More on Tracker-Action Organs
Tom Knotts
Here is some more information about tracker organs as extracted (without
permission) from the notes included in "The Organ in Sight and Sound", an
instructional record about classic organ design.
E. Power Biggs says:
"It was in fact the introduction of electricity to the innards
of the organ, some eighty years ago [written in 1970] that
deflected the instrument from the path of progress. Organs
came to be built differently, though there were few visual
changes. The internal structural basis, the result of centuries
of experiment, was radically changed. The organ, until then as
responsive as a harpsichord, was turned into something
approaching a machine. In particular, a player was saddled with
pneumatic and electric playing action- a set of telegraphic
contacts fo keys- instead of the sensitive keyboard of direct
tracker action. No pianist would tolerate the inflexible
movement of magnets and pneumatics to do the work of his
fingers. Nor should the organist. The making of an electrical
contact is a convenient way to ring a doorbell, but is no way to
control a musical instrument.
To accommodate electric action, wind-chest structure was
completely changed. Wind pressures were increased to provide
greater pipe volume and because the new chests would not
function on low pressure. Mutations and mixture stops never
sound well on high pressure, so they were gradually omitted.
Pipes were bottled up in remote chambers and swell boxes to give
the organ "expression". Pipes were made quite differently, and
they had to be heavily nicked at the mouth or they would not
speak on the new chests nor on the higher wind pressures. Thus,
tones became louder, thicker, inarticulate."
And this is especially for Alexander:
"It's a fine day for an organist when he discovers for himself
that there is something infinitely more responsive to his
fingers than the conventional instruments he may have been
playing. And the discovery is equally great for a listener."
Dirk Flentrop, the legendary Dutch builder, writes:
On tracker action:
"It is true that modern electric and electropneumatic actions
allow greater freedom in console placement, connection between
console and chest being only a cable. Yet the merit of any great
separation is questionable, and the musical loss enormous. For
even the most ingenious of electropneumatic or electric systems
inevitably breaks the connection between player and instrument,
which is so inherently natural in the tracker system. In opening
th pipe valve without interjection of impersonal magnets or
pneumatics, the player of a tracker-action organ actually feels
what is happening in the wind chest. His playing comes to have
more security and more sensitivity, and the organ tone takes on
an infinitely greater degree of nuance."
On stop action:
"Organists today are usually accustomed to the convenience of
being able to move many stop knobs simultaneously by the touch
of a thumb piston between the manuals or a toe stud below. The
magnets and pneumatics necessary for this may be added to the
exterior of the slider chest and thus the flexibility of modern
"combination pistons" in registration becomes possible with no
impairment to the tonal merits of the slider chest."
On nicking:
"Why did the process of heavy mouth nicking ever become
established? Because unnicked pipes may be successfully coaxed
into speech only on the slider chest, with its particular wind
flow. Nicking, therefore, in varying degrees, becomes essential
with modern electric chests. But, concerning the word "nicking,"
it is interesting - is it not - that there is no one equivalent
word in the Dutch language to describe the process!"
On swells:
"The Swell, Solo and Echo are divisions characteristic of the
"romantic" organ. They are contained within swell boxes having
parallel shutters - pivoted slats - which, when turned by a
swell pedal at the console, blanket the tone to varying degree.
Accustomed as many players may be to these devices, they will
find them to be quite unnecessary in the classic scheme."
Swell shutters are almost non-existent on all but one small division of
classic organs. There are swells on the brustwerk on the Flentrop organ
here in Palo Alto, but he only put them on because the church absolutely
insisted, and he made them fairly ineffective, too.
tom
______
Tom Knotts
>to make up for such a deficiency. However, by the way, can I ask you if
>you have been to Haarlem in person? - Only in that way can one by
>absolutely sure that one has properly been able to judge the organ;
>recordings can deceive.
Yes, I have been there while the organ was being played. It was quite bright
and enjoyable. I then went to Zwolle to see the famous 4-manual Schnitger,
but the stupid church was locked tight. I want to go to Europe again and take
a detailed organ tour of the old classics. Does anyone know of such a tour?
Otherwise, the church can be closed, and you can't go into the organ loft
or behind the scenes. Without such an organized tour, how does one make
the right contacts to see the instruments. I particularly want to see the
extant organs that Bach himself played. Does anyone know how many remain?
tom
_________
Alexander Damyanovich
>
>Here is some more information about tracker organs as extracted (without
>permission) from the notes included in "The Organ in Sight and Sound", an
>instructional record about classic organ design.
>
completely with music before 1800. Surely the organ is not that anachronistic,
for Heaven's sake!!!!! All readers, yes - read the Biggs article, but with a
GIANT GRAIN OF SALT!!!
>E. Power Biggs says:
>
> "It was in fact the introduction of electricity to the innards
> of the organ, some eighty years ago [written in 1970] that
> deflected the instrument from the path of progress. Organs
> came to be built differently, though there were few visual
> changes. The internal structural basis, the result of centuries
> of experiment, was radically changed. The organ, until then as
> responsive as a harpsichord, was turned into something
> approaching a machine. In particular, a player was saddled with
> pneumatic and electric playing action- a set of telegraphic
> contacts fo keys- instead of the sensitive keyboard of direct
> tracker action. No pianist would tolerate the inflexible
> movement of magnets and pneumatics to do the work of his
> fingers. Nor should the organist. The making of an electrical
> contact is a convenient way to ring a doorbell, but is no way to
> control a musical instrument.
>
should be compared?!?!?! NO THANKS - remember, the harpsichord has no relevance
to any music after 1780 (at best); so why should the organ be made equally ana-
chronistic?!!! Even if standard EP actions are so defective, they CAN be im-
proved, and when they are (I can hardly wait), I look forward to seeing ALL your
heroes like Flentrop be put to work doing nothing other than restoring and
building museum or antique organs - that is all they are really worth for!!! A
general-vision institute like a church or concert hall ought to KNOW BETTER!!!
ALL LEGITIMATE REPERTOIRE MUST BE TAKEN CARE OF, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO SCHOOLS!!!!
> To accommodate electric action, wind-chest structure was
> completely changed. Wind pressures were increased to provide
> greater pipe volume and because the new chests would not
> function on low pressure. Mutations and mixture stops never
> sound well on high pressure, so they were gradually omitted.
>
A PATENT LIE - mixtures were neglected for other reasons! - the Romantic aesthe-
tic did not UNDERSTAND (most unfortunately - and especially the English school,
who never knew Continental-style mixture- and upper-work - Cavaille'-Coll had a
better appreciation of these things!) the FUNCTION of mixtures and mutations -
that is why these stops (again, most unfortunately!!!) dropped out of the scheme
of things!
> Pipes were bottled up in remote chambers and swell boxes to give
> the organ "expression". Pipes were made quite differently, and
> they had to be heavily nicked at the mouth or they would not
> speak on the new chests nor on the higher wind pressures. Thus,
> tones became louder, thicker, inarticulate."
>
True, heavy nicking is a disaster, especially if the organ is biased ONLY to one
school, as most organs until this century were. However, light nicking can be
useful to prevent an excessively aggressive effect (see later) due to excessive
chiff. Also, some stops (e.g. string stops), on account of their scales, MUST
be nicked and bearded to prevent overblowing!
Also, while I can accept that chambers are not a good thing, swell-boxes are
MOST USEFUL in Romantic and Modern music, as well as in accompaniment of choral
and orchesral literature (e.g., the Mahler 8th symphony) and on a large organ of
several divisions (e.g., 5 manual divisions - Great, Swell, Positive, Choir, and
Solo - I would want all but the Great to be UNDER EXPRESSION!!!), there should
be at least 2 (bare minimum) or 3 (better) divisions under expression, and with
the right stops provided everywhere to facilitate ALL MUSIC to be served well!!!
>And this is especially for Alexander:
>
> "It's a fine day for an organist when he discovers for himself
> that there is something infinitely more responsive to his
> fingers than the conventional instruments he may have been
> playing. And the discovery is equally great for a listener."
>
Sheer nonsense!! When I tried a tracker at Wilfrid Laurier University (see
later), I could not have been less impressed after all my pianistic (from
childhood) and EP (for over 4 years now) experience!!! No difference whatso-
ever!
>
>Dirk Flentrop, the legendary Dutch builder, writes:
>
>On tracker action:
>
> "It is true that modern electric and electropneumatic actions
> allow greater freedom in console placement, connection between
> console and chest being only a cable. Yet the merit of any great
> separation is questionable, and the musical loss enormous. For
> even the most ingenious of electropneumatic or electric systems
> inevitably breaks the connection between player and instrument,
> which is so inherently natural in the tracker system. In opening
> th pipe valve without interjection of impersonal magnets or
> pneumatics, the player of a tracker-action organ actually feels
> what is happening in the wind chest. His playing comes to have
> more security and more sensitivity, and the organ tone takes on
> an infinitely greater degree of nuance."
>
This is an absolute LIE!!! I have had a few chances to try out by now a small
two-manual tracker-action Casavant organ in Keefer Memorial chapel, Wilfrid Lau-
rier University, Waterloo, Ontario - and I was not impressed ONE IOTA!!! I did
not feel ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in touch between that tracker and all the EP
organs I have come to know and love as the norm in my life - I would far rather
play on the magnificent EP instrument at St. James Anglican Cathedral (Casavant)
or Convocation Hall (University of Toronto) [both instruments in Toronto] - or
even in Trinity United Church in Collingwood, Ontario (Keates-Geissler) ANY DAY,
and be able to play ALL repertoire (AND IDIOMATICALLY, with the right registra-
tions as desired by the composers!!! - this point cannot be stressed too strong-
ly!!!!!) with these organs from Frescobaldi through Messiaen, than be confined
to any one school, as Flentrop and company (including you!) would force me to
be!!!
>On stop action:
>
> "Organists today are usually accustomed to the convenience of
> being able to move many stop knobs simultaneously by the touch
> of a thumb piston between the manuals or a toe stud below. The
> magnets and pneumatics necessary for this may be added to the
> exterior of the slider chest and thus the flexibility of modern
> "combination pistons" in registration becomes possible with no
> impairment to the tonal merits of the slider chest."
>
I have not disputed that in the least - next, how about electric servo-action
to duplicate these nuances and still give you tracker fanatics your supposed
sensitivity (none of which I, in my several years of organ-playing, was able to
detect at all!) while still permitting the conveniences electric action can bes-
tow on an organ?
>On nicking:
>
> "Why did the process of heavy mouth nicking ever become
> established? Because unnicked pipes may be successfully coaxed
> into speech only on the slider chest, with its particular wind
> flow. Nicking, therefore, in varying degrees, becomes essential
> with modern electric chests. But, concerning the word "nicking,"
> it is interesting - is it not - that there is no one equivalent
> word in the Dutch language to describe the process!"
>
Maybe the Dutch do not know nicking, but nicking has been known for centuries -
Italian organs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are known not to have
much chiff, and that surely may have something to do with, of all things, nick-
ing (and that on slider chests!). Unnicked pipework can be very aggressive!
>On swells:
>
> "The Swell, Solo and Echo are divisions characteristic of the
> "romantic" organ. They are contained within swell boxes having
> parallel shutters - pivoted slats - which, when turned by a
> swell pedal at the console, blanket the tone to varying degree.
> Accustomed as many players may be to these devices, they will
> find them to be quite unnecessary in the classic scheme."
>
A COMPLETE LIE - UTTER GARBAGE, RUBBISH, an absolute INSULT!!! - unless, that
is, you either want to throw all organ music after 1800 into the garbage or
reregister it a` la German Baroque, which is a notion that is every bit as
REPREHENSIBLE and REPUGNANT to me as playing Bach or Buxtehude on a Hope-Jones
or some other such theater organ, with its consequent reregistrations!!! Ro-
mantic music DEMANDS appropriate stops be available, and under expression!
