PipeChat Digest #5330 - Wednesday, May 11, 2005
 
May 16 Recital
  by "Christopher J. Howerter" <christophhowerter@sbcglobal.net>
 

(back) Subject: May 16 Recital From: "Christopher J. Howerter" <christophhowerter@sbcglobal.net> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:42:42 -0400   Dear List,   I am announcing a recital by yours truly. It will be Monday, May 16 at = 8 p.m. It will be held at St. Augustine Roman Catholic Cathedral on Washington Ave., Bridgeport, CT. The organ is a rebuild by Peragallo, = which includes a good bit of the previous organ which was Moller and one rank = from the Midmer-Losh organ before that. It is a modest-sized three manual = organ of about 40 ranks or so, I'd say. The Director of Music, David = McCaffrey, was most kind to host this event sponsored by the Bridgeport Chapter = AGO, which will follow their dinner and annual meeting. I was told by David, that this is the first organ recital given there on the rebuilt organ. Every year one young artist who won the M. Louise Scholarship = Competition the previous year is not only given $1000 toward tuition, but is also featured in a recital. I was that lucky one last year and am including = one of the pieces (the penultimate on this program) that I played for the competition last year. The program on Monday is as follows:   Introduction and Passacaglia in D Minor, without Opus - Max Reger Schm=FCcke dich, o liebe Seele, BWV 654 - Johann Sebastian Bach Wir glauben all an einen Gott, BWV 680 - Johann Sebastian Bach Prelude, Fugue, et Variation, Opus 8 - C=E8sar Franck Choral vari=E9 sur le th=E8me du "Veni Creator", Opus 4 - Maurice = Durufl=E9   I hope to see as many of you as possible there. After the recital, = everyone will be invited to come up to the balcony and see the organ just after greeting me, which I look most forward too. =20   Sincerely, Christopher J. Howerter, SPC Organist and Choirmaster Bethel United Methodist Church Bethel, CT Home: (203) 798-9809 Mobile: (610) 462-8017   -----Original Message----- From: Pipe Organs and Related Topics = [mailto:PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of Automatic digest processor Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:40 PM To: Recipients of PIPORG-L digests Subject: PIPORG-L Digest - 10 May 2005 to 11 May 2005 - Special issue (#2005-169)   There are 29 messages totalling 1520 lines in this issue.   Topics in this special issue:   1. Bashing vs. Rumor Control Central 2. Bashing vs. Rumor Control Central - Long Personal Rant 3. Christ Church St Laurence: Ascencion 4. What Organists Should Be Able To Do (3) 5. $500,000 home instrument (5) 6. bashing, etc. 7. Rumour Control Centre 8. Alexandra Palace (2) 9. Improvisation? 10. Latry at Disney 11. differences 12. <No subject given> 13. Even in Transylvania.....! (7) 14. trills toward the end of BWV 651 15. consultants, organists, etc. 16. In Praise of Czelusniak et Dugal   :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Note: opinions expressed on PIPORG-L are those of the individual con- tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the Uni- versity at Albany. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail to listserv@listserv.albany.edu saying GET LSVCMMDS.TXT or see the web page at http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/lsvcmmds.html . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  
(back) Subject: Re: Bashing vs. Rumor Control Central   I was encouraged to read Mr. Larry McGuire's earnest pleading, amounting to "why can't we all just get along?" But then the wheels came off and it became clear just why we can't all get along. Very sensible sentiments such as "there are two sides to every story," and "one man's trash is another's treasure" suddenly degenerated into an attack on slider chests and "baroque" organs.   Perhaps Mr. McGuire is not aware that, in North America at least, slider windchests have experienced a rather stunning revival, now being supplied by most every organ builder, including Andover, Bedient, Berghaus, Bigelow, Blackinton, Bond, Buzard, Casavant, Dobson, Fisk, Fritts, Goulding and Wood, Hendrickson, Holtkamp, Jaeckel, Letourneau, Lively-Fulcher, Noack, Nordlie, Ott, Parsons, Pasi, Quimby, Redman, Richards-Fowkes, Rosales, Schantz, Sipe, Taylor and Boody, Visser, Wolff, and many other, perhaps lesser known, builders. Even Austin, the home of the storied Universal Air Chest System, has built organs in recent days with slider chests. In this they join the majority of organ builders the world over. Many American builders use electric action, not mechanical, to operate their slider chests.   Mr. McGuire asserts that no action is better than another, and that trained ears can't hear the difference. While this premise is debatable, it is indisputable, I think, that organists will *feel* a difference. Using Mr. McGuire's initially broad-minded attitude, we can believe that some will prefer the tactile response of a well-adjusted mechanical action organ, while others will wish for an unvarying electric action. Will he deny that this choice of action has an effect on the performer, and hence the performance?   Finally, I'm surprised by the logical inconsistency of many avid proponents of theatre organs, who routinely denounce tracker action and "boutique" builders, calling on them to join the 21st century and the rest of the modern world, when they themselves wish to perpetuate an instrument whose entire reason for existence vanished virtually overnight three-quarters of a century ago.   But I am delighted that Mr. McGuire has an outlet for his interests, and hope he wishes the same for me. I'm sure he will welcome me should I want to visit theatre organs in his area, and I know plenty of organ builders, "boutique" and otherwise, who will be pleased to show him instruments that demonstrate why they prefer something else.   John A. Panning Lake City, Iowa   ------------------------------   Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 19:31:19 -0700 From: Albert Berry <albert@albertberry.com> Subject: Re: Bashing vs. Rumor Control Central - Long Personal Rant   I see a lot of discussion about actions and temperament on this list, = and the discussions are, for the most part, fascinating. I can well do without some of the name = calling, but can quite understand the intensity of feeling behind the statements.   I would have an awful, terrible, drive-me-mad time trying to decide on = an instrument, given say, $500,000 for a home instrument. I once had the privilege of playing a delightful, small Karl Wilhelm in Amos, Quebec, for a couple of hours. If someone had handed me $500K on the way out the door, I would have called M. Wilhelm right away. Lately, I played a wonderful Halbert Gober in Crystal Lake for just a = few minutes following a recital (open console). I heard two recitals on it, and WOW! for only $66,000 I could own a Gober studio model (very unusual - an 8' Diapason on manual I).   Then there is the beautiful 3 manual Casavant I was privileged to take lessons on in Vancouver, BC. Where would I be without F# and G in the pedals? I could not play = the Willan pedal exercise without them (not that I can play it with!). How could I play well on = just two manuals, mechanical stop and key actions? No pistons?   How could I possibly decide what to buy? A nearly impossible decision, I think.   Each instrument has its own beauty. Some are more difficult to play than others. Some sound more cohesively than others. How to decide? I guess I am lucky that I don't = have the money. I would go crazy very quickly. The manual key touch on the Wilhelm and the Gober = was exquisite.   How to decide- I guess I am lucky I can only afford an AFKAT.     