Deurne on September 13, 2012, 04:53:27 PM
It should be remembered that in the Barock age, the most important thing was the music itself, the instrument on which it was performed on was a secondary consideration. Bach's Passacaglia for instance, was written for performance on either the pedal harpsichord or the organ, although performance on the latter of course is infinately more satisfactory as it can provide far greater differences in dynamics and registration for each variation.

Gottfried Silbermann's organs sound just as well in a 'dry' acoustic as in a 'wet' one. Go and listen to the small organ in Pfaffroda (built 1715) whose sound is perfectly suited to this small church. (although when I played it a few years ago the 16ft Pedal Posaune was suffering from a bad cough!)

Another important point, not well known by many is that Gottfried Silbermann was almost single-handedly responsible for the development of the early piano in Germany. He called it 'Cembalo d'Amour' and three examples of his pianos were owned by Frederick the Great which Bach himself performed on them for him at Potsdam in 1748, the result of which was  "The Musical Offering' (BWV 1079) Two of these pianos are still there and although I have seen them, I had no chance to play them at the time but hopefully that can be remedied sometime in the future.

Just for the sake of pedantry, I didn't say that a Silbermann organ would sound bad in a dry acoustic. I was referring to neo-classical instruments. Actually, I have played quite a few organs in the Netherlands which speak into a dry acoustic; though usually the churches have wooden interiors, which make for a warm, natural resonance rather than any extended reverberation. I can't explain it in words, but for anyone who wants to experience a wooden interior of this type, I would recommend a visit to the splendid Georgian theatre at Richmond, in what was (quite rightly) North Yorkshire rather than the absurdly small and absurdly constituted county of Richmond.

David Drinkell makes the point that Bach's music transcends the musical idiom, and Ian makes the similar point about the music being more important than the means of performance. That is so, simply because the music of the era had both vertical and linear structure, and the instruments of the day  exploited this.....or was it the other way around? (We often underestimate the influence of instrument makers on the development of music). We might reasonably conclude that the solo instrumental voice was subservient to the contrapuntal architecture of the music; all made so beautiful by exquisite melody: the essence of 'Bel Canto'. It is miraculous how Bach's music can be entirely satisfactory when played on a synthesiser, sung by such as the Swingel Singers or even rendered on a theatre organ with the help of percussion registers, as Carlo Curley did on one delightful recording of the G major Trio Sonata. All that is required is equality and compatibility of voices, and this is why the baroque was destroyed by the invention of Violas and Clarinets; not to mention Tubas and French Horns. It's a case of colour in context, rather than colour for its own sake.

Returning to the original point about acoustics, I would suggest that ANY organ or harpsichord falls flat on its face outdoors, but at least, with the organ, sonority and balance CAN be maintained by a bit of extreme voicing, as in the case of Mortier and Gavioli etc. They are, without doubt, indoor instruments, whereas the piano can be wheeled into the street complete with monkey; assuming that the pianist has a licence.

Best,

MM

Yes David, as well as a guitarist hitting rather than plucking the strings, with a thud. That's what the jacks do so well on the harpsichord, as well as lute registers, which can copy the effect of a guitarist playing away from the bridge of the instrument using perhaps only the side of the thumb.

With French music, the expression is in the elaborate ornamentation and the use of rubato, which often copies the complex phrasng of the French language. When played on piano, dynamics creep in and tend to ruin the musical intention.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nawz_64cpHo

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

Best,

MM

Dear David,

The question itself raises further questions, since you chose to stick a piano and a harpsichord outside: the balance immediately stacked in favour of the piano. A harpsichord cannot sound good in a normal living-room, in a dead acoustic and certainly not outdoors, for it is an indoor instrument specifically associated with the acoustics of large houses, churches and baroque theatres. If you stuck a Silbermann organ outdoors, it would sound equally thin and unmusical. In fact, original instruments cannot be divorced from their proper surroundings, and there are many examples of neo-classical organs placed in acoustically dry rooms,  the musical result usually disastrous.

However, assuming that the instruments are in ideal surroundings, you ask whether it is better to play old music on old instruments or more modern instruments.

