Best and worst, good and bad, criteria and validity of judgmental opinions

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

It's so very frustrating to hear people talking about "good" and "bad" and that perhaps such an instrument might best be restored by Bryant and May. Whoever it is, non-players and experienced even eminent players alike, such judgments which are often infectious from one uninformed opionator to another who might believe them to have superior knowledge or experience (such as Tony Blair when he made the WMD speech for the Iraq war persuading us that he had good reason . . . ), such opinions are often so very badly misguided . . .

They can be greatly subjected to influences of fashion and sometimes vested interests alike.

In terms of instruments, often it is a matter of purpose and being fit for that purpose, which might not equate to another purpose or someone else's differing criteria or opinion on that purpose. The original purpose might still retain validity but one has to be magnanimous enough in removing one's blinkers to recognise it possibly from another perspective.

Hope Jones suffered so dreadfully and unfairly at the hands of vested interested blinkered judgmental opinions. The fact that his ideas for organs provided such pleasure to people in a differing arena is testimony to the principle.

An example of this arrived in my inbox this morning on YouTube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQZcVQtw3cs
with the comment "What a horrible Vox Humana" . . . to which I replied:

Horrible? It depends on what criteria - Vox Humanas vary very widely so there is a spectrum of them. The Vox at St Paul's Cathedral London sounds very strange on first hearing and Wurlitzers are different still. There are 6 different Vox Humanas to choose from on this Hammerwood instrument . . . and this is the one that the organist chose that day. The sound depends also on what stop you put with the Vox, whether it is detuned or whether a tremulant is used and at what speed . . .

Essentially I provide a musical and acoustic laboratory in which anyone can experiment with anything, whether it be any one of half a dozen types of Vox Humana with differing accompanying stops and tremulants, temperaments and instruments. . . .

As in any laboratory, some experiments are successful and others not so much. That is not a reflection upon the laboratory but upon the viewer to understand what they're looking at.

Hammerwood is a microcosm of the macrocosm and as one travels from place to place to experience organs of different makers of different times in places of different requirements, one is looking at a laboratory of experiments on a wider scale. We have to understand the intended outcome of the experiment before we can say whether it was successful or not.

Best wishes

David P

[Barry Williams]

Dear Voix Cynique,

Please let us all know exactly which Hope Jones organs you have heard.  I ask because in some forty plus years of organ playing I have heard only two and played one of them.

Barry Williams

[Jonathan Lane]

I think the issue here is subjectivity.  What I like, other people won't.  What they like I might not.  A classic example is that I like large scale French Romantic instruments, and carrying on the Vox Humana theme, the Voix Humaine's provided by say C-C where some what different to those provided by say Clicquot, whilst they are both very French (I also like the French Classical period!)

Another example is the first recording of the complete Bach by Peter Hurford.  It was a tremendous inspiration to me when I was young and first learning the organ, but is arguably 'spikey' in terms of the instruments used.  My preferred option now is the Marie-Claire Alain recordings. 

Like Barry, I haven't had much experience of Hope-Jones, and that which I have had has been only in the concept of a rebuilt instrument, with much (more) recent material.  I have been playing for nearly as many years as Barry, but in that time I have not had the opportunity to hear anything close to what might be considered Hope-Jones.  H-J however, was an innovator and very influential in his time, and I would never rule anyone out who truly tries to develop a sound, even if it was (in my opinion) misguided.  But, we wouldn't necessarily be where we are today with H-J, Ralph Downes (another oft criticised organ innovator) or any other major people in organ building.  It maybe a bit like the Betamax versus VHS argument.  Betamax was by far the most superior machine, but VHS secured the market through market dominance.  Could things have been different if H-J were to have achieved market dominance?

However, as I have said, all is subjective, and what is good to me maybe bad to you and vice-versa!

Jonathan

[Barry Williams]

Dear Voix Cynique,

I am disappointed that you have commented generally on Hope-Jones organs, in such apparent detail, when you have not heard one. 

All Saints Upper Norwood was re-worked by Norman & Beard in 1907 and then by Hill, Norman & Beard in 1936.  It had not been used for many years.  I last heard it in about 1979.  My recollection was that it was far from magnificent, but it may have been in poor condition by then.  I helped remove some of the pipes when the organ was taken out of the church in January this year.

This suggests to me that your opinion on this matter is based more on generalities derived from second-hand sources, rather than knowledge or personal experience of Hope Jones organs. 

My experience of playing a Hope Jones is limited to one instrument, that which was in the Roman Catholic Church at West Croydon and then only on two or three occasions.  It was, I think, more or less in original tonal condition, for HNB did little to it.  (Two HNB stops were added and the Swell Cornopean revoiced. in 1921.  The 1971 work was, I think,  purely mechanical.)  I would not consider making such sweeping statements as you have made about Hope Jones on so brief an acquaintance - and my acquaintance, however limited, is clearly much more than yours.

I suggest that in future your generalities are evidenced by specific examples.  For example:  "I have heard several XYZ organs in various church services in the past few years and found them all to be rather dull."  This is more persuasive than " XYZ organs are excellent with good solo stops."

I hope that these comments will be helpful in guiding your posts in future, so that they will carry greater weight and be more persuasive.

With best wishes,

Barry