Albert Berry Management Consultant RR2 - 1252 Ponderosa Drive Sparwood BC, V0B 2G2 Canada (250) 425-5806 (250) 425-7259 (708) 575-3952 (fax) albert@albertberry.com   ------------------------------   Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:13:16 +1000 From: Daniel Mitterdorfer <danielm@arty.com.au> Subject: Christ Church St Laurence: Ascencion   Christ Church St Laurence Rector: Fr. Adrian Stephens George Street, Sydney Director of Music: Dr. Neil McEwan Australia Organist: Peter Jewkes http://www.ccsl.org.au/ Assistant Organist: Alistair = Nelson   Ascencion - 5 May, 2005     6.00pm Procession and High Mass   Intro=EFt: Viri Galilaei (Gregorian chant)   Setting: Missa Brevis K194 (Mozart)   Hymns: Processional: Hail the day that sees him rise (Llanfair) Offertory: See the Conqueror mounts in triumph (In Babilone) Communion: O King most high of earth and sky (Ach Gott und Herr) Final: The head that once was crowned with thorns (St Magnus)   Communion Motet: Ascendit Deus (Phillips)   Postlude: Chorale Prelude "Heut' triumphiret Gottes Sohn" BWV630 (J.S. = Bach)   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:48:16 +0800 From: robertelms <robertelms@westnet.com.au> Subject: Re: What Organists Should Be Able To Do   All very well Anthony but making my point again this may apply to the = USA but not to Australia where in my state at least there are very few professional church organists, maybe not even one who gains his whole income from the position of Musical Director/Organist. I think the same could apply to all states except some churches in the larger centres and capital cities. Even then the organist may have to teach in an attached college or privately as part of the job. We are not in the USA where it seems no organist will get a job unless he has a string of degrees. That = is the impression I am getting. Bob Elms.   > With that sort of attitude, it is no wonder that our profession is in = such > sad shape. > > We are not talking about a well meaning, "lightly" trained organist > providing a valuable service to a small parish with simple musical = needs. > We are talking about a PROFESSIONALY trained CONSERVATORY musician who > cannot, or perhaps would not, do what organists THROUGHOUT THE = CENTURIES > have been expected to do. > I stand by my original post. > Anthony Celentano       -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:07:22 -0600 From: jon bertschinger <jonberts@magiccablepc.com> Subject: $500,000 home instrument   $500,000 for a home instrument!?!?! Someone's really off base here...how many stops are we talking about? geeze....let's get real again folks.   just my humble opinion about it...we're doing a nice instrument now for about $40,000....   jon bertschinger   ------------------------------   Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:40:11 -0700 From: terry hicks <Terrick@webtv.net> Subject: bashing, etc.   I couldn't believe my eyes when a poster made a pointed comment about not "forcing YOUR opinions" and then proceeded to do exactly that, and at great length!   It's this kind of so-called dialogue that makes me delete most of the messages in these groups and keeps me a "lurker". There seems to be a direct correlation with lack of real knowledge and the type of diatribe, along with the insistence of comparing apples to avocados...auuugh!   ------------------------------   Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:50:28 -0700 From: Liquescent <quilisma@cox.net> Subject: Re: What Organists Should Be Able To Do   Bob and I have had this exchange a number of times on several lists (grin) ... but I'm curious ... the vast majority of church positions in Great Britain are filled by unpaid volunteers ... even some of the cathedral posts are part-time ... yet the highest possible standards obtain nevertheless, at least in churches of any size, and in some smaller ones as well.   A friend in the Midlands who directs the music at three churches in a United Benefice is not a keyboard player, but a cracking good choir-trainer (former cathedral treble and choral vicar) ... he recruits his organists from among talented teenaged pianists, and sees to it that they have proper organ lessons (out of his own pocket, I suspect ... his "day" job is in computers) ... and *he* expects *them* to do most of what I've outlined, at least to a modest degree.   I will grant that my friend and his organists are Church of England, and have grown up hearing what I'm talking about. That counts for a *lot*.   But that wasn't what the original discussion was about ... we weren't talking about self-taught village organists (without whom a lot of small churches wouldn't *have* music); we were talking about a *professional* organist with multiple(?) degrees from conservatories of music who evidently took some pride in the fact that he/she didn't/couldn't/refused to improvise or transpose.   In my day, *no one* graduated from Oberlin Conservatory unless they could do those things, no matter *what* their major. *Everybody* had to pass a piano proficiency test, and it included transposing, improvising, and playing from a full orchestral score at *sight*. I can't imagine that standards were any lower at the other leading music schools in the = US.   Cheers,   Bud Clark San Diego CA USA       robertelms wrote:   > All very well Anthony but making my point again this may apply to the = USA > but not to Australia where in my state at least there are very few > professional church organists, maybe not even one who gains his whole > income from the position of Musical Director/Organist. I think the = same > could apply to all states except some churches in the larger centres = and > capital cities. Even then the organist may have to teach in an = attached > college or privately as part of the job. We are not in the USA where = it > seems no organist will get a job unless he has a string of degrees. = That is > the impression I am getting. > Bob Elms. > > >>With that sort of attitude, it is no wonder that our profession is in = such >>sad shape. >> >>We are not talking about a well meaning, "lightly" trained organist >>providing a valuable service to a small parish with simple musical = needs. >>We are talking about a PROFESSIONALY trained CONSERVATORY musician who >>cannot, or perhaps would not, do what organists THROUGHOUT THE = CENTURIES >>have been expected to do. >>I stand by my original post. >>Anthony Celentano > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 > > = :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > Note: opinions expressed on PIPORG-L are those of the individual = con- > tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the = Uni- > versity at Albany. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail = to > listserv@listserv.albany.edu saying GET LSVCMMDS.TXT or see the = web > page at http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/lsvcmmds.html . > = :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:32:42 +0100 From: alan taylor <alantaylor@v21mail.co.uk> Subject: Re: Rumour Control Centre   What a graceless man you appear to be.   You firstly attributed to me a statement that was never made. When this = is pointed out to you, you compound your error by offering no apology and making further allegations. You indeed are a Rumour Control Centre.   I will make no comment on any further posting from you.   AJT London   -----Original Message----- From: Pipe Organs and Related Topics = [mailto:PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of N. Russotto Sent: 11 May 2005 01:31 To: PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: Rumour Control Centre   Your post is a complete crock, as confirmed by the Willis Comapny, among others.   NFR   On 5/10/05, alan taylor <alantaylor@v21mail.co.uk> wrote: > I would suggest you check what I actually said in my posting. Then = check it > against what you stated in your posting. For your connivance I paste = it > below. > > > Your posting stated > > This subject line brings up an excellent point. There have been = those > > who have adamantly, and wrongly, accused Ally Pally of selling the > > organ in their possession to APOBA. This, of course, is a complete > > crock. > > My posting stated > "It is happening. The Palace is losing about 2 million pounds a year. = The > Trustees of the Palace have made the decision to get rid of the organ, = as > the consortium has no use for it. > The trustees are to offer the organ, in the first instance, to the = APOA." > Alan > > I would suggest that you should take more care when claming to quote > others. > This is just how false rumours are spread. > > AJT > London > >   -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:39:03 +0100 From: alan taylor <alantaylor@v21mail.co.uk> Subject: Re: Alexandra Palace   Dear Mr Gluck,   I see no point in rehearing all of the aurguments on this list. They can = be found on both websites. This information also includes, on the = Unofficail web site, letters of resignation from two trustees, who tell me that = they are well known to your good self.   