As someone who likes to hear historically informed performances, and who plays a fine neo-classical organ in a perfect acoustic, you may think that I would shun other styles of performance, but you would be quite wrong. In fact, one of my favourite recordings of the Bach Harpsichord Concertos is that recorded by Murray Perahia playing piano, which is far from historically accurate. There is no doubt in my mind that he understands the music perfectly, as does the pianist Angela Hewitt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MuioQ-zaKo

Now compare this to Trevor Pinnock and the English Concert: as historically informed as it comes, I suppose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpqm1hxgH-w

Why do each sound so convincing and so right, when one of them at least, is historically all wrong?

Answer:-  The piano provides the dynamic means of expression which shadows that of the orchestra, and in the second example, the dynamics of orchestra give the impression of the harpsichord being an expressive instrument, by allowing it to come to the fore or shrink into the background.  The difference is that of additive dynamics and reductive dynamics;  both a perfectly acceptable method of making expression possible.

Thus, Bach was writing expressively, but in a reverse way to that which we would normally associate with piano and orchestra. It's the reason why a truly fine Bach organist can play Bach entirely convincingly, if not historically well informed, on a highly romantic instrument, and a pianist can do the same on a modern piano.

Nevertheless, there are works which lose something when played  the piano; especially music by Alessandro and Domenico Scarlatti.  There are moments when the vibrant rhythms of the music is hammered out in low, block chords, which is really an imitation of the Spanish Guitar. The sound of the jacks falling back after plucking the strings is an integral part of the music; providing a percussive rhythm which is clearly audible.

Best,

MM

I think I will stick to my previous proposition that Christianity is completely compatible with many religions and even none at all; especially a philosophy such as Buddhism, which strives to be in tune with the natural world and the positive elements of self.

I'm sure there are many Buddhists who have entered churches, and actually that is a lot more likely than with members of other beliefs and faiths.

That said, I do recall meeting someone I knew at York Minster and sitting beside them for a performance of the Matthew Passion, and feeling slightly uncomrtable when he burst into tears as soon as the orchestra began.

"You're supposed to be Jewish," I hissed.

"I know," he blubbered, "but this is Bach!"   :'(

Best,

MM

Dear David,

I haven't investigated it at all, but I just wonder if physical barriers are not the main reason for Islamic fragmentation.  I wonder what part the  vast mountain ranges and deserts have played?

As for the little girl in Pakistan, I suspect that there will be a happy outcome. The senior clerics are not barbarians.

Best,

MM

[MODIFIED POST RE-SUBMITTED]


Dear David,

According to statistics, in 2010, the total number of recreational/dependent drug users in Pakistan reached 9 million, in a country with a population of 180 million....about 5% of the total population.


1.5 million use opium
750,000 are heroin addicts
200,000 are drug-injecting users and
75,000 addicts are also suffering from HIV/AIDS.


1 in  10 college/university students is drug addicted. In 1 prominent private university of Karachi, 20 out of 30 (66%) students were taking charas (a hashish form of cannabis). Over 40,000 street children are involved in solvent substance abuse in four major cities of Pakistan. Around forty percent of Pakistan prison population uses drug.

This doesn't paint the full picture, for I would suggest that it is principally a male problem, and one largely confined to the under 30 age group. This means that the 9% becomes 18% of the male population by gender, and very much higher, (perhaps 50% or more  of the total young, adult male population), by age, due to the relatively limited lifespan of the overall population. As the male population is the very dominant sex, it means that drugs, drug use and drug trafficking will be affecting all levels of society and making policy decisions difficult

This has nothing to do with fundamentalism thus far, but bear with me, for it does mean that a MAJORITY of young men in Pakistan are turning their backs on Islam and engaging in a life of criminality.

Now permit me to digress, if not fly off at a wild tangent.