>Swell shutters are almost non-existent on all but one small division of
>classic organs. There are swells on the brustwerk on the Flentrop organ
>here in Palo Alto, but he only put them on because the church absolutely
>insisted, and he made them fairly ineffective, too.
>
Yes, Tom Knotts you bigoted fanatic - you in earlier times would have probably
have been just as ruthless with Baroque organs as a devotee of Hope-Jones as you
are now of Flentrop against AEolian-Skinner or Austin work - even the American
Classic scheme that permits completely idiomatic playing of Bach, Buxtehude, Pa-
chelbel, or whomever you care for is not sacrosanct to you. I, for one, would
even take a Rodgers or Allen electronic over a Flentrop - I despise that he is
so NARROW-MINDED!!! I would have nothing to do with him whatever. Also, this
article, "The Organ In Sight and Sound" by Biggs and Flentrop, which you quoted,
is nothing other (better or worse) than PROPAGANDA!!!! All readers of this
newsgroup, BEWARE!!!
Alexander Damyanovich
Tom Knotts
>One question I have is why the EP action is somewhat indirect--
>the solenoid causes a pouch to collapse, which in turn admits
>air to the pipe, or something like that. Why this extra
>pneumatic linkage, instead of having the solenoid open a
>valve directly?
Connecting a solenoid directly to the valve is called "direct electric".
The solenoid has to be fairly strong, since it is doing the work
directly. This requires a lot of current to charge up the magnet, which
can be a problem. When turning off, the residual magnetism after the
current is cutoff can cause the valve to stick open. I also recall that
it tends to bounce when turning off. In an EP, the solenoid only has to
pull up a small disk to the exhaust port, and hence do a lot less work.
The power to open and close the valve comes from the (necessarily high)
wind pressure. EPs are much more common for these reasons. The huge organ
at the First Congregational Church in Los Angeles uses direct electric.
I was told this by the firm Abbott and Seiker, an organ company which
used to be in West LA. Does anyone know if that company is still around?
They were nice guys who liked to build trackers, but couldn't survive
financially without selling EPs.
tom
_____________
Tom Knotts
>Yes, I am interested in both Baroque AND Romantic literature (and the
>modern and other schools), and I DON'T want the requirements of any
>major school (and you have to grant me that there is quite a lot of
>great organ music written after Bach) to jeopardize the requirements of
>any other major school. In other words, what I seek is an all-purpose
>organ that can comply with the whole spectrum of the repertoire - AND
>IDIOMATICALLY!!!
I can't really agree with this. What is wrong with Baroque organs and
Romantic organs side-by-side? Then one can have the best of both worlds.
When we try to make one-size-fits-all, then we invariably sacrifice the
quality of each. At Stanford, the Fisk is directly in between the two
divisions of the Romantic EP built in 1920. What made me so mad was when
that one student chose to play Bach's toccata in F on the Romatic organ
(with normal registration), ignoring that marvelous Baroque instrument
which she had at her disposal.
For added example, there is no one harpsichord for all kinds of music. I
know this intimately, as I just spent a lot of anguish deciding which
style of instrument I wanted to buy. There is the French, which is
subdivided into early and late. Then there is the Flemmish, Italian,
and German. Each instrument is best suited to one particular style of
music, is OK for another style, but really isn't very good for a third.
It is no wonder that Leonhardt has eleven instruments in his house. I
picked a Flemmish, because it is good for Bach and Scarlatti, and is still
marginally good for French (because it is a copy of a Flemmish that was
later modified and expanded by French builders.)
>That more than one divisions be put under expression does not need to
>harm the requirements of Baroque music IN THE SLIGHTEST if the
>appropriate stops - mutations, mixtures, reeds, and correctly-scaled and
>voiced (and selected) upperwork flutes and principals - are provided
>along- side the foundations (and that the foundations are also carefully
>chosen and voiced so as to blend with everything else - i.e., a careful
>choice of the stop- list is essential!)! When playing Baroque
>repertoire, all one has to do is to leave the boxes fully OPEN, and
>choose the requisite stops desirable on these divisions!
But you would have to put trackers on the Baroque manuals, and then have
your ultra-light electric action on the Romantic manuals.
>Maybe - I should (and do plan to) try out more trackers - my mind is not
>closed;
Find a good instrument, and get a demo from someone who shares my
viewpoint. It's good to be open minded. I have said all along, the eventhough
I am not wild about Romantic organ music, that kind of organ is more
well-suited to it.
>however, there are conveniences that electric action DOES provide
>in terms of coupling (and even of playing divisions on other manuals
>than would be the normal intention) that are important especially in
>post-Baroque music
Yes, but not important for Baroque literature.
>I mean "quasi-pianistic" in the sense of that I perceive no delay whatsover be-
>tween the time I press the key and the pipe(s) respond[s] - the action is so
>responsive!
But not sensitive to the weight of attack, as is a piano and a harpsichord
and a tracker organ. Besides, I never said that there was a delay in the
sound. I was complaining that the valves opened and closed unnaturally fast.
>The writer of the article to which I was responding sounded as if he
>wanted to see the Baroque concept of the organ to be forced on ALL organ
>music - something I cannot accept, for the reason I have given above -
>namely, my preference for an all-purpose instrument.
It shouldn't be forced on all organ music. Can you imagine a silent
movie to music from a Silbermann organ??? It just wouldn't be the same.
I still maintain two organs.
tom
Joseph Herrenkohl
I don't remember the details but every summer a European Organ Tour
is scheduled by an organist in Michigan. Details can be found (I
believe) in the American Organist, which is the official publication
of the American Organ Guild (AGO). If you are serious about the Organ,
you should contact the Dean of your local chapter.
Yes, I also have spent a number of hours in St. Bavoskerk in Haarlem.
A lovely organ in a lovely country.
Nathan Janette
>In article <6494...@hpl-opus.HP.COM> kno...@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Tom Knotts) writes:
Perhaps what Tom should say, and hasn't (but I gleefully will), is that
you are a raving lunatic, probally a danger to society, and most likely
an enemy of the people, as are all EP action fans.
Reading your ranting CAPITAL shouts is driving me nuts - in fact -
there, now I am insane. I hope you're satisfied.
Personally, I think the three manual Casavant tracker instument in
the secondary school Choate Rosemary Hall (Wallingford, CT) is the
best sounding organ I've ever heard and played. Of course, that's
just an opinion, and you know what they say about that.
Now go sit on a solo tuba and let it blow 50 or so inches of moderation
into you.
--
Nathan Janette ...yale!spock!nathan
Dave Kenny
one of Tom Knotts' recent postings advocating tracker-action. If I'd seen
this posting out of context, I'd wonder what had got Alexander so uh,
emotional. ;-) But there's something about this tracker-fanaticism that
is starting to rub me the wrong way too. I gather from the excerpts below
that it finally got to Alexander, even though his original postings seemed
pretty reasonable and balanced to me.
To The Tracker-Community:
Geez, you guys, lighten up! Only in the last month or so have I been lucky
enough to have the opportunity to practice on _anything_ with real pipes at
all! Before that, I felt pretty lucky to have a (gasp!) Hammond RT3 in my
bedroom. Yes, it doesn't sound like a "real" organ and is rather grundgy
and vague, but it DOES have two manuals and AGO pedals, and the drawbar
scheme lets you balance parts nicely in trios.
Right now I am just delighted to have access to a 3-manual 27-rank
something or other. I suppose the action must be EP; I never bothered to
ask, being too busy marveling that I can hear all the notes for a
change. And yes, Tom, there even seems to be a little bit of (gasp!)
unification, borrowing, octave and suboctave couplers etc. I don't
_have_ to use the octave couplers, and can stay out of the way of
the borrowing etc. I certainly don't begrudge them to anyone else!
And even I, a lowly novice, have figured out that the coupling scheme
lets me interchange the keyboards at will, so I do not have to completely
redo my fingerings when I find that all the reeds are out of tune, so I
need to use the tierce in the choir instead of the solo read in the
swell....
Sure, I'd love to try a tracker. I'd love to have a harpsichord too -- I
agree, they feel great -- but it's not practical for me. So I make do with
synthesizers and an electronic piano and the (gulp!) Hammond. They are bad
at some things, but good at others. Most of us just kind of have to make
do, you know? And I would think that organists, of all people, would learn
to be a little flexible, given the variation among instruments and the
necessity to tailor "ideal" registrations to whatever you actually have
available that happens to
1) work; and
2) be in tune today.
I guess what I find frustrating in this whole discussion is that there's a
lot of informative comments, but they're getting buried in the name-calling
and all this medieval "MY authority is bigger than YOUR authority" style of
argument. Do exposed pipes have a different sound than ones in chambers?
Does tracker touch let you articulate passages in particular ways? Does the
speach of relatively unnicked pipes give clarity to contrapuntal lines?
Does tracker touch just plain feel good for certain kinds of material?
GREAT! I want to know about these things. Do I care whether Tom Knotts
said them or E. Power Biggs said them? Not one bit. I care what an organ
having these attributes can say.
I feel kind of weird writing this, because I am one of those people who
might not notice if all music from 28 July, 1750 on just sort of went POOF!
one day. _I'd_ probably be quite happy playing on an instrument with no
expression and minimal couplers etc.
But let's get real! Organs are expensive gizmos, and most of them have to
serve the needs of a pretty diverse group, so they have to be intelligent
compromises. The sort of uncompromising pursuit of a single aesthetic
vision that you seem to champion definitely has a place, but not a
mainstream one, please! I might like mostly Bach, but I would hope my
Tournemire-loving friends, just as one example, can also be well served.
Whew! Time for my rabies shot 8-) I feel MUCH better now.
Bottom line: the "true believer" angle is a turn-off, even to at least
this Baroque-freak. So please try to temper it. But thanks to everyone
for the many informative little tid-bits along the way!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some of the langugage in Alexander's reply that got me thinking
that I, too, was getting put off by the seeming drift of the tracker
argument into political propaganda:
In article <1990Jul23.1...@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, adamya...@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Alexander Damyanovich) writes:
> In article <6494...@hpl-opus.HP.COM> kno...@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Tom Knotts) writes:
...
> Yes, instructional - but totally biased - even the musical examples are biased
...
> GIANT GRAIN OF SALT!!!
...
> ALL LEGITIMATE REPERTOIRE MUST BE TAKEN CARE OF, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO SCHOOLS!!!!
...
> A PATENT LIE - mixtures were neglected for other reasons! - the Romantic aesthe-
...
> Sheer nonsense!! When I tried a tracker at Wilfrid Laurier University (see
...
> This is an absolute LIE!!! I have had a few chances to try out by now a small
...
> A COMPLETE LIE - UTTER GARBAGE, RUBBISH, an absolute INSULT!!! - unless, that
...
> REPREHENSIBLE and REPUGNANT to me as playing Bach or Buxtehude on a Hope-Jones
...
> so NARROW-MINDED!!! I would have nothing to do with him whatever. Also, this
...
> article, "The Organ In Sight and Sound" by Biggs and Flentrop, which you quoted,
> is nothing other (better or worse) than PROPAGANDA!!!! All readers of this
> newsgroup, BEWARE!!!
>
> Alexander Damyanovich
--
Dave Kenny
Alexander Damyanovich
>>modern and other schools), and I DON'T want the requirements of any
>>major school (and you have to grant me that there is quite a lot of
>>great organ music written after Bach) to jeopardize the requirements of
>>any other major school. In other words, what I seek is an all-purpose
>>organ that can comply with the whole spectrum of the repertoire - AND
>>IDIOMATICALLY!!!