WWW.alexandrapalaceorgan.com www.allypallyorgan.co.uk     www.allypallyorgan.co.uk   -----Original Message----- From: Pipe Organs and Related Topics = [mailto:PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of TubaMagna@AOL.COM Sent: 11 May 2005 01:53 To: PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: Alexandra Palace   Dear Mr. Taylor:   Those of us without your knowledge, connections, and position are simply curious to know what your sources are, since the organ in question, = despite its condition and past history, means so much to many of us who have seen = it, played it, and inspected it.   Obviously, if you are on the managing board or somehow officially = connected to the ownership (past, present, or future) of the edifice or the instrument, it would lend credibility to your post, and then we would feel more confident in bemoaning the fate of the organ.   We are fortunate to have somebody with your intimate knowledge of the = inner workings of the subject speak to us with such authority, but it seems as though a few in our circle would feel more confident if we understood your = position and the basis for your knowledge.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City Clueless Amateur, yet fascinated by the Ally Pally   :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Note: opinions expressed on PIPORG-L are those of the individual con- tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the Uni- versity at Albany. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail to listserv@listserv.albany.edu saying GET LSVCMMDS.TXT or see the web page at http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/lsvcmmds.html . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::   -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005     -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:44:30 +0100 From: alan taylor <alantaylor@v21mail.co.uk> Subject: Re: Alexandra Palace   I gave an incorrect web address. The first was correct and is www.alexandrapalaceorgan.com   The second should read www.allypallyorgan.org.uk   AJT London     Dear Mr Gluck,   I see no point in rehearing all of the aurguments on this list. They can = be found on both websites. This information also includes, on the = Unofficail web site, letters of resignation from two trustees, who tell me that = they are well known to your good self.   WWW.alexandrapalaceorgan.com www.allypallyorgan.co.uk     www.allypallyorgan.co.uk   -----Original Message----- From: Pipe Organs and Related Topics = [mailto:PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of TubaMagna@AOL.COM Sent: 11 May 2005 01:53 To: PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: Alexandra Palace   Dear Mr. Taylor:   Those of us without your knowledge, connections, and position are simply curious to know what your sources are, since the organ in question, = despite its condition and past history, means so much to many of us who have seen = it, played it, and inspected it.   Obviously, if you are on the managing board or somehow officially = connected to the ownership (past, present, or future) of the edifice or the instrument, it would lend credibility to your post, and then we would feel more confident in bemoaning the fate of the organ.   We are fortunate to have somebody with your intimate knowledge of the = inner workings of the subject speak to us with such authority, but it seems as though a few in our circle would feel more confident if we understood your = position and the basis for your knowledge.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City Clueless Amateur, yet fascinated by the Ally Pally   :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Note: opinions expressed on PIPORG-L are those of the individual con- tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the Uni- versity at Albany. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail to listserv@listserv.albany.edu saying GET LSVCMMDS.TXT or see the web page at http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/lsvcmmds.html . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::   -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005     -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Note: opinions expressed on PIPORG-L are those of the individual con- tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the Uni- versity at Albany. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail to listserv@listserv.albany.edu saying GET LSVCMMDS.TXT or see the web page at http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/lsvcmmds.html . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::   -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005     -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:49:30 +0100 From: Quentin Bellamy <dqb@boltblue.com> Subject: Improvisation?   There is a lot of this so-called improvisation around where well known = tunes are presented. I heard a well-known French organist in Bridgewater Hall = in Manchester who was given four themes including the French national = anthem. And another well-known organist in the UK improvised on Gershwin tunes. Somehow it was all very noisy and in the final analysis not very = impressive. More impressive was a cassette I once had of a roll cut by Edwin Lemare = on a large American roll-playing organ in which he was presented with a = fragment of six notes from which to create an improvisation. Somehow it was far = more the real thing.....   Q   -------------------------------------------------------------- Sent with "Me-Mail", Boltblue's FREE mobile messaging service. http://www.boltblue.com   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 01:55:34 -0700 From: David Calhoun <a392@scn.org> Subject: Re: Latry at Disney   Ah - Angus Mackay mentions appropriate tunes at Disney.   In last weekend's recital at the Seattle Flentrop, Gerry Hancock essayed a symphony in four movements on themes submitted by Mel Butler. There were a couple of Assension hymns - and "I'll Fly Away" and "Up, Up and Away [in my beautiful balloon].   The Scherzo, on "I'll Fly Away," included a brief citation of "Off We Go, into ... "   dc   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:21:52 +0100 From: Larry McGuire <larry@duntarvie.f2s.com> Subject: differences   ROFL   For Mr Dressler's benefit, I did not in fact point any fingers at, nor attempt to ridicule, nor lay any personal attacks upon, any individuals, although he seems to have taken personal umbrage at some of my opinions.   I did start my post with -'..it is MY opinion..'.... And then get shot down in flames by him for stating it.   For Mr Panning's benefit, who seems to have taken greater umbrage -   I do know that many builders around the world have returned to the use of slider chests in new instruments, just as a few other builders are excellent at restoring them. When they are new, or newly restored, they work wonderfully well.   It is an unfortunate fact however, that the same wonderful slider chest will have sticking (or slow acting if non-mechanical action) slides in a relatively short space of time, if the temperature and humidity are not constantly maintained within fairly narrow tolerance levels.   I did not 'assert' that any action is better than another, I simply suggested it was my opinion, that "When it comes to action types, each action, be it tracker, electro-pneumatic, direct electric, or whatever, each has its place in the world of church organs and their music." Is this such a contentious opinion??   Mr Panning seems to think that the organ maketh the player. I agree.   