I seem to have acquired a young friend by the name of Nathan, who two years ago was part of a drug crazed gang of young tearaways who caused a lot of problems; not least to myself. Ranging in age from 13 to 16, they would vandalise cars, smash windows and generally intimidate people. The police got involved, the gang were locked down to some extent and a few of them ended up in youth custody. Nathan was prosecuted, fined and placed on probation, but as the dust settled, I made a point of talking to he and to others who had caused so many problems. Nathan has only an elderly Gran, who brought him up alone after his own mother rejected him. On a one to one basis, I found Nathan agreeable, and as time has gone on and as time permits, he spends a certain amount of time with me. It's all very easygoing, and I have an open-door policy, which means that he pops in when he likes, sometimes has something to eat and, until recently, was prone to knocking me up at 3am of a Sunday morning high on drugs and freezing cold, unable to go home in the state he was in. Many is the time I've stepped over his corpse on the living-room floor, where he lay in a sleeping-bag in front of the gas-fire as I got ready to go to church.

I know that he still uses cannabis in moderation, and he likes a few cans of lager, but I am incredibly impressed by what he has achieved in the past year. He's settled down, learned lessons and is now studying catering. Above all, he has listened to what I, (and no doubt others), have been telling him about life choices, drugs and common sense. However, imagine my unashamed delight when, last Sunday, Nathan brought his friend Mikey in, and they sat talking to each other on the floor. Young Michael is fifteen and a half, and rapidly heading towards the position that Nathan was in a year ago; trying this drug and that drug, and generally going nowhere but downwards. Nathan was impressing upon young Michael the dangers of drugs, the stupid waste of money and the lifestyle which accompanies them. For my part, I was secretly grinning from ear to ear, knowing that I had made a difference....sowing the seeds of common-sense and empowering a young man to make the right decisions as he moves towards adulthood. At a still more potent level, Nathan knows that I have invested time, a little money and quite a lot of effort in him, and even more importantly, because of that, he knows that I care about what happens to him.

So what has this got to do with fundamentalism?

Well, as I mentioned in a recent post, the seeds of fundamentalist fanaticism are sown in desperation, such as in the Yemen, where a quarter of a million children have little or no food. The seeds of fundamentalism are also sown where people have no option but to survive in situations where corrupt officials and criminal warlords come to mutually beneficial arrangements, while factional tit-for-tat skirmishes abound, as they do in Afghanistan. In northern Pakistan for example, it must be impossible to avoid the drug-trade  from Afghanistan, and you can be fairly certain that the traders and dealers will have links to hard-line criminals and access to firearms. The climate of fear and unease must be very real to ordinary, law-abiding Pakistanis. That's another reason why Jihadists should feel the need to purify society and fight for a cause. The other hidden agenda is Kashmir, and this is another reason why Pakistan wants and needs young Jihadists in an attempt to undermine security and claim back this region from India.

Fundamentalists can be regarded as politically motivated religious storm troopers, who use religion as the excuse for creating anarchy, destruction and terror as the means of undermining and then destroying the status quo. As we discussed in a previous post, the same process was very evident in Cromwell's England, and once the system of government and law changed, relative peace and stability returned, but under new rulers. The same methods were also very evident in the bombing campaigns and rhetoric of the IRA in Ireland.

But what of the fundamentalists themselves?

Young, energetic, undoubtedly courageous and charged with testosterone, pride and a sense of honour; are they not themselves victims?

What was it the Jesuists said?  Something along the lines of "Give me a child before he is seven, and I will show you the man."

In Pakistan, there has been an explosion of Madrassas, where children and students are taught Islamic verse by rote, the authority of Sharir law and, if they're lucky, other things as well. With tens of thousands of such institutions having been established in the recent past, not all are true to the spirit of Islam. Some are promoting and training jihadists (freedom fighters) and waging war against the west, against internal liberal factions and against those who wish to pursue the path of human rights, feminism or representative democracy.

There is a great power struggle going on in Pakistan, between those who seek relative liberalisation and global engagement, and those who wish to retain the power of the Islamic clerics, Sharir law and the nominal unity of Islam. Intolerance therefore lives alongside tolerance, but because Islam is a religion of equals, without a specific hierarchy, agreement tends to be reached by Imams sitting around in a circle, discussing matters of religious importance. Pakistan is, without doubt, an Islamic state with a powerful theocracy.