>
>I can't really agree with this. What is wrong with Baroque organs and
>Romantic organs side-by-side? Then one can have the best of both worlds.
>When we try to make one-size-fits-all, then we invariably sacrifice the
>quality of each. At Stanford, the Fisk is directly in between the two
>divisions of the Romantic EP built in 1920. What made me so mad was when
>that one student chose to play Bach's toccata in F on the Romatic organ
>(with normal registration), ignoring that marvelous Baroque instrument
>which she had at her disposal.
>
more than one organ in the same building - and especially if there is one or
more of historically worthy instruments - then fine, that is an excellent solu-
tion! - though even then one can carry the argument to absurd lengths. Remember
after all, Mr. Knotts, that French, English, and German organs for a long time
were significantly different from each other at all times; not to mention the
way Romantic instruments of each school would differ (especially the English or-
gans) from their Baroque and Classical predecessors. Thus, if only 2 organs can
be fit in, some "bending" of at least one to cover at least the minimal require-
ments of the other schools contemporary with the period of the instrument in
question can be quite desirable (e.g. a Krummhorn instead of a Regal, the provi-
sion of a Cornet, etc. say for a German Baroque-style instrument). Let this be
a thought to ponder.
>
>>That more than one divisions be put under expression does not need to
>>harm the requirements of Baroque music IN THE SLIGHTEST if the
>>appropriate stops - mutations, mixtures, reeds, and correctly-scaled and
>>voiced (and selected) upperwork flutes and principals - are provided
>>along- side the foundations (and that the foundations are also carefully
>>chosen and voiced so as to blend with everything else - i.e., a careful
>>choice of the stop- list is essential!)! When playing Baroque
>>repertoire, all one has to do is to leave the boxes fully OPEN, and
>>choose the requisite stops desirable on these divisions!
>
>But you would have to put trackers on the Baroque manuals, and then have
>your ultra-light electric action on the Romantic manuals.
>
sensitive electric components will be introduced to improve the standard EP
action, thus obviating the need for more than one action - especially when one
would have then the best of both worlds! - and be able to apply the resultant
benefits of tracker action as so duplicated by this new action to ALL reper-
toire. Also, it is seldom a good idea to have more than one action under any
circumstances, unless one has one or more remote divisions to deal with.
>
>>Maybe - I should (and do plan to) try out more trackers - my mind is not
>>closed;
>
>Find a good instrument, and get a demo from someone who shares my
>viewpoint. It's good to be open minded. I have said all along, the even though
>I am not wild about Romantic organ music, that kind of organ is more
>well-suited to it.
>
part of the literature and its instruments. Otherwise, I will make a definite
effort this fall, when I am in Toronto, to try out the more important and famed
trackers there (and there are several!). Thank you for your advice!
>
>>The writer of the article to which I was responding sounded as if he
>>wanted to see the Baroque concept of the organ to be forced on ALL organ
>>music - something I cannot accept, for the reason I have given above -
>>namely, my preference for an all-purpose instrument.
>
>It shouldn't be forced on all organ music. Can you imagine a silent
>movie to music from a Silbermann organ??? It just wouldn't be the same.
>I still maintain two organs.
>
then a fourth, and maybe a fifth! Are you prepared?
Incidentally, theatre instruments and most movie films (silent and otherwise)
are of very negligible interest to me.
Alexander Damyanovich
Alexander Damyanovich
>Perhaps what Tom should say, and hasn't (but I gleefully will), is that
>you are a raving lunatic, probally a danger to society, and most likely
>an enemy of the people, as are all EP action fans.
>
quite possibly him- (or her-) self an absolutist who does not care for other's
opinions, and who would force his opinions on others - i.e., a Hitlerite or
(worse yet!!!) a Stalinist! Not something to be proud of in the slightest (or
do you by any chance sympathise with people like Stalin, Beria, Mao Zedong, or
Pol Pot?! - I most earnestly hope not!)!
At any rate, my quarrel is not so much with Mr. Knotts (whose opinion in regard
to Baroque organs I respect as it should be) as with the article he quoted,
which I most honestly DO regard as EXTREMELY biased propaganda! Also, this very
attitude was the one held by people who at the turn of this century "modernized"
fine organs of earlier times to make them conform with the times, often to their
great detriment! It is this attitude that I cannot help condemning in the most
stringent terms, which is the way it most surely should be! [The attitude, in-
cidentally, being that if something else is to be adored, everything else is
garbage and should be junked or destroyed - this is what I am up in arms over!]
Otherwise, I apologize to Mr. Knotts for that I blew my temper - it was the way
however that he was proud of that Flentrop deliberately emasculated the Swell
division of an organ that he built for a church that just made me explode - it
seemed like a personal insult, especially the way that he was not admitting at
the time his own bias against post-1800 organs and organ literature. I also
hope that you will feel a little more understanding after this reply, Mr. Ja-
nette - extremism of ANY type is a danger!
>
>Now go sit on a solo tuba and let it blow 50 or so inches of moderation
>into you.
>
Stop and rethink your opinions please - I don't want to deal with a potential
Communist lunatic!
Alexander Damyanovich
Tom Knotts
>Perhaps what Tom should say, and hasn't (but I gleefully will), is that
>you are a raving lunatic, probally a danger to society, and most likely
>an enemy of the people, as are all EP action fans.
>
Thanks!
I don't have a problem with different schools of music requiring
different types of instruments. Here is an even stranger twist: modern
music which requires trackers (from The Organ:
"Recent organ music (such as Ligeti's Volumina) with its note-clusters,
requires mechanical action...The cluster technique shows complex flutter
beats; the foreign nature of untempered, non-harmonic sound-elements can
be produced only by mechanical action and its associated voicing (ISO
Information, no.8, 1972, p.45)."
>Personally, I think the three manual Casavant tracker instument in
>the secondary school Choate Rosemary Hall (Wallingford, CT) is the
>best sounding organ I've ever heard and played. Of course, that's
>just an opinion, and you know what they say about that.
And when you played it, did you observe sensitivity in the playing action?
Perhaps that was just your imagination.
tom "the bigot" knotts
__________
Victor Eijkhout
>>you have been to Haarlem in person? - Only in that way can one by
>Yes, I have been there while the organ was being played. It was quite bright
>and enjoyable. I then went to Zwolle to see the famous 4-manual Schnitger,
>but the stupid church was locked tight. I want to go to Europe again and take
>a detailed organ tour of the old classics. Does anyone know of such a tour?
No, I don't know of such a tour. And yes, in the Netherlands, a lot
of (stupid or not) churches are locked during the day. But if they
were open, I doubt if they'd just admit you to the organ.
If you come to Europe in the summer you can probably find
enough organ concertos to keep you plenty entertained.
(Summer is when churches are not so cold.) The town where I live,
Nijmegen, has one concerto per week, starting end of June, and
going on till late August. And in other places it very much the
same. Write to tourist information bureaus.
On another subject: the organ in the Stevenskerk in Nijmegen is
not the most famous organ in this country, but it's not bad.
Dating from about 1750 (but much restorations, because of
the war for instance) is guess it's late baroque.
And it is mechanical. No EP in sight. And lots of people play
romantic or modern repertoire on it, with success. In fact,
due to the reverberation of the church playing Bach is pretty hard,
not many succeed in getting out the polyphony very well.
Victor.
Tom Knotts
>>I am not wild about Romantic organ music, that kind of organ is more
>>well-suited to it.
>>
>Thank you at least for admitting that you are at least a little biased
>against part of the literature and its instruments. Otherwise, I will
>make a definite effort this fall, when I am in Toronto, to try out the
>more important and famed trackers there (and there are several!). Thank
>you for your advice!
I have quite readily admitted to this bias in my earler postings.
Perhaps you tuned in late. I have also clearly stated that Romantic
organs are best suited to Romantic organ music. Similarly, I think that
Baroque instruments - with trackers - are more appropriate to Baroque
music. It is also true that French Baroque organs are more appropriate
to early French music, German organs to German, Spanish to Spanish, etc.
The same is true for harpsichords. It is not until the later periods
that we get a melting pot: one piano for all piano music, equal
temperament to make all keys the same, etc. A Baroque instrument with
French, German, Italian stops with a few strings thrown in, I have no
problem with that. But I think it is a lot harder to combine Romantic
elements without detracting from the Baroque ones. I'm sure that you'll
agree that Romantic and trackers just don't merge well, and unless we
have dual action then where are we? A *Baroque* instrument _must_ have
trackers. It is just the way things are. Perhaps one day, an electrical
imitation to tracker will be developed, but why not leave it alone?
>
>The writer of the article to which I was responding sounded as if he
>wanted to see the Baroque concept of the organ to be forced on ALL organ
>music - something I cannot accept, for the reason I have given above -
>namely, my preference for an all-purpose instrument.
Organ reformers often have this opinion. Even though I strongly prefer
the Baroque, I do not advocate using these concepts for Romantic organs.
They are not appropriate. At least keep the wind pressure reasonable,
go easy on the nicks, and avoid organ chambers.
>Otherwise, I apologize to Mr. Knotts for that I blew my temper - it was
>the way however that he was proud of that Flentrop deliberately
>emasculated the Swell division of an organ that he built for a church
>that just made me explode - it seemed like a personal insult, especially
>the way that he was not admitting at the time his own bias against
>post-1800 organs and organ literature. I also hope that you will feel a
>little more understanding after this reply, Mr. Ja- nette - extremism of
>ANY type is a danger!
I am sorry that you didn't realize my bias. I have always been open and up
front about it. By bias is JS Bach. Simple.
The Flentrop organ is a very small Baroque instrument, not a Romantic one
at all. The division that he put the swell on was a Brustwerk division,
and was not designed as a "swell" or "choir" division. And Flentrop is
a biased builder. There is no doubt about that.
You mentioned somewhere that early on, reformers incorrectly rebuilt the
instruments to fit what they thought they should be at that time. This is
regrettable. Many of these instruments have been re-restored, making
them more like what we now think is correct - based on much better
scholarship. And newer Baroques are being built more as the originals,
with unstable wind and such. This is unlike the neo-Baroque organs of the
50's. I'll post an interesting page or two from "The Organ" on this next
week.
tom
_____
Alexander Damyanovich
>music - editor's note] in my earler postings.
>Perhaps you tuned in late. I have also clearly stated that Romantic
>organs are best suited to Romantic organ music. Similarly, I think that
>Baroque instruments - with trackers - are more appropriate to Baroque
>music. It is also true that French Baroque organs are more appropriate
>to early French music, German organs to German, Spanish to Spanish, etc.
>The same is true for harpsichords. It is not until the later periods
>that we get a melting pot: one piano for all piano music, equal
>temperament to make all keys the same, etc. A Baroque instrument with
>French, German, Italian stops with a few strings thrown in, I have no
>problem with that. But I think it is a lot harder to combine Romantic
>elements without detracting from the Baroque ones. I'm sure that you'll
>agree that Romantic and trackers just don't merge well, and unless we
>have dual action then where are we? A *Baroque* instrument _must_ have
>trackers. It is just the way things are. Perhaps one day, an electrical
>imitation to tracker will be developed, but why not leave it alone?
>
story of the Jan. 90 issue of "The American Organist", which as a matter of
fact dealt with a Romantic organ by the J.W. Walker firm in Lancing College(?)
in England that recently was completed by the same firm. It uses tracker ac-
tion with electric (microprocessor-controlled) coupling - something that may
indicate to you that trackers with coupling assistance are NOT incompatible
with Romantic music (also consider the great French builder Aristide Cavaille'-
Coll: his organs were basically tracker-action, even if Barker levers were ad-
ded to help out with the coupling). It is merely that electricity makes some
things more convenient that appeals to me - also, what do you mean by the phrase
"why not leave it alone" regarding an electrical imitation of tracker-action?