This is something I have studied for many years, and concluded a long time ago, that a performer's technique, style of playing, and indeed possibly also their repertoire, are heavily affected by the instruments he/she mainly practices and performs upon; it not necessarily being the same instruments for regular practice and regular performance.   I find it fairly easy to spot the organ player who practices or plays a lot on the piano or harpsichord. This does not denigrate either, I hasten to add, simply that they have a 'finger style'.   Why did Mr Panning close his diatribe in defence of tracker actions with references to the theatre organ? I am sure that should Mr Panning ever visit the UK, he would appreciate a visit to listen and play one of the worlds greatest tracker action instruments to have been built within the last 20 years, rather than potter around with some outdated theatre = organ??   Larry McGuire :-)               -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:03:45 +0100 From: s.bicknell@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: <No subject given>   Pulling the rug from under working men and women by contributing to = rumour chains about their imminent demise is clearly wrong. However, we need to have good critical writing about organs and organ building so that the = art progresses, so that poor practice is observed and commented on, so that the historical record shows that we were educated and responsible and tried to advance the art. That was behind my ironical piece on the imaginary organ at fictional Flutterworth, written in the style of The Organ magazine as it was between 1950 and =85 a few years ago. My spoof instrument was written up in terms full of praise but curiously anodyne, where a careful scan of the content behind the polite verbiage revealed conclusive evidence not just of organ building below any acceptable standard but an instrument didn=92t even work. We had a lot of those in Britain in the years 1950 to =85 a few years ago. I am one of those = rather few people who feel that British national pride in the organ building craft and church music tradition has become misplaced, and much of what = we have endured in the later 20th century has been extraordinarily second rate. Beautifully sung and accompanied, may be, if you can resist = howling with laughter at the sound effects produced by the organist in the = psalms (Moab shall be my washpot), but garbage is garbage. Ouseley turns in his grave, no doubt, not to mention Orlando Gibbons and Henry Purcell, above whose tombs rise small plumes of smoke indicating the speed of rotation.   Organ building is different in different parts of the world. 20th = century continental Europe was populated with various kinds of eclectic Modern Movement =96inspired tracker organs. Meanwhile Britain and America = pursued their own =91music & liturgy=92 path which led to many rebuilds and a conspicuous interest in removing the organist from his connection with = the organ in favour of a position among those who he/she was playing to = serve =96 that is, the detached console.   What I see in common between the two schools - and it troubles me a good deal - is that the job of organ playing seems to be viewed in functional terms, whether accommodating the repertoire or serving the liturgy, = rather than in artistic or strictly musical terms, where the height of the art would indicate =96 in the service of the liturgy =96 closeness to God. = Or is my sentiment essentially Catholic, and old Catholic at that? What I mean is that people =91play the organ=92 in the same way they would =91press = a pair of trousers=92 or =91clean the toilet=92, rather than plying the organ = in the same way they would paint a picture, or plant a garden, or write poetry. The second way is the only way that will bring you closer to the truth (the agnostic view) or closer to God (the metaphysical view).   Across the planet the organs of the twentieth century were largely built to accommodate this prosaic functional notion of organ playing, with its numbers of stops, numbers of pistons and numbers of capture-system memories =96 rather than quality of sound, quality of craftsmanship, = beauty of voicing. Those of you who live in North America are fortunate to be enjoying the work of the one organ building school that consistently = rises above the prosaic =96 the work of Brombaugh, Fritts, Pasi, Taylor and = Boody and even Fritts-Richards operates at a level of artistic quality that simply does not apply in Europe any more, despite the beacons offered = by, say, Ahrend and Aubertin (or another of your choice). To be certain = no-one on this side of the Atlantic would claim, with any hope of not being contradicted, that Flentrop, Marcussen, Frobenius, Beckerath, Reiger, Metzler or Klais still represented the finest organ building available = on the planet. Good organs, no doubt; but the Amercians have taken the = crown.   Meanwhile the vast majority of organ building takes place at a lower = level still, and if I say that I cannot truthfully drive a very thin knife between the average new pipe organ and the best electronics then I hope you can see that I am just lamenting our own lack of discrimination, not bashing either the electronic or the average pipe organ.   It is often said, in these exchanges: =93well, of course, there have = always been bad organ builders, even in the old days there were good organ builders and bad organ builders=94. Yes, maybe so; this is a truism that cannot be gainsaid. But, as an explorer, I have begun to notch up my = fair share of miles in looking at old organs and want to report =96 not for = the first time =96 a slightly different conclusion.   The general level of artistic quality in 17th and 18th century organ building was so elevated that we who follow barely even scratch the surface of the soil we claim to be tilling. I have been from Finistere = in the west to Transylvania in the east, from Sweden in the north to Umbria and Castille in the south, and everywhere I have been I have found = organs from the period 1600 =96 1800 that uniformly speak of an artistic = language that puts our own modern work into deep shade. There were bad organs, = and occasionally you will find one. They were few, though, and if you read through one of the old catalogues of local instruments (Knock, Agricola and others) it is like reading a roll-call of great painters and poets. Knock=92s list of organs in his part of the Netherlands includes work by Schnitger (Arp and Frans Caspar), Hinsch, Heynemann, Mittenreiter, = Muller, Konig, and so on. These are not the plumbing and electrical tradesmen of today, with their flexible wind lines, plywood carcassing and bought-in electrical hardware, who can tune every pipe while knowing the value of none. These are, every one of them, great artists.   Even in Transylvania, on the far side of Budapest, where the Turks had repeatedly passed and repassed to challenge the Christian settlements, where I might have expected to find work of a remote and backward kind, = it was stunning to be shown a fully-fledged organ culture stretching from = the middle ages to modern times, with large numbers of surviving instruments of good quality. At the head of the list, the stunning 32=92 four-manual Buchholz of 1836-39 at Kronstadt (now Brasov). A giant organ of 64 = stops, all purely mechanical; cauldrons-full of liquid tin used in its construction; two of the four manuals enclosed in original swell-boxes; the eighteen-foot long windchests made climate-resistant by the use of spring-retained wedge-shaped sliders; the instrument readily playable = with the manuals coupled thanks to suspended action to all four keyboards and split pallets; the sound perfectly glorious, and still playing with 95% = of its original components after 160 years and only two minor restorations.   The Kronstadt instrument was built by a rising star from Berlin, and can perhaps be expected to show excellence. Meanwhile, out in the = surrounding villages, where the Saxon farmers eked a subsistence living from strip-farming behind their houses on land reclaimed from the forested mountain-side, could organ-culture operate at any level other than the basic?   