With a very high (but improving) level of illiteracy, (especially among the female sex), very patchy educational provision and inadequate funding in what is a relatively poor country with meagre resources, the influence of Islamic Madrassas is probably at least equal to, and may well exceed that of state education. So much depends upon a child's or young person's exposure to "knowledge," as to whether they will turn out to be engineers, doctors, Imams or Jihadists or members of extreme sects such as the Taliban and Al'Queda.

So with a religion which is the opium of the people, and opium which is the religion of the young, I think it would be fair to suggest that Pakistan is staring into the abyss, and chaos is the modus operandi of everyday life.

If we go back to young Nathan and the influences which drew him into criminal behaviour and drug-taking, it is possible to see that he was a typical fifteen-year-old; gregarious, vulnerable to the influences of gang membership, searching for an identity and eager to be part of something. The fact that he has largely turned away from the drug and gang culture, has started to think things out and make his own sensible decisions, is entirely due to the fact that he has found an "adopted father figure" (me), who, in less than a year, has educated him enough to empower his own independence of thought and reasoning. No doubt, in a year or two, he will drift away, find his own feet and future, discover new influences and find love, but I'm fairly certain that he will always remember the things I have taught him and he will act accordingly.

It's a fact, but most bad behaviour comes down to ignorance, and when it comes to black and white, it is important to remember that they are not colours at all, and they therefore immediately share something in common.

So I would suggest that the regrettable torture and murder of a young Christian boy is but a symptom of ignorance, a lack of moral authority and irrational beliefs. Education and constructive dialogue are the ONLY way forward if such atrocities are to be prevented.

That has been my gift to young Nathan.

Best,

MM

Dear David,

Having just re-read my last reply, I shall modify and edit it, because it is a bit of a mess. I was fairly tired and trying to rush it when I wrote it, and although I know what I was trying to say, it didn't quite succeed.

Best,

MM

Dear David,

I'm not non-plussed at all; just extremely busy. The Bank Holiday week is one of those when I work 6 nights in a row, (not ncluding church on Sunday), so apart from eating and sleeping, I don't have much time for anything else.

However, I am in the process of fashioning a reply, but I warn you that it will be complex and not the straightforward black and white issue you started the post with. Pakistan and the whole region is a flash-point at the best of times, but there are many factors at play; not least the Taliban to the north, in Afghanistan, as well as corrupt and criminal warlords, western subterfuge, Christophobia (that's a NEW word I think I may have invented), a massive drug problem, mistrust and tensions between modernity and tradition. I'm afraid all the "stan" countries live on a knifedge, where tribal loyalties are especially strong; not to mention the various sects and tensions within Islam.

Before I can complete the response, I have a fair bit of (internet) research to do, because the facts are very difficult to establish, and the conclusions even more so.

Best,

MM

This may be veering slightly away from the original question, but I wonder if David, (or anyone else), knows anymore about the Walker/Compton connection?

I've heard it said before that Compton more or less kept Walker alive and kicking by whatever means, and there was mention of sub-contract work at a time when church organ-building was in the doldrums. The boom years for the theatre organ were, of course, between 1924 or so and 1945; only a twenty year period, but a big enough market to keep Compton, Wurlitzer, H,N &B (Christie) very busy indeed. Presumably, the Compton works at Acton would not suddenly burst on the scene as a fully fledged manufacturing plant, and the build up must have been relatively gradual, even allowing for the financial backing of a wealthy individual. Compton's first premises in London were the former August Gern works of course; Acton coming later.

I haven't surveyed the output of any of the firms involved in the building of cinema organs/extension organs, but I would assume that these instruments reached a peak between 1930 and 1939 (the start of WWII) and then revived again, (purely as church organs) between 1945 and perhaps 1955 or so; 1954 being the counter-reaction year with the building of the Festival Hall instrument, which of course, caused a saesmic shift in organ-building and tonal-design.

It's interesting how two adjacent counties should contain good examples from the end of one era to the start of the next: the Walker organ at Buckfast (Devon) and the Compton organ at Downside (Somerset).