Also, to complete an earlier posting, I would like to finish my thought on mul-
tiple organs in various places: most institutions will find this approach im-
practical on grounds of space and money. Also, one all-purpose organ, if large
enough, will permit the organist to do more in regards to interpretation (some
unorthodox things in registration or use of the swell-boxes can be very effect-
ive!) than being forced to transfer between two or more instruments during the
course of a recital! That's why I still hold that for the mainstream, one all-
purpose organ is better (especially if it is large enough to have any compromi-
ses reduced to the minimum - the larger the size, compromise really becomes un-
noticeable because it then becomes UNNECESSARY [something I forgot to make clear
earlier]) than two, three, or four smaller one- or two-school museum organs -
especially when size becomes important for handling of really large-scale works.
For example, you certainly need a minimum of three manuals for Franck or Reger
(most of each of their works) - or most of the British works for that matter
(Elgar's Sonata demands 3 manuals as the absolute minimum, with a fourth being
preferable, especially in the last 2 movements, when a Solo manual is expressly
called for - although the Great is also mentioned as an alternative substitute).
Therefore, unless one really is awash in money so as to be able to get three or
so museum pieces of a respectable order - something best suited for universities
or other such educational institutions, like museums - it is better to invest in
a large (and the larger the better!) all-purpose organ. Sorry if I differ with
you, Mr. Knotts.
>>
>>The writer of the article to which I was responding sounded as if he
>>wanted to see the Baroque concept of the organ to be forced on ALL organ
>>music - something I cannot accept, for the reason I have given above -
>>namely, my preference for an all-purpose instrument.
>
>Organ reformers often have this opinion. Even though I strongly prefer
>the Baroque, I do not advocate using these concepts for Romantic organs.
>They are not appropriate. At least keep the wind pressure reasonable,
>go easy on the nicks, and avoid organ chambers.
>
Amen to that! Also, please re-read some of the things Albert Schweitzer wrote
in regards to organs in his time - and you give him the credit for beginning
this whole "Orgelbewegung" movement. He said that a three-manual instrument -
which for him and his needs was ample and sufficient - should possess a Swell in
order to be a complete organ. Hopefully this may get you to moderate some of
your opinions at least a little bit - especially when considering that some sort
of rudimentary Swell divisions were at the time of Bach being already introduced
in England (Handel reputedly took quite some interest in that innovation there!)
and Spain.
>
>I am sorry that you didn't realize my bias. I have always been open and up
>front about it. By bias is JS Bach. Simple.
>
It certainly did not come across at all clearly - especially when you quoted
that article and recording, whose bias becomes obvious only when you read and
hear it. Quite the contrary - you seemed to be quoting it as Gospel for ALL
organ music and organs of all periods.
>
>The Flentrop organ is a very small Baroque instrument, not a Romantic one
>at all. The division that he put the swell on was a Brustwerk division,
>and was not designed as a "swell" or "choir" division. And Flentrop is
>a biased builder. There is no doubt about that.
>
EXTREMELY biased - far too much so!
Alexander Damyanovich
cam...@pttrnl.nl
to inform you how the Dutch organists think about this. In the Netherlands
the majority of the organists (graduated at the conservatories) are in
favour of the tracker action. There is no discussion about EP action anymore.
As far as I know, no argans with EP action are built in the Netherlands anymore.
As for my own experience: I started (10 years ago) at an organ with EP
action. I still play on this organ sometimes. For five years I now am studying
on tracker action. At start this was very difficult: having played for years
on EP-action I had no control on articulation etc!! Now being used to the
tracker action I know that tracker action stimulates me to a good interpretation
of music.
When I have to play in a service with an EP-organ, then I don't have to
prepare myself. On the contrary, with a tracker organ, I have to be careful
and choose the stops more carefully.
A month ago I was in Paris and heard an organist from USA in the St Eustache.
Then I understood the difference between Dutch organsist and American organists.
American organists do it with technique, Dutch organists do it with music.
(Sorry to insult you, I know this is not valid for all American organists).
I would like to advise the American organists to visit the Netherlands, and
to attend some lessons here. We have many historic organs, and all of
them have a particular set of music being appropriate. That is the way
I like that. A multi-purpose organ will never have a "personality".
So you see my favourite type of action is: tracker. And do you know
what is my speciality? Well, that is music of Langlais and Tournemire.
Even in this music, tracker action leads to a better interpretation!
Tonight I visit the Christian Muller organ in Haarlem, to listen to
the final concert of the Summer Academy for Organists, which my wife is
attending.
Kind regards,
Carel Cames van Batenburg
Alexander Damyanovich
>Reading all this stuff about tracker action and EP action, I would like
>to inform you how the Dutch organists think about this. In the Netherlands
>the majority of the organists (graduated at the conservatories) are in
>favour of the tracker action. There is no discussion about EP action anymore.
>
Yes, and I also have heard that you people in the Netherlands and Germany (con-
sidering the 2 halves as one) also care little or nothing for pistons and other
such combinational aids - especially when it comes to the American-style setter-
type pistons which are far more convenient to use than the "Freie Kombinationen"
which, I understand, is the norm where you hail from. You sound excessively
old-fashioned for me.
>As for my own experience: I started (10 years ago) at an organ with EP
>action. I still play on this organ sometimes. For five years I now am studying
>on tracker action. At start this was very difficult: having played for years
>on EP-action I had no control on articulation etc!! Now being used to the
>tracker action I know that tracker action stimulates me to a good interpretation
>of music.
>
This sounds impossible - there are so many other factors that one uses in the
interpretation of music that I cannot accept that touch alone has helped you in
your playing.
>When I have to play in a service with an EP-organ, then I don't have to
>prepare myself. On the contrary, with a tracker organ, I have to be careful
>and choose the stops more carefully.
Downright RIDICULOUS!!! What do you play, for Heaven's sake, if you do not need
to prepare yourself (presumably practice) on one kind of organ and you have to
on the other type?!?!
>
>A month ago I was in Paris and heard an organist from USA in the St Eustache.
>Then I understood the difference between Dutch organsist and American organists.
>American organists do it with technique, Dutch organists do it with music.
>(Sorry to insult you, I know this is not valid for all American organists).
>
To which I would add that I am sure that some of your Dutch countrymen cannot
all be such great geniuses either - why otherwise don't we hear more about them?
In fact, I don't happen to know of a single truly outstanding name among Dutch
organists, period.
>I would like to advise the American organists to visit the Netherlands, and
>to attend some lessons here. We have many historic organs, and all of
>them have a particular set of music being appropriate. That is the way
>I like that. A multi-purpose organ will never have a "personality".
>
A complete lie!!! On the contrary, an all-purpose organ, if it is large enough,
can develop every bit as much of a personality as any other instrument - would
you say the same thing of a Bo"sendorfer Imperial-flu"gel concert grand piano of
nowadays as opposed to a fortepiano of the time of Mozart? As examples of grand
multi-purpose organs WITH personalities, let me suggest the Mormon Tabernacle in
Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. (by reputation), or St. James Anglican Cathedral in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (by direct knowledge - it handles a wide variety of mu-sic of all periods successfully, AND yet has a certain grand - but not exces-
sively so as to prevent a nice feeling of intimacy - feeling to it throughout!).
Also, closer to your country, can I suggest you travel to England and see the
organs in Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral in London - I should like to
hear your opinions of these instruments (especially Westminster Abbey, which I
have heard on recordings and which strikes me as a masterpiece of an organ).
Best regards,
Alexander Damyanovich
cam...@pttrnl.nl
> In article <37800.2...@pttrnl.nl> cam...@pttrnl.nl writes:
>>Reading all this stuff about tracker action and EP action, I would like
>>to inform you how the Dutch organists think about this. In the Netherlands
>>the majority of the organists (graduated at the conservatories) are in
>>favour of the tracker action. There is no discussion about EP action anymore.
>>As far as I know, no organs with EP action are built in the Netherlands anymore.
>>
>
> Yes, and I also have heard that you people in the Netherlands and Germany (con-
> sidering the 2 halves as one) also care little or nothing for pistons and other
> such combinational aids - especially when it comes to the American-style setter-
> type pistons which are far more convenient to use than the "Freie Kombinationen"
> which, I understand, is the norm where you hail from. You sound excessively
> old-fashioned for me.
>
BUILT larger tracker organs. I know of some French and German tracker organs
equipped with free combinations. Free combinations are a great help in romantic
and modern music. They are not necessary for Bach.
>>As for my own experience: I started (10 years ago) at an organ with EP
>>action. I still play on this organ sometimes. For five years I now am studying
>>on tracker action. At start this was very difficult: having played for years
>>on EP-action I had no control on articulation etc!! Now being used to the
>>tracker action I know that tracker action stimulates me to a good interpretation
>>of music.
>>
> This sounds impossible - there are so many other factors that one uses in the
> interpretation of music that I cannot accept that touch alone has helped you in
> your playing.
>
I didn't say that touch alone helps me playing. Besides of that there are
many other factors, for instance: a good teacher, listening to other
organists, singing, ....
>>When I have to play in a service with an EP-organ, then I don't have to
>>prepare myself. On the contrary, with a tracker organ, I have to be careful
>>and choose the stops more carefully.
>
> Downright RIDICULOUS!!! What do you play, for Heaven's sake, if you do not need
> to prepare yourself (presumably practice) on one kind of organ and you have to
> on the other type?!?!
>>
Well, I admit I exaggerated. What I mean is that at a tracker organ the touch
is more critical, so I need more time to get used. At some EP organs I also
need time: to get used to the enormous delay....
To answer your question what I am playing: last sunday I played two pieces
from the "Cinq variation sur l'Apocalypse" by Jean Langlais. I also played some
early English music. I am practising a lot now preparing myself
for a concours. Besides the pieces of Langlais I will play a work of
Charles Tournemire (Pater dimitte illis, nesciunt enim quid faciunt) and the
Litanies by Jehan Alain (this is a compulsary item).
>>A month ago I was in Paris and heard an organist from USA in the St Eustache.
>>Then I understood the difference between Dutch organsist and American organists.
>>American organists do it with technique, Dutch organists do it with music.
>>(Sorry to insult you, I know this is not valid for all American organists).
>>
> To which I would add that I am sure that some of your Dutch countrymen cannot
> all be such great geniuses either - why otherwise don't we hear more about them?
> In fact, I don't happen to know of a single truly outstanding name among Dutch
> organists, period.
>
Don't you? Well some names: Piet Kee, Jan Jongepier (he inaugurated the
new Flentrop organ in Chicago just one year ago), Jacques van Oortmersen etc.
Of course, we also have some organists we are not proud of (they play
Bach with swell boxes). I know also some very good American organists.
One of them was attending the Summer Academy for Organists in Haarlem.
I think there is a new wave of organists in the USA.
>>I would like to advise the American organists to visit the Netherlands, and
>>to attend some lessons here. We have many historic organs, and all of
>>them have a particular set of music being appropriate. That is the way
>>I like that. A multi-purpose organ will never have a "personality".
>>
> A complete lie!!! On the contrary, an all-purpose organ, if it is large enough,
> can develop every bit as much of a personality as any other instrument - would
> you say the same thing of a Bo"sendorfer Imperial-flu"gel concert grand piano of
> nowadays as opposed to a fortepiano of the time of Mozart? As examples of grand
> multi-purpose organs WITH personalities, let me suggest the Mormon Tabernacle in
> Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. (by reputation), or St. James Anglican Cathedral in
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada (by direct knowledge - it handles a wide variety of mu-sic of all periods successfully, AND yet has a certain grand - but not exces-
> sively so as to prevent a nice feeling of intimacy - feeling to it throughout!).