Yes, it could. Enter the locally trained Samuel Maetz of Biertan who, while the rest of Europe was troubled with forcing Napoleon to = relinquish his ambitions for a Europe-wide dictatorship, pressed on with an independent style of organ building from c1790 to c1830. Maetz is = roughly the Tannenberg of Transylvania; he built about 30 or 40 organs in his lifetime and made other musical instruments. A good part of his work survives, much of it derelict. In an area where a two-manual organ of 20 stops passed as a really big instrument, most of his work was small. The stock-in-trade was a series of one manual organs, some 4=92 some 8=92, = but all to different designs. Maetz=92s cases were usually in a subdued late survival of Roccoco taste, very elegantly handled. Maetz showed that complete command of the joint vocabularies of proportion, composition = and ornament that so distinguishes all art from Europe=92s great classical periods. The small organs usually had serpentine fronts; sometimes the centre bay was concave and the side flats convex, sometimes vice versa. Occasionally there was a special design: one organ was built like a = giant neo-classical tea-caddy, four columns with pipes between at the front, then above the cornice a great domed roof carved with imaginary shingles and a large urn at each of the front corners. Maetz=92s organs all had = that relaxed confidence that comes only from a builder on top of things: individual stops pretty and the voicing professional; regulation not obsessive. His small organs commanded the acoustic and could yell at a congregation when needed, yet always spoke the language of music rather than the instruction list of function.   Another Maetz organ which will stick in my mind for ever, was built = round a window. This was a tiny instrument, a far cry from the magnificence of Weingarten or Nieresheim, but displaying just as much daring on its own reduced terms. On the gallery rail a ruckpositive, acting also as the console (played from behind with the music desk on the ruckpositive = roof). One curved field of pipes with a classical column at each corner, on the 45 degree angle. Each column held a single display pipe in a niche =96 a Maetz singature mark. Flanking the window to left and right, two tiny half-hauptwerk cases. Each was assymmetrical, but they mirrored each other, thus framing the window rather than presenting an eye-hopping duality. The composition was united by a long serpentine plinth = moulding, in blue marbling, linking the side cases to the positive and forming the gallery rail. Overhead, the entablature of the hauptwerk cases leapt out into space to form an arch over the console, like a marbled rainbow hanging over the console. Small token pieces of carving stood in for pipeshades, like dabs of bright colour on an oil painting.   The stoplist of this miniature marvel? I don=92t have my books with me = this week and can=92t be quite certain, but I am pretty sure it was this or something very close:   Manuals C, D =96 c=92=92=92 (48); Pedal C, D =96 c (12)   Hauptwerk Bourdon 16 (12 pipes) Principal 8 Gedackt 8 Mixture IV   Ruckpositive Viola da Gamba 8 Principal 4 Blockflote 2   Pedal =96 permanently coupled to Hw Manual coupler   Brilliant, isn=92t it? Until we get up to this standard I am siding with Garrison Keillor.     Stephen Bicknell   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:27:39 +0800 From: robertelms <robertelms@westnet.com.au> Subject: Re: What Organists Should Be Able To Do   I think there is no doubt that very high standards of musicianship can = apply here also, certainly in the major churches in the City of Perth. One organist at one of the Cathedrals would certainly be world class and a couple of others would not be far behind him.. I would be the least qualified but most experienced organist among our three churches in my = small city but I have entered the local Eisteddfod in the organ section each = year for several years and have gained marks as high as 90% for organ = playing. There are at least two others who are better qualified and better technically than I am. However for all that, improvisation is rare in this state. There is = little call for it but most of us can carry on for a couple of minutes when necessary. I use varied harmonies for the last verse a great deal in = hymn playing when I can, but unfortunately lately our preachers tend to = choose hymns that are so-called modern and for which varied harmony would be of little use for any verse. Some of these hymns I would describe as JUNK. The best improvisation I ever heard was by Pierre Cochereau on St = George's Cathedral organ in Perth West Australia. I heard him improvise a four movement symphony, but, of course the French are noted for their ability = in this skill. I also heard John Hargreaves of South Island Organ Co. in = New Zealand give a pretty impressive display of improvisation on his newly installed rebuild of the large Bellsham organ in St Patrick's Basilica Fremantle West Australia. he finished up with full organ, the Spanish Trumpet and the Tuba Mirabilis. Most impressive!!! Bob Elms. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> To: "robertelms" <robertelms@westnet.com.au> Cc: <PIPORG-L@listserv.albany.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: What Organists Should Be Able To Do     > Bob and I have had this exchange a number of times on several lists = (grin) > ... but I'm curious ... the vast majority of church positions in Great > Britain are filled by unpaid volunteers ... even some of the cathedral > posts are part-time ... yet the highest possible standards obtain > nevertheless, at least in churches of any size, and in some smaller = ones > as well. >       -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:28:13 EDT From: TubaMagna@aol.com Subject: Re: $500,000 home instrument   In a message dated 05/10/05 11:19:20 PM, jonberts@MAGICCABLEPC.COM = writes:   << $500,000 for a home instrument!?!?! Someone's really off base here...how many stops are we talking about? geeze....let's get real = again folks. >>   I agree. According to these chat lists, that's a four stop organ. Why = would anybody commission a house organ that's only four stops? For a couple = more million dollars, you could have a nice little practice organ, so it's = best to wait a couple more months when you have a bit of money saved up.   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:00:03 +0100 From: "Henry Willis & Sons Ltd." <dw@willis-organs.com> Subject: Even in Transylvania.....!   As usual, much of what Stephen says is true and beautifully told - if somewhat overstated!   Many of the appalling developments of organbuilding (and design) in the UK from 1930 onwards to which he alludes could and should be laid directly at the doors of 'advisers', be they Organist-Consultants or unregulated dilletantes such as Dixon and Downes in the UK.   Don't bash the Builders for giving their rather poorly-'advised' clients exactly what they wanted!   As regards comments relating to where the best organbuilding HAS been done, in the past, and where the best organbuilding IS being done, now - perhaps this is also something more to do with the quality of clients and the willingness to spend the right sum to allow ANY artist or craftsman to do work to the highest of standards and with an iota of originality in design?   Instead of which, what do most of us have to deal with? Quoting to a pre-ordained specification drawn up by someone - anyone, but not the Organbuilder - and being screwed to the floor on price, often to a pre-fixed contract price also as dictated by the 'adviser' or some Committee wallah.   The days appear to have gone when "Cauldrons of molten tin" could be used and when the proper design time could be had. If there is such a development in the US as Stephen indicates, I suggest that it's because there's a sympathetic market, nothing to do with capabilities.   David Wyld. -- Henry Willis & Sons Ltd., Rotunda Organ Works 72, St. Anne Street, Liverpool. L3 3DY   Tel: +44 (0)151 298 1845 Fax: +44 (0)151 207 5252       -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:33:07 -0400 From: mewzishn@optonline.net Subject: Re: Even in Transylvania.....!   