Best,

MM

Dear David,

I think I would baulk from  entering into discussion about brain physiology, chemistry and neurons, for fear of getting it hopelessly wrong.
You wrote:-

In our secular society in which religion is decreasingly allowed to play a part, the function of church worship on thought patterns leading to settling the psyche and leading to better mental health does not appear to be attaining a high profile in academic research or given appropriate acknowledgement.

A cursory glance through this passage seems to suggest that it makes sense, but the more I read and re-read it, the more I realise that it may be a bit of a mulch sentence, where different strands of thought coalesce into a single statement and thus only allude to certain things. However, on the positive side, it does make me think, "I know what he means, but....."

In the past, religion was certainly a very powerful thing. Even to-day, I see old catholics with their rosary beads, praying in front of rather garish statues and pictures, reciting bits of catechism or repeating the Lord's Prayer. I suppose it's a way of offloading their uncertainties and fears, and finding some degree of certainty and comfort in the security of religion, which includes things ritualistic, visual and verbal. Certainly, for the oldest surviving generation, who often came from very deprived areas and large families, the local priest and the Holy Family were certainly a part of extended familial influence.   Furthermore, long before literacy became commonplace, it was the imagery of religion and the recitation of the mass which provided an anchor to life. We can still see that to-day in the Muslim faith, where ritual and the rote learning and repetition of Q'uranic scripture is at the heart of faith. Similarly, the Jews and the Hindus, (to name but two other religions), have similar rituals based on what they regard as sacred texts.

How all this ties in with  "settling the psyche" I am not sure, but certainly, faith of any kind can act in a way that is similar to ontological security, on which sound mental health is built. It can also act as an acceptable substitute for those who were orphaned or who suffered at the hands of dysfunctional/alcoholic/ drug addicted and abusive families; sometimes all four simultaneously. There is little doubt that getting to the root causes of ontological insecurity is the greatest challenge in psychiatry and mental health counselling, which can take months and even years to resolve.

So to comment on the proposition that there is a useful link between religious ritual and mental health, I would suggest that there may well be, but then one has to consider the alternatives of gang culture and ethnic groupings, which are often very corrosive and destructive.

Best,

MM

Dear David,

I don't actually have many answers to any of this, but I wonder if dreaming isn't simply a symptom of memories being transferred from one part of the brain to another?

I shall have to re-read some of the things I once read in psychology, but I seem to recall that memory transfers information from one side of the brain to the other.

Something which I always find fascinating is the way that it is actually impossible to recall specific events as they happened in the same way that a video recording replays events. It's not a accurate process, and this is why witnesses are often unreliable after the event.
Take a familiar face and try to imagine how the person looks, when you haven't cast eyes on them for a long time. It's actually very difficult to do, but we may be able to think of a single image or a very brief flash of action. It's as if the brain prioritises events, and retains just enough information necessary to recall people or specific events.

Show anyone in the organ world a photograph of Virgil Fox or a bust or print of J S Bach, and they would recognise them instantly, but if asked to describe what they looked like or perhaps asked to sketch their faces, I suspect that very few would be able to do so. This is quite different from the way that computers work. I suspect that the same is true of remembering music, when faced with a lay-off from the keyboard. Yes, you would recognise the tune or the piece, but could you play it without keeping in practice?

The last time I had a lay-off from playing anything, in excess of a year, I thought I'd forgotten all I knew. Two weeks later, it was as if I had never stopped.

Memories and dreaming must be closely linked, and I suspect that sleep is the time when the brain, free of real time, waking-state input, consolidates everything and shunts the most important bits into more or less permanent memory.

Another curious ting concerns music, for although we all know BWV565 (the D minor), could we recall how it sounded on a particular instrument and played by a particular performer from memory?

Hear a recording of the same thing, and it's often possible to tell the who, where and when of something   that was recorded, and with great accuracy; quite unaware that we actually have some degree of memory of a specific event.

Who, for instance, would not immediately recognise that unique combination of Francis Jackson, York Minster and the Cocker 'Tuba Tune'?

This is why we have recordings and videos of things, because we are not programmed the same way as computers or digital recorders, and linking each to the human mind as a concept, is actually quite a dubious undertaking.

It's all very curious and even mysterious. 

Best,

MM