> Also, closer to your country, can I suggest you travel to England and see the
> organs in Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral in London - I should like to
> hear your opinions of these instruments (especially Westminster Abbey, which I
> have heard on recordings and which strikes me as a masterpiece of an organ).
>
I was in Salt Lake city and I heard the organ at the Mormon Tabernacle. The
organist played music of Edward Grieg. The only impression, remembering
this organ is its size, its volume (decibels) and its cockpit. The
organist was a very nice guy with fabulous technique.
I didn't hear the organs in London alife, but I doubt whether they
are multi-purpose organs.
Alexander, what do you play on the organ?
Best regards,
Carel Cames van Batenburg
Alexander Damyanovich
Batenburg) writes:
>In article <1990Jul29....@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, adamya...@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Alexander Damyanovich) writes:
>>
>> Yes, and I also have heard that you people in the Netherlands and Germany (con-
>> sidering the 2 halves as one) also care little or nothing for pistons and other
>> such combinational aids - especially when it comes to the American-style setter-
>> type pistons which are far more convenient to use than the "Freie Kombinationen"
>> which, I understand, is the norm where you hail from. You sound excessively
>> old-fashioned for me.
>>
>I agree. I would like to see more facilities for free combinations in NEW
>BUILT larger tracker organs. I know of some French and German tracker organs
>equipped with free combinations. Free combinations are a great help in romantic
>and modern music. They are not necessary for Bach.
>
I agree that free combinations are better than nothing, they can be very confus-
ing [I recently had the chance to examine an organ with free combinations in the
chapel of St. Matthew's Lutheran Church, Kitchener, Ontario (Kemper from Lu"beck
was the builder - I don't remember the year)] with having multiple knobs or tab-
lets for each stop. A setter combination system is better, since the stop-knobs
or tablets simply get moved around by this system instead of the whole setting
being disconnected in favor of the other free combination piston pressed. This
means that you not only can then continue to adjust the registration [after a
piston has been pressed (preset by the organist before the piece is started) to
get that particular registration on] by hand - you also can adjust it further as
continue playing with other, divisional pistons (namely, dealing only with that
particular division or "Werk" to which they pertain - e.g., Pedal, Great, Swell,
etc.) [if available - incidentally, I have been assuming the first piston press-
ed in this case is a General piston affecting the whole organ], since only one
knob or tablet pertains for each knob or tablet (both for stops and for coup-
lers). Consequently, the organist is still further in control of the instrument
and less dependent therefore on any registrants (who generally are less reliable
than machines - unless they also are organists and who are constantly aware of
what is going on) - the more an organist is control of the organ the better!
(After all, if a pianist, violinist, singer, or trumpeter is in full control of
his or her instrument, why not the same for the organist?) The free combina-
tions, on the other hand, still can mean some work for registrants - especially
if there are not enough of them provided; also, as I said, they can be confus-
ing, as you have to always remember which combination is on at the time. Thus,
the organist is not in such full control of his instrument with free as with
setter combinations - which, by the way, are the norm in the United Kingdom and
in North America (and they can be just as usable with tracker action, by the
way, as free combinations are!), and which, I hear, are also gaining acceptance
elsewhere in the world (something to be hoped for!).
Also, if you don't have a registrant with you, either type of combination can
be of use even in the Baroque literature (especially the larger-scale works of
Bach). I also believe that they should be added to older instruments in addi-
tion to being put on newer organs, period!
>>>When I have to play in a service with an EP-organ, then I don't have to
>>>prepare myself. On the contrary, with a tracker organ, I have to be careful
>>>and choose the stops more carefully.
>>
>> Downright RIDICULOUS!!! What do you play, for Heaven's sake, if you do not need
>> to prepare yourself (presumably practice) on one kind of organ and you have to
>> on the other type?!?!
>>>
>Well, I admit I exaggerated. What I mean is that at a tracker organ the touch
>is more critical, so I need more time to get used. At some EP organs I also
>need time: to get used to the enormous delay....
Some EP instruments (notably St. James Anglican Cathedral in Toronto, Ontario)
can be so responsive, it is practically like playing a piano or some other im-
mediately responsive instrument! There is then no need to get used to any delay
except for hearing a remote division from the other end of the building (e.g.,
the Auxiliary division in St. James Cathedral).
>To answer your question what I am playing: last Sunday I played two pieces
>from the "Cinq variation sur l'Apocalypse" by Jean Langlais. I also played some
>early English music. I am practising a lot now preparing myself
>for a concours. Besides the pieces of Langlais I will play a work of
>Charles Tournemire (Pater dimitte illis, nesciunt enim quid faciunt) and the
>Litanies by Jehan Alain (this is a compulsory item).
>>>A month ago I was in Paris and heard an organist from USA in the St Eustache.
>>>Then I understood the difference between Dutch organsist and American organists.
>>>American organists do it with technique, Dutch organists do it with music.
>>>(Sorry to insult you, I know this is not valid for all American organists).
>>>
>> To which I would add that I am sure that some of your Dutch countrymen cannot
>> all be such great geniuses either - why otherwise don't we hear more about them?
>> In fact, I don't happen to know of a single truly outstanding name among Dutch
>> organists, period.
>>
>Don't you? Well some names: Piet Kee, Jan Jongepier (he inaugurated the
>new Flentrop organ in Chicago just one year ago), Jacques van Oortmersen etc.
>Of course, we also have some organists we are not proud of (they play
>Bach with swell boxes). I know also some very good American organists.
>One of them was attending the Summer Academy for Organists in Haarlem.
>I think there is a new wave of organists in the USA.
Thank you for giving me these names - I will be on the lookout for them (someone
else has also brought the name of Ton Koopman to my attention). Incidentally, I
meant Dutch organists working in the Netherlands and with Dutch citizenship and
origin. If I take a Canadian organist of Dutch descent (I think), then I al-
ready have one name whom I know (as an exception) - Jan Overduin (organist and
music director at St. Matthew's Lutheran Church, Kitchener, Ontario). He is
most wonderful as a musician, in every regard!
>
>>>I would like to advise the American organists to visit the Netherlands, and
>>>to attend some lessons here. We have many historic organs, and all of
>>>them have a particular set of music being appropriate.
Of course I hope someday to travel to Europe, and the Netherlands will most cer-
tainly be on my way. The limitations of these historic instruments will not
stop me from wishing to see and trying out these organs for all they are worth!
>>>That is the way I like it. A multi-purpose organ will never have a "personality".
>>>
>> A complete lie!!! On the contrary, an all-purpose organ, if it is large enough,
>> can develop every bit as much of a personality as any other instrument - would
>> you say the same thing of a Bo"sendorfer Imperial-flu"gel concert grand piano of
>> nowadays as opposed to a fortepiano of the time of Mozart? As examples of grand
>> multi-purpose organs WITH personalities, let me suggest the Mormon Tabernacle in
>> Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. (by reputation), or St. James Anglican Cathedral in
>> Toronto, Ontario, Canada (by direct knowledge - it handles a wide variety of
>> music of all periods successfully, AND yet has a certain grand - but not exces-
>> sively so as to prevent a nice feeling of intimacy - feeling to it throughout!).
>> Also, closer to your country, can I suggest you travel to England and see the
>> organs in Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral in London - I should like to
>> hear your opinions of these instruments (especially Westminster Abbey, which I
>> have heard on recordings and which strikes me as a masterpiece of an organ).
>>
>I was in Salt Lake city and I heard the organ at the Mormon Tabernacle. The
>organist played music of Edward Grieg. The only impression, remembering
>this organ is its size, its volume (decibels) and its cockpit. The
>organist was a very nice guy with fabulous technique.
Incidentally, can I ask you when did you visit Salt Lake City? I heard that
Schoenstein and Co. of San Francisco did a complete overhaul and enlargement of
the organ in the Tabernacle in 1987-1988, with major improvements in the sound
(the regulation and speech of the pipes) and the action.
>I didn't hear the organs in London live, but I doubt whether they
>are multi-purpose organs.
It is true that they may start from the British school, but they are all the
same meant nowadays as all-purpose instruments - notably the one in Westminster
Abbey, based on what I have seen of the specifications.
>
>Alexander, what do you play on the organ?
>
My repertoire is quite extensive [especially considering that music, most unfor-
tunately, is more of a hobby than my livelihood, though I love it more than any-
thing else - including (dangerously) my intended profession as a computer pro-
grammer/analyst (I currently am a Math co-op student at the University of Water-
loo in my 3rd year); and that I have been playing the organ for only a little
over 4 years - although I have played the piano since childhood.], ranging from
Frescobaldi and Buxtehude to Messiaen. Highlights include the Elgar G major so-
nata (op. 28), all the 3 Chorals of Ce'sar Franck, "La Nativite' du Seigneur"
(Dieu Parmi Nous, Jesus Accepte La souffrance) by Messiaen, and those works of
J.S. Bach with the following BWV numbers (preludes and fugues): 545 [I played
that Prelude and Fugue set as one of the 1st organ works that I started out with
together with the "Pre'lude, Fugue, et Variation" of Franck (op.18), and in fact
played it for my brother's wedding just 3 months after starting organ studies],
544, 543, 538 (Dorian Toccata and Fugue), 536, and 582 (the grand Passacaglia
and Fugue in C minor). Currently I am working (and will be, once my final exams
for this semester are over) on the Bach G minor Fantasia and Fugue (BWV 542),
the A major Fantasia by Franck (Trois Pie`ces pour Grand Orgue), the C sharp mi-
minor Rhapsody by Herbert Howells (op.17, #3), and the chorale fantasia on "Wa-
chet Auf, Ruft Uns die Stimme" by Max Reger (op.52, #2), among other things
[namely, reviewing and expanding (in the case of La Nativite') on what I already
know]. This should indicate to you the scope of my tastes, which - although
quite definitively leaning to the late romantics and the modernists (Messiaen,
Alain, Langlais, etc.) - are rather universal in regards to organ literature.
I hope that this answer will be entirely satisfactory to you, Mr. van Batenburg.
Kindest regards,
Alexander Damyanovich
Tom Knotts
>aware of what is going on) - the more an organist is control of the
>organ the better! (After all, if a pianist, violinist, singer, or
>trumpeter is in full control of his or her instrument, why not the same
>for the organist?)
You just proved my point! Tracker action provides *true control* over
the opening and closing of the valves, thus allowing a means of true
*variation* of articulation. The pianist, violinist, trumpeter etc. is in
full analog control of the intrument, as is the (experienced) tracker
player. In fact, the *only* classical instument that I can think of
which robs the musician of this most crucial part of musicianship is
the organ with electric action. Digital control, not analog control.
1's and 0's. Imagine a piano striking the string the same way, regardless
of how the key is pressed. The music would be butchered. Afterall, the
bottom line in the discussion of organ design is how successfully can an
accomplished musician make music from the notes on the page. The touch
is one of his/her most important means of musical variation and
expression on *any* instrument. Take away the touch, and a great deal is
lost. You have convinced me that the Baroque instrument is limited in
the repertoire for which it can successfully be used; add more stops,
pistons controlled by microprocessors, some swell shutters if you wish,
but don't take away the touch!!
>to always remember which combination is on at the time. Thus, the
>organist is not in such full control of his instrument with free as with
>setter combinations - which, by the way, are the norm in the United
>Kingdom and in North America (and they can be just as usable with
>tracker action, by the way, as free combinations are!), and which, I
>hear, are also gaining acceptance elsewhere in the world (something to
>be hoped for!).
I am completely in agreement that these stop aids should be included in
tracker instruments. I have always been in disagreement with the true
purists on this point. We should take advantages of the good things that
modern technology has to offer.