What frequently puzzles me is the situation so often repeated in the pages of The Diapason and The American Organist where the incumbent organist is listed as also serving as "consultant." I have always held the view that any consultant should be a disinterested party=97imagine = if the "consultant" was also listed as tonal director of the firm building the instrument. Such conflict of interest would be glaringly obvious and hardly tolerated, yet no one seems to see a conflict of interest in the institution's incumbent organist carrying out what should be a completely objective role.   Kenneth L. Sybesma, CAGO Temple Organist & Director of Children's Music Temple Or Elohim, Jericho NY Choirmaster and Organist Church of the Advent, Westbury NY   On 11 May 2005, at 11.00 AM, Henry Willis & Sons Ltd. wrote:   > Many of the appalling developments of organbuilding (and design) in = the > UK from 1930 onwards to which he alludes could and should be laid > directly at the doors of 'advisers', be they Organist-Consultants or > unregulated dilletantes such as Dixon and Downes in the UK.   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:39:31 -0400 From: Ben Baldus <b.baldus@comcast.net> Subject: Re: $500,000 home instrument   Greetings,   I suppose the organ in Mr Ketterer's house (which I saw at the Von Beckerath shop in Hamburg in 2002) probably cost at least that. Of course, it's not your usual Haus Orgel!   Ben Baldus     TubaMagna@aol.com wrote:   >In a message dated 05/10/05 11:19:20 PM, jonberts@MAGICCABLEPC.COM = writes: > ><< $500,000 for a home instrument!?!?! Someone's really off base >here...how many stops are we talking about? geeze....let's get real = again folks. >> > >I agree. According to these chat lists, that's a four stop organ. Why = would >anybody commission a house organ that's only four stops? For a couple = more >million dollars, you could have a nice little practice organ, so it's = best to wait >a couple more months when you have a bit of money saved up. > >::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=   >Note: opinions expressed on PIPORG-L are those of the individual = con- >tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the = Uni- >versity at Albany. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail = to >listserv@listserv.albany.edu saying GET LSVCMMDS.TXT or see the = web >page at http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/lsvcmmds.html . >::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=   > > >   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:43:57 EDT From: TubaMagna@aol.com Subject: Re: $500,000 home instrument   Yes, it would be unseemly to ask the price of Mr. Ketterer's house = organ, or the concert hall he built on his property, but it is a beautiful = instrument, inside and out, and a joy to play.   SMG   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:13:21 +0100 From: Larry McGuire <larry@duntarvie.f2s.com> Subject: Re: Even in Transylvania.....!   David Wyld has an excellent point.   In the world of Competitive Tendering it is the 'cheapest' that wins the contract (outside of Germany, which operates a subtly different Competitive Tendering system), and in such an esoteric world as pipe organ building, provided the names on the stops are those in the specification, and the materials in general appear to be those in the documents, then quality will take second place to price.   Larry McGuire       -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:13:58 -0700 From: Albert Berry <albert@albertberry.com> Subject: Re: $500,000 home instrument   I seem to have set someting off, here, with my speculations about = $500,000 available for a home instrument. Perhaps I should have sued the phrase "more than sufficient funds." The point I was attempting to make, and failed miserably at, was that I, _personally_ = find each organ I have had the privilege of touching does something well. It also does something = less well than other instruments.   How would I be able to choose among all the options available, given = ample funding? I could spend the rest of my life deciding whether to order a Casavant or Wilhelm or Schantz or Gober or ... Each of these has merits and failings. My preference changes each time I open a piece of music. For each piece of music, I want the instrument the composer wrote it on, = or a close copy. I guess I really want a music room the size of St. Peters and eight different instruments in it. And then I would really need a ninth to play ...         Albert Berry Management Consultant RR2 - 1252 Ponderosa Drive Sparwood BC, V0B 2G2 Canada (250) 425-5806 (250) 425-7259 (708) 575-3952 (fax) albert@albertberry.com   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:22:23 EDT From: TubaMagna@aol.com Subject: Re: Even in Transylvania.....!   I lost a contract to build an organ in a very interesting situation. The person who got the job was the incumbent curator, and the consultant, = and a bidder. His design closely resembles mine. It's not worth the time to = scan his slick brochure to find the word "integrity."   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:44:15 -0500 From: Robert Lind <lindr@core.com> Subject: trills toward the end of BWV 651   In planning to play Bach's Fantasia on "Komm, heiliger Geist ..." (S. = 651 [No. 1 from the Great 18]) this Sunday, I'm a bit puzzled once again by = the trills and the presence, and sometimes lack, of closing notes. I use the Peters Edition--Volume VII, and the first trill is in the very last = measure of p. 8.   1. The trills in the next 3 measures do not have closing notes. Seems to = me I should add closing notes to the first 2 of these and leave the 3rd one = as is (m. 3 at the top of p. 9) because it doesn't work in the downward-voice-leading context.   2. Should one be as consistent as possible in playing these trills = (i.e., speed of trill and use of closing notes where possible) or doesn't it = matter all that much? I'm not aware of what the most up-to-date, historically-informed notions are and can take the heat if you want to flamb=E9 me for my ignorance--providing you have proper fuel to add to = the fire. :-)   This Bach passage is also intriguing for the parallel fifths and octaves (among other intervals) the trills introduce against other voices and = makes me wonder if performers today are too worried about "wrong" parallelisms when they want to throw in a cadential trill in Baroque music.   Many thanks for your help,   Robert Lind   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:45:42 +0100 From: s.bicknell@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: Re: Even in Transylvania.....!   A minor divergence of opinion here.   > Many of the appalling developments of organbuilding (and design) in = the > UK from 1930 onwards to which he alludes could and should be laid > directly at the doors of 'advisers', be they Organist-Consultants or > unregulated dilletantes such as Dixon and Downes in the UK.   I don't think Dixon was as good as he thought he was, and I am inclined = to gree with Relf Clark's description of him as 'an inveterate college malingerer', but his work with Harrison & Harrison resulted in = instruments of outstanding quality, easily able to steal the crown from other well known companies who faltered after 1900. Dixon had some lapses later in life, especially in the dreadful business at Holy Trinity Brompton with = a second-rate builder.   Downes was a genius, and by far the most important thinker in British organ building of his generation. Please see my articles in Choir & = Organ about the Royal Festival Hall and Brompton Oratory. At the Oratory it is the extraordinarily makeshift quality of the organ building, by = J.W.Walker (1953-4), that dismays. The scheme and tonal finishing, all credit to Downes, are both fantastic.   I do agree that the organist-consultant is a problem. It shouldn't be = so, but the results of combining these two roles are often disappointing.   