PipeChat Digest #5386 - Thursday, June 2, 2005
 
Re: questions re: 19th Century English Romantic Organs
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Lemare Organ Works/Transcriptions
  by <Justinhartz@aol.com>
Which organ?
  by "David Baker" <dgb137@mac.com>
Response to Ross re replcement of pipe organs with electronics
  by "terry hicks" <Terrick@webtv.net>
RE: questions re: 19th Century English Romantic Organs
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: Aeolian-Skinner 985 vs. 891
  by "Andy Lawrence" <lawrenceandy@gmail.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: questions re: 19th Century English Romantic Organs From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:36:58 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   This post asks so many questions, and I would have to give it some thought if I were to reply in detail.   However, the 19th century "Diapasons" of Fr.Willis are nothing of the sort....they are Geigen Diapasons of no great power. This is why the choruses are totally swamped by the superb reeds; assuming that one can find an organ with the original reeds intact.   There is something which is unique to Fr.Willis reed choruses and solo reeds. They tend to get louder as they increase in pitch, and for example, a 16ft Swell Double Trumpet almost resembles an Oboe at the lower end, and something approaching a Harmonic Trumpet at the other. It was a funny way to build organs, but it certainly worked!!   Hill was on something of a learning curve throughout his life. He started off in the "old English" (Snetzler) manner, with good, solid chorus-work and Tierce Mixtures. One of the very best examples still left, is the splendid Hill organ at the Methodist Church, Cambridge, which dates from around 1850 or so (1854?). This organ was rescued from another methodist church, and splendidly re-built at Camnbridge.   Hill then came under the influence of a certain Dr.Gauntlett, and the "German Movement" in UK organ-building. Perhaps the finest example of this style is the organ in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, where I believe there is evidence of almost "straight-line" pipe-scales, but again, I would have to check all the details and refresh my memory before spouting forth a load of complete rubbish.   Harrison & Harrison were easily the finest builders of their day, and their best work comes from the period 1910-1945. Arthur Harrison was a meticulous regulator, and this is the secret of the homogenous sound quality....never a hair out of place.   If you intend to study Arthur Harrison's work, by all means purr at the sound of the wonderful Redcliffe instrument, but if you get chance, try and hear, see and play the organ of All Saint's, Margaret Street, London. This has to be the most over-regulated instrument Arthur Harrison ever built, but it is somehow right for the buidling.   The King's College organ is typically Harrison, and when Arthur Harrison went to work on it, he wouldn't have hesitated to make the organ fit the Harrison mould by whatever means available; including lots of new pipework and very extensive re-voicing of exisiting material.   The Choir Organ at King's (1968?) just doesn't gel with the rest of the instrument, but it has its uses. The remainder of the instrument is very fine, but now a bit unfashionable, to say the least.   Of one thing we can be sure, no-one has ever made a better accompaniment instrument than Arthur Harrison, and it is a sound which will forever be associated with the traditional Anglican liturgy.   That said, it is vitally important to compare anything Roy may hear with the organs of T C Lewis, and should he find himself in London, he MUST go to hear the wonderful instrument of Southwark Cathedral, built by Lewis, and beautifully restored in recent years by....you guessed...Harrison & Harrison.   Might I suggest that Roy contacts me off-list on this topic, because I can certainly point him in certain directions as to sources of information.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Roy Daniels <roydanls@sbcglobal.net> wrote:   > Dear listmembers, I'm posing these questions: > first what composes the basic diapason of the late > 19th C. English organs...specifically the > differences between the Fr. Willis diapason and the > W. Hill   __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Lemare Organ Works/Transcriptions From: <Justinhartz@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:42:41 EDT   The original title is "Andantino in D-flat". Lemare composed this song without words in 1888 and the original = version sold over one million copies. In 1921 Ben Black and Neil Moret added lyrics turning one of the Victorian era's most popular organ solos into the popular song "Moonlight = and Roses" The form of the original organ composition is AABA Coda. The second statement of the A theme features a thumbed down counter melody played on = a 4' flute, and the reprise features the theme played on the Vox Humana. In the song version, the B theme became the verse, and the A theme the =   chorus. In the selfless self promotion department you can hear me play the original Lemare Andantino on the CD "HARTZ AND FLOWERS - Justin Hartz = Plays the Organ at Longwood Gardens". For this performance I played from an original = 1888 score following Lemare's original phrasing and registrations, and = replicated Lemare's rubato (as heard on his recording for the Victor Talking Machine Company). Support a fellow organist - order a copy from OHS, Zarex/Pro Organo, = or Longwood Gardens!   Cheers,   Justin Hartz  
(back) Subject: Which organ? From: "David Baker" <dgb137@mac.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:49:55 -0400   I don't think this is correct. The choir organ actually existed at one time, IIRC, and also IIRC former organist Kyler Brown tried to get it restored. I don't recall if he succeeded. But it is not correct to say the choir organ is a sham; only that it may not be working now. David Baker     On Jun 2, 2005, at 12:37 AM, PipeChat wrote:   > The choir organ is also a sham, though there is an operational > console up front on the Gospel side of the sanctuary.    
(back) Subject: Response to Ross re replcement of pipe organs with electronics From: "terry hicks" <Terrick@webtv.net> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:36:45 -0700   The fact that the churches you mentioned abandoned modest-sized pipe organs for 3-manual electronics sends up a red flag. If they were indeed trying to save money, why not buy a less extravagant 2 manual electronic...it sounds like "size" envy.   Whether pipes or electronic, size is NOT equal to quality. I still think organists are the ones responsible for instruments that are larger than need be and of poor quality. Some of it is due to poor training, or lack of exposure to good instruments. The other explanation is not charitable nor worth mentioning.    
(back) Subject: RE: questions re: 19th Century English Romantic Organs From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:01:20 +1200   >One of the very best examples still left, is the splendid Hill organ at the Methodist Church, Cambridge, which dates from around 1850 or so (1854?). This organ was rescued from another methodist church, and splendidly re-built at Camnbridge.   I agree entirely - I remember it well from having a half hour on it 1992.   >it is vitally important to compare anything Roy may hear with the organs of T C Lewis, and should he find himself in London, he MUST go to hear the wonderful instrument of Southwark Cathedral,   Absolutely!!!!   Ross      
(back) Subject: Re: Aeolian-Skinner 985 vs. 891 From: "Andy Lawrence" <lawrenceandy@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 02:07:47 -0400   Of the two organs, I have only heard the Columbia University one. I was delivering the pipes from one of its divisions from having been cleaned at Russell and Co where I was working at the time. John Randolph (real nice guy!) gave me a tour of the chapel and of the organ. I didn't play it, but John gave a brief demo. Granted there was one division missing (the softest of the unenclosed divisions I think) but my impression in the brief demo was that the organ is very subdued. In fact, John even muttered, after adding and adding stops, while playing "this is SUCH a quiet organ". Nice though. Someone here (on this thread) mentioned a cool dome division. All I remember seeing up there was a big trumpet, a vox in a box, and a bunch of old Allen bass speakers, correct? I'm not sure I'd call that a "division", but the crown trumpet is nice, yes. I enjoyed the tour of the organ, but enjoyed the tour of the innards of the chapel far more. The dome is WAY cool.   Then John Randolph tried to hire me. I probably should have accepted. Perhaps I still could. By the way, I left the Russell shop on good terms. In fact I still do service work in the Burlington area for them. I simply didn't enjoy the area and wanted to return to Burlington. The job was fun. Now making chips at IBM. Good money, but blah! :)   Andy