>Also, if you don't have a registrant with you, either type of
>combination can be of use even in the Baroque literature (especially the
>larger-scale works of Bach). I also believe that they should be added
>to older instruments in addi- tion to being put on newer organs, period!
I have mixed feelings about adding it to older instruments. In one
sense, it is nice to keep the organ historic. But then on the other
hand, it would be silly to take away the electric blower. I could go
either way, so long as they leave the key action alone.
>Some EP instruments (notably St. James Anglican Cathedral in Toronto,
>Ontario) can be so responsive, it is practically like playing a piano or
>some other im- mediately responsive instrument!
There may be no delay, but there is *NO* control, either. It is digital.
On or off. Press the key lightly, press the key forcefully. The sound is
the same. You may not have perceived the variability when you played on
a tracker, but it is definitely there.
tom
Alexander Damyanovich
>>organ the better! (After all, if a pianist, violinist, singer, or
>>trumpeter is in full control of his or her instrument, why not the same
>>for the organist?)
>
>You just proved my point! Tracker action provides *true control* over
>the opening and closing of the valves, thus allowing a means of true
>*variation* of articulation. The pianist, violinist, trumpeter etc. is in
>full analog control of the intrument, as is the (experienced) tracker
>player. In fact, the *only* classical instument that I can think of
>which robs the musician of this most crucial part of musicianship is
>the organ with electric action. Digital control, not analog control.
>1's and 0's. Imagine a piano striking the string the same way, regardless
>bottom line in the discussion of organ design is how successfully can an
>accomplished musician make music from the notes on the page. The touch
>is one of his/her most important means of musical variation and
>expression on *any* instrument. Take away the touch, and a great deal is
>lost. You have convinced me that the Baroque instrument is limited in
>the repertoire for which it can successfully be used; add more stops,
>pistons controlled by microprocessors, some swell shutters if you wish,
>but don't take away the touch!!
>
hedge my bets), we do know that the touch in regards to organ-playing is less
influential than on other instruments, by virtue (if nothing else) of that the
volume cannot be altered in the same way as on a piano or a violin. Also, I
don't think I ever have said (or implied) that electric action is perfect as it
stands now - why otherwise would I, time and again, have said that I am look-
ing forward to the day that the action will be improved (somehow or other) so as
to be touch-sensitive? THAT is when electric action can truly outmuscle mecha-
nical action, and on its terms. Otherwise, thank you for accepting the idea of
enclosed divisions, pistons (ideally using solid-state & micro-processor techno-
logy, as being more reliable than what was available earlier), and additional,
Romantic stops, so as to broaden the organ's scope. No one can - or should at-
tempt to - deny then validity of contributions of people like Liszt, Mendels-
sohn, Elgar, Franck, or Reger (especially the last two mentioned) to the organ
literature, with their consequent demands. [Please see my earlier articles for
for more on my opinions on these varied subjects - these have not been changed
in the slightest in spite of all the correspondence that has been going on here
in this newsgroup!]
>
>>Also, if you don't have a registrant with you, either type of
>>combination can be of use even in the Baroque literature (especially the
>>larger-scale works of Bach). I also believe that they should be added
>
>I have mixed feelings about adding it to older instruments. In one
>sense, it is nice to keep the organ historic. But then on the other
>hand, it would be silly to take away the electric blower. I could go
>either way, so long as they leave the key action alone.
>
and in the cases where they are really used only as museum pieces (e.g., in a
conservatory or a university), I could swallow that (namely, leaving them as
they are); however, when the organ is used in a more regular situation (e.g. in
church services), I would likely be a little more insistent: I don't like
trusting registrants too much [I have heard enough tales where the organist was
let down by them (either they could not - or would not - read his pencilled in-
structions, or - worse yet - through inattention or trouble following the music,
of all things)!!!].
>
>>Some EP instruments (notably St. James Anglican Cathedral in Toronto,
>>Ontario) can be so responsive, it is practically like playing a piano or
>There may be no delay, but there is *NO* control, either. It is digital.
>On or off. Press the key lightly, press the key forcefully. The sound is
>the same. You may not have perceived the variability when you played on
>a tracker, but it is definitely there.
>
electric action capable of duplicating tracker nuances (and also made available
at a reasonable price - something I think would quickly develop in view of mar-
ket demand) is developed and added both to new AND existing EP organs. Such a
development could not but improve many excellent organs whose only conceivable
(I say conceivable, as I still have yet to have the full merits of tracker ac-
tion proved to me) fault is standard EP (or purely electric) action - which in-
deed does have only two states, on and off. As I said earlier, touch is maybe
not as critical a factor on an organ as on other instruments: however, it NEVER
HURTS to have the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE CONTROL over the instrument being played -
quite the contrary!!! That is something I ALWAYS have espoused (regarding which
- by the way - you will have to admit that enclosed divisions, pistons, and
even the crescendo pedal - this last device less importantly than the others -
also help in this process, when it comes to the organ!!!)!! Therefore, if touch
does have a role in organ-playing (and it quite probably does, especially in
view of the voluminous correspondence I have seen on this subject here and else-
where), then let us work to make EP - and also purely electric - action [which
in many cases - especially with large instruments, notably those with remote
divisions - is the only viable choice for any one of a number of reasons, and
which in many other cases is the most desirable alternative, for similar reasons
of size or convenience] touch-sensitive, so as to have those nuances available!!
Only historical purists will be then be able to quibble over what by then will
have become an academic debate!!!
Best regards,
Alexander Damyanovich
Tom Knotts
>Be your point valid or not (until I have had more tracker exposure, I
>organ-playing is less influential than on other instruments, by virtue
>(if nothing else) of that the volume cannot be altered in the same way
>as on a piano or a violin.
Agreed. It is much *less* sensitive. In fact, it is this that led to the
demise in popularity of the organ and harpsichord in the post-Baroque
period. I'm sure that we are in agreement that less sensitive is far
different than insensitive.
>don't think I ever have said (or implied) that electric action is
>perfect as it stands now - why otherwise would I, time and again, have
>said that I am look- ing forward to the day that the action will be
>improved (somehow or other) so as to be touch-sensitive? THAT is when
>electric action can truly outmuscle mecha- nical action, and on its
>terms.
I have to be a little skeptical that this could be made cost-effective.
>Otherwise, thank you for accepting the idea of enclosed divisions,
>pistons (ideally using solid-state & micro-processor techno- logy, as
>being more reliable than what was available earlier), and additional,
>Romantic stops, so as to broaden the organ's scope. No one can - or
>should at- tempt to - deny then validity of contributions of people like
>Liszt, Mendels- sohn, Elgar, Franck, or Reger (especially the last two
>mentioned) to the organ literature, with their consequent demands.
I don't deny this. Of course, let's not forget Mendelssohn's excitement
with the newly-found Bach organ masterpieces.
>I understand your concern over adding registrational aids to really old
>organs, and in the cases where they are really used only as museum
>pieces (e.g., in a conservatory or a university), I could swallow that
Actually, most of these instruments are in churches in Europe.
>little more insistent: I don't like trusting registrants too much [I
>have heard enough tales where the organist was let down by them (either
>they could not - or would not - read his pencilled in- structions, or -
>worse yet - through inattention or trouble following the music, of all
>things)!!!].
I recall reading about JS Bach's tremendous demand on his own
registrants, and his subsequent disapproval of their poor performance.
Bach also used to play keys he couldn't reach with sticks in his mouth,
etc. There is little doubt that he would have welcomed the aid of
pistons and electric blowers, not to mention more responsive modern
trackers.
>Such a development could not but improve many excellent organs whose
>only conceivable (I say conceivable, as I still have yet to have the
>full merits of tracker ac- tion proved to me) fault is standard EP (or
>purely electric) action - which in- deed does have only two states, on
>and off.
Well, believe me, its sensitivity is truth. A sensitive tracker will
transmit the most subtle feelings of the player to the music. An
instrument should never interfere with even the smallest quiver of human
expression. It is truly amazing how equally talented musicians can make
the same piece sound so uniquely his or her own.
>As I said earlier, touch is maybe not as critical a factor on an organ
>as on other instruments: however, it NEVER HURTS to have the MAXIMUM
>POSSIBLE CONTROL over the instrument being played - quite the
>contrary!!! That is something I ALWAYS have espoused (regarding which -
>by the way - you will have to admit that enclosed divisions, pistons,
>and even the crescendo pedal - this last device less importantly than
>the others - also help in this process, when it comes to the organ!!!)!!
Yes, and I admit that my lack of enthusiasm for these things comes from my
Baroque (read Bach) bias.
>Therefore, if touch does have a role in organ-playing (and it quite
>probably does, especially in view of the voluminous correspondence I
>have seen on this subject here and else- where), then let us work to
>make EP - and also purely electric - action [which in many cases -
>especially with large instruments, notably those with remote divisions -
>is the only viable choice for any one of a number of reasons, and which
>in many other cases is the most desirable alternative, for similar
>reasons of size or convenience] touch-sensitive, so as to have those
>nuances available!! Only historical purists will be then be able to
>quibble over what by then will have become an academic debate!!!
I can agree EP is needed for remote divisions, but not for convenience.
Convenience cannot enter into the discussion of Art and music. If I
wanted convenience, I wouldn't be struggling with trying to play music
at all. I would just click on my CD (with my remote control) and let
someone else's sweat and talent bring the music alive.
Where else have you been reading about this EP/tracker debate?
tom
Douglass T. Lamb
QUOTE OF THE DAY ------ Doug Lamb
-------- University of Virginia
------- dt...@boole2.acc.virginia.edu
o o o o
Alexander Damyanovich
>>still must hedge my bets), we do know that the touch in regards to
>>organ-playing is less influential than on other instruments, by virtue
>>(if nothing else) of that the volume cannot be altered in the same way
>>as on a piano or a violin.
>
>Agreed. It is much *less* sensitive. In fact, it is this that led to the
>demise in popularity of the organ and harpsichord in the post-Baroque
>period. I'm sure that we are in agreement that less sensitive is far
>different than insensitive.
>
tic period, MOST of which most surely SHOULD be kept in an ideal organ (no mat-
ter what action is used) - romantic stops living side-by-side with the baroque,
swells, pistons, crescendo devices [ALL of these can be used with tracker action
- incidentally, see the June 1990 issue of The American Organist (cover story)
for an organ specification that includes tracker action, pistons, 2 enclosed di-
visions (on a 3-manual: Positive & Swell both under expression), crescendo de-
vice (pedal), and a reasonably comprehensive stop-list covering a wide variety
of music - the organ was built by the Rieger firm of Schwartzach (?), Austria].
Thus all was not lost after 1800. Now that we know what is the good and what
is not, let us combine the best of both worlds - Schweitzer himself said "It is
by combining the old and the new that we get the ideal organ." [Schweitzer, "Out
of My Life and Thoughts", published 1933 - another one of my sources regarding
this debate!]
>
>>don't think I ever have said (or implied) that electric action is
>>perfect as it stands now - why otherwise would I, time and again, have
>>improved (somehow or other) so as to be touch-sensitive? THAT is when
>>terms.
>
>I have to be a little skeptical that this could be made cost-effective.