It would be nice to think that organ builders were free of all blame for what happened in the 20th century, and I agree that the problems caused = in Europe by the First World War, the Depression and the Second World War = in quick succession created difficulties that were sometimes = insurmountable. In England in the 1930s organ building tradesmen were simply desperate = to find any way of staying in business. It was then that it suddenly becam clear to even the leading firms that the most profitable work was in electrifying Victorian organs, turning the tonal scheme over with = minimum actual alteration, adding a smart new console, and calling the whole = thing an example of their own work. The layers of dishonesty are fairly = evident, even if one can sympathise with the circumstances that produced them and agree that it wasn't quite fraudulent. From the work of the major firms, the very worst examples of this practice were the Hill Norman & Beard rebuilds of Collegiate organs in the 1950s and 60s, but none of the well known companies did much better and even Harrisons had a period where = they were so immersed in rebuilding old organs that they began to lose the ability to build a good new one.   I am not entirely happy with the present British system of consultants = and advisers, but as a remdial measure it was vitally necessary. The old near-moribund organ building organisations, chaired by the has-beens of the old school, were incestuous and self-serving. The organist-led rebuilds were cheap and nasty but sold at high prices. The money = generated was wasted on inefficient workshops and lamentably lazy organisation. Nobody got rich.   Sadly there are still plenty of examples in Britain of poor practice, = and I have recent pictures of pipes tuned with masking tape, of organs where items explicitly described in the contract never arrived but were billed nevertheless, of access ladders made entirely with screws and not a woodworking joint in sight. I have also had the unhappy experience of trying to advise a client not to allow the organist to award the = contract sight unseen to a firm with whom he has a close personal connection, having written the organ builder's proposal *and estimate*, himself!! I also know, as Piet Visser does, of a well known organist whose house organ, by the builder he often writes about and recommends, has arrived appaently without money changing hands. Unfortunately this is an = industry that needs regulating and close watching. There are some very silly and vain people out there.   J.S.Bach did not, as recent postings claimed, get to test and approve organs on completion. At least not on his own. In all cases he was accompanied at the organ-proving by a rival organ builder: thus the Hildebrandt at Naumburg was approved by Bach and Gottfired Silbermann, = on the proviso that Hildebrandt went through the regulation and tuning a second time. It is not unlike the advisory system that is gradually re-appearing. Musical expertise by all means, but technical expertise = too and leaglly binding obligations on all sides.   Father Willis set a good example. When he built a new organ it was evidently excellent in execution and outstanding in tone. When he = rebuilt an organ he left very little of the original in place. He did not = restore. While that means we lost a lot of interesting historic material to = Father Willis's clean sweep, at least it was replaced like for like with good = new work. Would that Father Willis's successors had been kind enough to = leave his work alone. As it is, there is very little to go on: Reading Town = Hall (restored Harrison & Harrison); St. Dominic's Priory Haverstock Hill (restored Mander) are the two that grab my attention.   Stephen Bicknell   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:12:48 -0700 From: Liquescent <quilisma@cox.net> Subject: consultants, organists, etc.   OK, I'll be the one to say it: a majority of organists don't know how to design a pipe organ. In fairness, most schools teach little about organ-BUILDING.   Fenner Douglass was in the midst of writing "The Language of the French Classical Organ" when Malcolm and I were at Oberlin, so we got more than most in Organ Class. I was lucky enough to work for John Leek when the Flentrops arrived, so I at least got to see them being put together.   Nevertheless, beyond specifying encasement, slider chests (all other things being equal), "straight" tonal resources, proper choruses, proper placement, and proper acoustics, even *I* wouldn't get involved in the nitty-gritty *details* of designing an organ ... there's a LOT more to it than the few things I mention above.   A collection of favorite stops, console toys, and effects does NOT an organ design make.   For years I have pleaded (along with Sebastian Gluck) for organists (and organ-builders) to GO TO THE LITERATURE. If organ literature doesn't REQUIRE it, then it doesn't need to be BUILT, period.   A 4' Oboe or a 4' Rohr Schalmei in the Swell doesn't EXIST in organ literature; neither does placing the Cornet on the same manual as the Cromorne, *unless* there's more than *one*.   The Great should *never* have a Party Horn *before* it has an 8' chorus trumpet ... indeed, the Party Horn shouldn't even *be* on the Great, if you want to play it against Full Swell + Great ... but we see *that* particular mistake built over and over and over and over again.   Recently we've all seen two-manual organs overwhelmed with electronic 32' stops, when one correctly built, voiced and tuned Resultant with twelve independent quint pipes for the bottom octave would have been more than enough.   It has been said over and over again that virtually all organ literature can be played with integrity on a properly voiced, scaled, and placed organ of thirty speaking stops or less. Someone remarked recently that anyone who builds over 60-70 stops is walking a dangerous path ... with the possibility of unnecessary repetition on the one hand, and excess on the other.   Organs like Wanamaker's, Atlantic City, West Point, Riverside, St. Bartholomew's, the new Mormon Assembly Hall, etc. are FUN, but except for the unique requirements of the Mormon Assembly Hall (an organ of 130 stops in a dead room seating 20,000 IS a "modest" organ <g>), they aren't NECESSARY.   On the other hand, we DO have to face the fact that an organ in a US church today is called upon to do things for which there aren't a lot of historical models in organ-building.   A fact that's often overlooked is that virtually NONE of the historical models, no matter what country, were called upon to accompany the singing of large congregations.   Bach's accompaniments at Muhlhausen were remarkable enough that he notated several of them; as far as we know, the congregational chorales at Leipzig (at least) were sung unaccompanied.   Congregations in Catholic countries were silent, for the most part.   Cathedral and collegiate organs in England accompanied the choirs; if there was any congregational singing, the (small) congregation was seated in the Great Quire with the singing choir and the organ. The first comprehensive modern Anglican hymnal, Hymns Ancient and Modern, only appeared in the 1860s.   A medium-sized Cavaille-Coll is CAPABLE of supporting the singing of several thousand people, but that is incidental to its historical musical role in the Mass.   That requirement can be dealt with by scaling, voicing, placement, and proper acoustics, rather than the endless multiplication of stops.   Impressive consoles do not make impressive organs, whether pipe or other. They do little more than stroke organists' egos. Again, the LITERATURE doesn't require all those gadgets.   A friend of mine recently remarked that he spent eight hours "programming" an instrument for a recital. I said, "what on earth are you PLAYING?" Turned out he was showing off the capabilities of the MIDI "black box."   If something's not on an honest stop-knob on the console (AND connected to 61 or 32 pipes), I won't USE it (chuckle). WHAT in organ literature requires 200 or more MIDI sounds? Nothing *I* can think of (grin).   End of rant ... donning asbestos surplice now <g>.   