>
bright mind did come up with a way of doing something: then the doubters in
the end had to admit that they were wrong. Also, electronic instruments (e.g.,
Yamaha electronic pianos [I may not care much for them, but the point is there])
are nowadays touch-sensitive, and if they can be so made, why not EP-action pipe
organs? The points to focus at are the console and the solenoids where the ele-
ctricity opens the pneumatic valve - get those going (perhaps the console may be
a little more tricky) and the rest should follow quite easily. In my understan-
ding, organ-builders have not done this because of their usually being a conser-
vative lot! {In this sense one realizes how much people like Willis, Cavaille'-
-Coll, and other great builders like them then stand out, when they knew how to
apply the good things of the age to tried-and-true principles - one can never
deny the greatness of a builder like Cavaille'-Coll, who knew how to stay faith-
ful to his French organbuilding traditions, and who yet was responsive to the
currents around him without ever losing sight of the organ as a MUSICAL INSTRU-
MENT [unlike Robert Hope-Jones, who was really more an engineer than anything
else, and who was not truly a musician in feeling - with the well-known disast-
rous results!]: when Barker levers could be used to lighten the touch to profit
[especially when trackers then were so much more unresponsive still!], he could
use them, but he never let an organ be without at least a basic ensemble or
(more usually) two using mixtures (towards the end of his life he even could add
a third such ensemble into the Re'cit in addition to the Positif and the Grand-
Orgue on occasion).} The day surely MUST come - too many organs would otherwise
have to be extensively rebuilt to have an economical result! That action MUST
come - it most certainly is NOT impossible to achieve!!!
>
>>Otherwise, thank you for accepting the idea of enclosed divisions,
>>being more reliable than what was available earlier), and additional,
>>Romantic stops, so as to broaden the organ's scope. No one can - or
>>Liszt, Mendelssohn, Elgar, Franck, or Reger (especially the last two
>>mentioned) to the organ literature, with their consequent demands.
>
>I don't deny this. Of course, let's not forget Mendelssohn's excitement
>with the newly-found Bach organ masterpieces.
>
Reger in all his many organ works, however way they may have diverged from the
Bachian aesthetic and registrational school, using swells, crescendo devices,
free combinations, etc.
>
>>I understand your concern over adding registrational aids to really old
>>organs, and in the cases where they are really used only as museum
>>pieces (e.g., in a conservatory or a university), I could swallow that
>
>Actually, most of these instruments are in churches in Europe.
>
certainly insist on pistons for organs like the ones in Alkmaar, Zwolle, or
Haarlem that are here so definitely alluded to!
>
>>little more insistent: I don't like trusting registrants too much [I
>>have heard enough tales where the organist was let down by them (either
>>they could not - or would not - read his pencilled in- structions, or -
>>worse yet - through inattention or trouble following the music, of all
>>things)!!!].
>
>I recall reading about JS Bach's tremendous demand on his own
>registrants, and his subsequent disapproval of their poor performance.
>Bach also used to play keys he couldn't reach with sticks in his mouth,
>etc. There is little doubt that he would have welcomed the aid of
>pistons and electric blowers, not to mention more responsive modern
>trackers.
>
music CAN use pistons effectively (e.g., when the pedal reeds must come on and
the manuals couple to the pedal, as well as the reverse procedure! - see the C
minor prelude [BWV546])!! Thank you indeed!!!
>
>>Such a development could not but improve many excellent organs whose
>>only conceivable (I say conceivable, as I still have yet to have the
>>purely electric) action - which indeed does have only two states, on
>>and off.
>
>Well, believe me, its sensitivity is truth. A sensitive tracker will
>transmit the most subtle feelings of the player to the music. An
>instrument should never interfere with even the smallest quiver of human
>expression. It is truly amazing how equally talented musicians can make
>the same piece sound so uniquely his or her own.
>
those nuances - then full command will be assured. Why indeed not be able to
have the best of both worlds in a new improved electric action that would be
fully able to sense the player's nuances (especially when there are so many ex-
cellent organs rebuilt with fine pipework for all or most music from such great
firms like Casavant, AEolian-Skinner, Austin, etc. that are too large and/or
built in such a way that trackers would be a hindrance on account of size and
location [e.g., divided organs])?!
>
>>As I said earlier, touch is maybe not as critical a factor on an organ
>>as on other instruments: however, it NEVER HURTS to have the MAXIMUM
>>POSSIBLE CONTROL over the instrument being played - quite the
>>contrary!!! That is something I ALWAYS have espoused (regarding which -
>>by the way - you will have to admit that enclosed divisions, pistons,
>>and even the crescendo pedal - this last device less importantly than
>>the others - also help in this process, when it comes to the organ!!!)!!
>
>Yes, and I admit that my lack of enthusiasm for these things comes from my
>Baroque (read Bach) bias.
>
fluences of various people like Buxtehude, Couperin, Frescobaldi, etc.? Se-
condly, note how already Handel could enjoy a (at that time really primitive!)
Swell division! Thirdly, at least you admit your bias - can I suggest you
broaden your perspectives a little bit?
>
>>Therefore, if touch does have a role in organ-playing (and it quite
>>probably does, especially in view of the voluminous correspondence I
>>have seen on this subject here and else- where), then let us work to
>>make EP - and also purely electric - action [which in many cases -
>>especially with large instruments, notably those with remote divisions -
>>is the only viable choice for any one of a number of reasons, and which
>>in many other cases is the most desirable alternative, for similar
>>reasons of size or convenience] touch-sensitive, so as to have those
>>nuances available!! Only historical purists will be then be able to
>>quibble over what by then will have become an academic debate!!!
>
>I can agree EP is needed for remote divisions, but not for convenience.
>Convenience cannot enter into the discussion of Art and music. If I
>wanted convenience, I wouldn't be struggling with trying to play music
>at all. I would just click on my CD (with my remote control) and let
>someone else's sweat and talent bring the music alive.
>
I simply meant that in the sense that if you are dealing with an organ having
more than 2 manuals (especially when you get to 4 or 5 or more!), it can be
tiresome (especially to players with short arms) to have to play a long stretch
on the Solo or Bombarde - or any topmost, for that matter - manual. Then, so
as to liberate the Choir (or Positive) manual for use on another keyboard and if
one still desires to use it for accompaniment while having the Great and Swell
still coupled together for something else, it could be a good idea to have
Unisons off on the Choir and Swell manuals, play the Solo part from the Choir
and accompany on the Swell manual playing the Choir division, and then change
to Great for 3rd sonority, to give ONE example of what I mean!!! Don't be too
rash if you want to pounce on me for this - think first, and open-mindedly!
The organ is such a large instrument (especially at the large end) that anything
that really helps the player achieve his (or her) goal the more readily should
not be spurned over-easily - he or she has then enough sweating to do as it is!!
>
>Where else have you been reading about this EP/tracker debate?
In addition to this newsgroup, I have heard about this debate from my two teach-
ers (former one: Norman McBeth, former assistant organist at St.James' Anglican
Cathedral, Toronto - studied with him from 1986 to 1988, when he discontinued
ALL teaching activity for anybody; present one: John Tuttle, former chief or-
ganist at St. Paul's Anglican Church, Toronto [has one of the 2 largest organs
in all of Canada], and presently organist at St. Thomas' Anglican Church, Toron-
to [large 3-manual EP-action organ using slider chests being built by Guilbault-
The'rien] - credentials being FAGO, FRCO, FRCCO, and former president of the
Royal Canadian College of Organists). Also, I have followed it in The American
Organist magazine (which I get as a member of the RCCO), and in various books I
have been reading (when I have the time) on organs. By the way, neither of my
teachers (at least my first one for sure!) were all that impressed by tracker
action, speaking of it as "hocus-pocus"!
Best regards,
Alexander Damyanovich
Tom Knotts
>Yes, but then let us also agree that some advances were also made in the
>Roman- tic period, MOST of which most surely SHOULD be kept in an ideal
>organ (no mat- ter what action is used) - romantic stops living
>side-by-side with the baroque, swells, pistons, crescendo devices [ALL
>of these can be used with tracker action - incidentally, see the June
>1990 issue of The American Organist (cover story) for an organ
>specification that includes tracker action, pistons, 2 enclosed di-
>visions (on a 3-manual: Positive & Swell both under expression),
>crescendo de- vice (pedal), and a reasonably comprehensive stop-list
>covering a wide variety of music - the organ was built by the Rieger
>firm of Schwartzach (?), Austria]. Thus all was not lost after 1800.
I am really quite happy with this. The swells can be kept open, which is
nearly like not having them. Then we are both happy. Best of all, this
organ has tracker action, which I think is the most important non-optional
aspect of an organ.
>Now that we know what is the good and what is not, let us combine the
>best of both worlds - Schweitzer himself said "It is by combining the
>old and the new that we get the ideal organ." [Schweitzer, "Out of My
>Life and Thoughts", published 1933 - another one of my sources regarding
>this debate!]
Schweitzer also said:
The organ will be placed fully in the open, free-standing yet within
an organ case. This case serves to focus and blend the sounds, and
also by its sympathetic vibration acts somewhat as sounding board.
The choice of stops will follow traditional tonal and harmonic patterns.
The pipes will be set on slider key-channel wind chests, which from
their wind-flow characteristics allow superior pipe voicing. Wind
pressure will be low. Correct pipe voicing will produce articulate
and well-rounded speech.
The movement of the valve beneath each key-channel will be controlled
by tracker action, that is, by direct mechanical linkage between key and
pipe valve.
>Yes, I know that, and I know people will despise me for this: but I
>would most certainly insist on pistons for organs like the ones in
>Alkmaar, Zwolle, or Haarlem that are here so definitely alluded to!
That would certainly be more convenient.
>Bravo! Only too true that you justify what I earlier said, that even
>Baroque music CAN use pistons effectively (e.g., when the pedal reeds
>must come on and the manuals couple to the pedal, as well as the reverse
>procedure! - see the C minor prelude [BWV546])!! Thank you indeed!!!
Without pistons, it will normally require a registrant. This is a real pain.
>Firstly, as a true Bach-lover, should you not also be cognizant of the
>in- fluences of various people like Buxtehude, Couperin, Frescobaldi,
>etc.?
All well-playable on a Baroque organ, incidentally.
>Secondly, note how already Handel could enjoy a (at that time
>really primitive!) Swell division! Thirdly, at least you admit your
>bias - can I suggest you broaden your perspectives a little bit?
You aren't the first to suggest that. By the way, one of my favorite
organ works is "Thou Art the Rock" by Mullet. I'll bet that surprises
you.
>By the way, neither of my teachers (at least my first one for sure!)
>were all that impressed by tracker action, speaking of it as
>"hocus-pocus"!
This is a typical response from an EP player. They play along on a
tracker and wonder what all the fuss is about. The fact is, tracker
technique is completely different. In an EP and piano, the note sounds
as the key is touched down. In a harpsichord and tracker, the note
sounds as the key is *released* from the top. The type of motion applied
to that release will affect the consonant before the vowel of sound. The
skill to control this is nonexistent to a player who has not studied it.
The next time you play on a tracker, play a single note gently, then
more forcefully. If the organ is good, the difference should be quite
perceptible. Imagine how difficult it would be to facilitate this
variation in the middle of some complex passage. It is a skill that
requires a lot of practice to acquire, a life-long commitment to master.
So it isn't fair for an EP-trained person to play on a tracker once or
twice and then write them off. This is how the notion that tracker
action is just an unimportant museum curiosity gets accepted. It is
passed down from EP teacher to EP student, and so on. This is exactly
what seems to have happened in your case, as in an early posting you
said that you thought trackers were "hocus-pocus", apparently repeating
what your teacher had told you.
tom
Joseph Herrenkohl
>tracker and wonder what all the fuss is about. The fact is, tracker
>technique is completely different. In an EP and piano, the note sounds
>as the key is touched down. In a harpsichord and tracker, the note
>sounds as the key is *released* from the top. The type of motion applied
>to that release will affect the consonant before the vowel of sound. The
>skill to control this is nonexistent to a player who has not studied it.
>The next time you play on a tracker, play a single note gently, then
>more forcefully. If the organ is good, the difference should be quite
>perceptible. Imagine how difficult it would be to facilitate this
>variation in the middle of some complex passage. It is a skill that
>requires a lot of practice to acquire, a life-long commitment to master.