Cheers,   Bud Clark San Diego CA USA   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:11:30 +0100 From: Roger Firman <roger.firman@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Even in Transylvania.....!   Further to recent postings, are there issues about funding being only awarded for organ projects involving advisers/consultants?   As an outsider being neither organ builder or adviser/consultant, no doubt it is possible to find examples of advice given which is inappropriate. On the other side, no doubt one can find examples of schemes which haven't worked as well as they might having involved organ builders. Is the trick to find a way by which the expertise of organ builders and the work of advisers/consultants can be brought together?   If situations arise - and I'm not sure they don't - whereby advisers/consultants have influence to cause projects either not to happen, or don't have the understanding of a vision by an organ builder which could be advancing the art of the organ, then that must be equally unhelpful.   I should close by saying that the above is my opinion and not making direct or indirect assertions about any individual or organ builder.   perhaps the situation also varies from country to country.   Roger Firman.   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:12:06 +0100 From: s.bicknell@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: Re: Even in Transylvania.....!   > David Wyld has an excellent point. > > In the world of Competitive Tendering   British organ advisers agree that clients should not make builders compete. Shortlists of three or four builders are drawn up on the = grounds of quality and suitability and responsible committees are encouraged to choose the best scheme for themselves regardless of price. The good adviser leads the discussion but does not direct. It is the committees without advice that so frequently fall into the trap of trying to calculate price per stop or weigh apples against organges.   In my experience good organ builders actively encourage the involvement and close scrutiny of competent advisers knowing that it protects them from unreasonably low prices or irrational expectations and prevents post-contract hassle.   There are lots of unknowns in organ building, but even for complex restrations it is usually possible to indicate in advance exactly how = many hours are envisaged for various stages of the operation, exactly how = much needs to be allowed for materials, overheads and a reasonable profit and even to suggest extra prices should specific problems be found along the way. It is just a question of knowing your craft and doing the = paperwork. I believe John Mander submits all his spreadsheet calculations with his estimates - wonderfully transparent and an example of good management.   If an organ builder ends up out of pocket at the end of a job - well - = one can only assume he has calculated the risk in advance and wishes to advance his firm's position. In these circumstances it is not unusual to see the firm's very best work appearing in the instrument that showe the worst loss.   Stephen Bicknell   ------------------------------   Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:41:07 -0400 From: Dave King <dking@crocker.com> Subject: In Praise of Czelusniak et Dugal   Dear group,   I'm sorry, I know I've been using a lot of bandwidth lately, but I = just got a couple of off-list messages that scared me a bit. I need to make = it clear that the organ horrors I described in an earlier post were things that C&D FOUND, = not that C&D PRODUCED. Bill Czelusniak has exacting standards, and Richard Frary (his business partner and shop foreman) shares those standards and = is a consummate craftsman, and I'm proud to have trained under them. Most of what we did was more restoration than brand new instrumentation, but nothing came out of the C&D shop that I wouldn't be proud to show anyone. That pedal reed I mentioned that was racked to the 2X4 with clothesline now has a Frary-designed racking system consisting of three rackboards -- one to hold the boots, one near the bottom of the resonators, and one halfway = up the resonators -- and a skyrack with stainless steel pins that lock into = ears soldered onto the resonators. It should hold those puppies in place for centuries to come. And when we did a historic restoration on something that wasn't = hackwork (most of our work consisted in restorations of better organs), the = standards got even higher. Nothing was disassembled without being punchmarked for reassembly, in places where the punchmarks wouldn't show in the = assembled component. The hundreds of cleats that Skinner used to hold his organs together were all marked with offset punchmarks, so that each cleat = would not only go back in its original position but with its original = orientation. We even glass-bead blasted the original screws and gave them a light = coat of clear lacquer so they wouldn't corrode again. I once spent two days wire-brushing the hundreds of brass valve wires for a Skinner 85-note double-primary. A long, grueling job, but we were able to reassemble = the thing with the original wires, and they looked factory-new. For instance. In the early seventies, some hack replaced the three static reservoirs on a big Skinner from the early twenties. These reservoirs were running at pretty high pressures, the highest being the = one that fed the pedal reeds, at 26". We nicknamed it the geyser reservoir because when we first tried to read its pressure, it blew the water out = of the guage. What made the reservoir replacement hackery was that the = hack used off-the-shelf, inexpensive supply house reservoirs that weren't = built for the pressures. The leather had blown on two of them, the eye bolts = that anchored the springs were pulling out of the sides, and the box of the geyser reservoir literally blew apart at the seams. The head of the = largest reservoir was made out of particleboard, which was disintegrating = because of some water leakage. Also, the hack had attached the wind lines with a mixture of lag bolts and wood screws, some of which were stripped and a = few of which were missing. He also had to rearrange Skinner's = superstructure (all the reservoirs were mounted on a superstructure about seven feet = off the floor of the blower room), and instead of using the tenoned 2X6's Skinner had used, he used 2X4's held in with cleats. Also, the floor = frame of the superstructure had rotted over the years. We stripped the room clean and went to work. (Understand, "we" is a storytelling convention. I mostly did grunt work. In addition to = Richard, there were two more damn good woodworkers on the C&D staff, and they did most of the serious stuff.) When we were was done, the original floor = frame was replicated out of rot-resistant cedar, and the 2X4's were replaced = with tenoned 2X6's, finished to match Skinner's original woodwork. The reservoirs now had maple cleats in all corners, the largest had a replacement head made of real wood, the geyser had double gussets, and = the eye bolts for the springs all bolted into maple backing plates. The = wind lines were held on with machine bolts screwed into threaded inserts -- = and, incidentally, were painted to match Skinner's original paintwork. For = one of the reservoirs, the original hole for the wind line had been cut a = little too large, so that some of the screws didn't grab enough wood to be reliable. I watched Richard shape a piece of wood to match the = irregular hole, glue it in place (knowing Richard, there were probably biscut = joints involved as well), then rout out the new piece so that the hole was the appropriate size. At least a day's work, just to add a half-inch of = wood to one side of the hole so a few of the windline screws would have enough = meat to hold them in place. That's a typical C&D installation. As I say, I was proud to have = worked with them.   Dave King   ------------------------------   End of PIPORG-L Digest - 10 May 2005 to 11 May 2005 - Special issue (#2005-169) *************************************************************************= *** ***