>So it isn't fair for an EP-trained person to play on a tracker once or
>twice and then write them off. This is how the notion that tracker
>action is just an unimportant museum curiosity gets accepted. It is
>passed down from EP teacher to EP student, and so on. This is exactly
>what seems to have happened in your case, as in an early posting you
>said that you thought trackers were "hocus-pocus", apparently repeating
>what your teacher had told you.
>
>
>tom
I think this passage succinctly describes the characteristic of a
tracker-action instrument which separates this class of organs from
the EP instruments. Control of the moment at which the pipe "speaks" is
a feature of a well-regulated tracker. And as Tom points out, the
performer whose major instrument is a tracker requires considerable
practice to master this aspect of performance.
Another couple of points that I don't think have been mentioned:
1. The tracker action instrument generally requires more stamina to
play since the performer not hydraulics is doing the mechanical work.
Adaptation of an organist used to EP instruments to a Tracker thus
requires some time.
2. The tracker has a lovely "mechanical" sound that is superimposed
on the music.
Joseph
Alexander Damyanovich
>
>>specification that includes tracker action, pistons, 2 enclosed di-
>>visions (on a 3-manual: Positive & Swell both under expression),
>>covering a wide variety of music - the organ was built by the Rieger
>
>I am really quite happy with this. The swells can be kept open, which is
>nearly like not having them. Then we are both happy. Best of all, this
>organ has tracker action, which I think is the most important non-optional
>aspect of an organ.
Regarding swells, thank you for accepting my point! This is just what I was
saying all along - in Baroque music, one leaves the boxes open, and then
there is practically no difference. As to tracker action - fine when it is
there; however if EP, let us improve it so that this whole debate can stop!
>
>>Now that we know what is the good and what is not, let us combine the
>>best of both worlds - Schweitzer himself said "It is by combining the
>>old and the new that we get the ideal organ." [Schweitzer, "Out of My
>>Life and Thoughts", published 1933 - another one of my sources regarding
>>this debate!]
>
>Schweitzer also said:
>
> The organ will be placed fully in the open, free-standing yet within
> an organ case. This case serves to focus and blend the sounds, and
> also by its sympathetic vibration acts somewhat as sounding board.
Of course that is something that I would readily accept - I never have said that
chambers are the best thing, as they NEVER are! (Though there some are far more
acceptable than others - one can take them quite readily then, but still no
chambers is the ideal!).
>
> The choice of stops will follow traditional tonal and harmonic patterns.
The bulk of stops (and more tending to all as the organ is smaller in size) IN-
DEED should be so chosen - I add the extra stops where there is sufficient size
for these stops to be useful (which they are on larger instruments!) - and in
the right context (of divisions, etc.) where their usefulness is appropriate.
>
> The pipes will be set on slider key-channel wind chests, which from
> their wind-flow characteristics allow superior pipe voicing. Wind
> pressure will be low. Correct pipe voicing will produce articulate
> and well-rounded speech.
I have always liked the thought of slider-chests the best of all - they can be
used with either action to great advantage!
>
> The movement of the valve beneath each key-channel will be controlled
> by tracker action, that is, by direct mechanical linkage between key and
> pipe valve.
If EP action can be made touch sensitive, it can be then substituted in larger
instruments with no actual change in sound either!
>
>
>>Yes, I know that, and I know people will despise me for this: but I
>>would most certainly insist on pistons for organs like the ones in
>>Alkmaar, Zwolle, or Haarlem that are here so definitely alluded to!
>
>That would certainly be more convenient.
As in a church setting, it is something that SHOULD be done - registrants cannot
be always (by human nature) the way they always would have to be!
>
>>Bravo! Only too true that you justify what I earlier said, that even
>>Baroque music CAN use pistons effectively (e.g., when the pedal reeds
>>must come on and the manuals couple to the pedal, as well as the reverse
>>procedure! - see the C minor prelude [BWV546])!! Thank you indeed!!!
>
>Without pistons, it will normally require a registrant. This is a real pain.
>
>>Firstly, as a true Bach-lover, should you not also be cognizant of the
>>influences of various people like Buxtehude, Couperin, Frescobaldi,
>>etc.?
>
>All well-playable on a Baroque organ, incidentally.
Be careful, especially regarding French reeds - they are considerably different
from German reeds!!! The same regarding the mixtures! This could foul things
up even there for you!
>
>>Secondly, note how already Handel could enjoy a (at that time
>>really primitive!) Swell division! Thirdly, at least you admit your
>>bias - can I suggest you broaden your perspectives a little bit?
>
>You aren't the first to suggest that. By the way, one of my favorite
>organ works is "Thou Art the Rock" by Mullet. I'll bet that surprises
>you.
I hope you like it using the registration that is supposed to be used - NOT as
might be reregistered a` la German Baroque (which is a practice - as with im-
posing ANY school [not just the German Baroque] on another - that is abhorrent
to me in the highest!)?!?!
>
>>By the way, neither of my teachers (at least my first one for sure!)
>>were all that impressed by tracker action, speaking of it as
>>"hocus-pocus"!
>
>This is a typical response from an EP player. They play along on a
>tracker and wonder what all the fuss is about. The fact is, tracker
>technique is completely different. In an EP and piano, the note sounds
>as the key is touched down. In a harpsichord and tracker, the note
>sounds as the key is *released* from the top. The type of motion applied
>to that release will affect the consonant before the vowel of sound. The
>skill to control this is nonexistent to a player who has not studied it.
>The next time you play on a tracker, play a single note gently, then
>more forcefully. If the organ is good, the difference should be quite
>perceptible. Imagine how difficult it would be to facilitate this
>variation in the middle of some complex passage. It is a skill that
>requires a lot of practice to acquire, a life-long commitment to master.
>So it isn't fair for an EP-trained person to play on a tracker once or
>twice and then write them off. This is how the notion that tracker
>action is just an unimportant museum curiosity gets accepted. It is
>passed down from EP teacher to EP student, and so on. This is exactly
>what seems to have happened in your case, as in an early posting you
>said that you thought trackers were "hocus-pocus", apparently repeating
>what your teacher had told you.
>
Be that as it may - I hope eventually to see for sure if there is more to this
fuss than what I to date have thought. I hope to let you know what I think in
January (I will now be in Toronto, and almost certainly without any possibility
of a link to any newsgroups like this one [most unfortunately, as I have learned
to enjoy these debates and to broaden my horizons very, very much!!!], so I must
say farewell to all those who read this group until then!!), and until then,
best of luch to everyone!
Kindest regards,
Alexander Damyanovich
Tom Knotts
>Another couple of points that I don't think have been mentioned:
>
>1. The tracker action instrument generally requires more stamina to
>play since the performer not hydraulics is doing the mechanical work.
>Adaptation of an organist used to EP instruments to a Tracker thus
>requires some time.
A few months of practicing, including scales and Hanon (Hanon on the
organ??), will strengthen the fingers. Eventually, the action will once
again seem light and natural.
>
>2. The tracker has a lovely "mechanical" sound that is superimposed
>on the music.
Fortunately, today's instruments can be made *very* quiet.
>
>Joseph
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I feel quite alone sometimes on this
issue. But I *won't* give up the cause.
tom
Alexander Damyanovich
>
>(...some stuff deleted - see earlier postings...)
>
>>visions (on a 3-manual: Positive & Swell both under expression),
>>covering a wide variety of music - the organ was built by the Rieger
>
>I am really quite happy with this. The swells can be kept open, which is
>nearly like not having them. Then we are both happy. Best of all, this
>organ has tracker action, which I think is the most important non-optional
>aspect of an organ.
Regarding swells, thank you for accepting my point! This is just what I was
saying all along - in Baroque music, one leaves the boxes open, and then
there is practically no difference. As to tracker action - fine when it is
there; however if EP, let us improve it so that this whole debate can stop!
>
>>Now that we know what is the good and what is not, let us combine the
>>bect of both worlds - Schweitzer himself said "It is by combining the
>>old and the new that we get the ideal organ." [Schweitzer, "Out of My
>>Life and Thoughts", published 1933 - another one of my sources regarding
>>this debate!]
>
>Schweitzer also said:
>
> The organ will be placed fully in the open, free-standing yet within
> an organ case. Thic case serves to focus and blend the sounds, and
> also by its sympathetic vibration acts somewhat as sounding board.
Of course that is something that I would readily accept - I never have said that
chambers are the best thing, as they NEVER are! (Though there some are far more
acceptable than others - one can take them quite readily then, but still no
chambers is the ideal!).
>
> The choice of stops will follow traditional tonal and harmonic patterns.
The bulk of stops (and more tending to all as the organ is smaller in size) IN-
DEED should be so chosen - I add the extra stops where there is sufficient size
for these stops to be useful (which they are on larger instruments!) - and in
the bight context (of divisions, etc.) where their usefulness is appropriate.
>
> The pipes will be cet on slider key-channel wind chests, which from
> theib wind-flow characteristics allow superior pipe voicing. Wind
> prescure will be low. Correct pipe voicing will produce articulate
> and 'ell-rounded speech.
I have always liked the thought of slider-chests the best of all - they can be
used with either action to great advantage!
>
> The movement of the valve beneath each key-channel will be controlled
> by tracker action, that is, by direct mechanical linkage between key and
> pipe valve.
If EP action can be made touch sensitive, it can be then substituted in larger
instruments with no actual change in sound either!
>
>
>>Yec, I know that, and I know people will despise me for this: but I
>>would most certainly insist on pistons for organs like the ones in
>>Alkmaar, Zwolle, or Haarlem that are here so definitely alluded to!
>
>That would certainly be more convenient.
As in a church setting, it is something that SHOULD be done - registrants cannot
be always (by human nature) the way they always would have to be!
>
>>Bravo! Only doo true that you justify what I earlier said, that even
>>Baroque music CAN use pistons effectively (e.g., when the pedal reeds
>>must come on and the manuals couple to the pedal, as well as the reverse
>>procedure! - see the C minor prelude [BWV546])!! Thank you indeed!!!
>
>Without pistons, it will normally require a registrant. This is a real pain.
>
>>Firstly, as a true Bach-lover, should you not also be cognizant of the
>>influences of various people like Buxtehude, Couperin, Frescobaldi,
>>etc.?
>
>All well-playable on a Baroque organ, incidentally.
Be careful, especially regarding French reeds - they are considerably different
from German reeds!!! The came regarding the mixtures! This could foul things
up efen there for you!
>
>>Secondly, note how already Handel could enjoy a (at that time
>>really primitive!) Swell division! Thirdly, at least you admit your
>>bias - can I suggest you broaden your perspectives a little bit?
>
>You aren't the first to suggest that. By the way, one of my favorite
>organ works is "Thou Art the Rock" by Mullet. I'll bet that surprises
>you.
I hope you like it using the registration that is supposed to be used - NOT as
might be reregistered a` la German Baroque (which is a practice - as with im-
posing ANY school [not just the German Baroque] on another - that is abhorrent
to me in the highest!)?!?!
>
>>By the way, neither of my teachers (at least my first one for sure!)
>>were all that impressed by tracker action, speaking of it as
>>"hocus-pocus"!
>
>This is a typical response from an EP player. They play along on a
>tracker and wonder what all the fuss is about. The fact is, tracker
>technique is completely different. In an EP and piano, the note sounds
>as the key is touched down. In a harpsichord and tracker, the note
>sounds as the key is *released* from the top. The type of motion applied
>to that release will affect the consonant before the vowel of sound. The
>skill to control this is nonexistent to a player who has not studied it.
>The next time you play on a tracker, play a single note gently, then
>more forcefully. If the organ is good, the difference should be quite
>perceptible. Imagine how difficult it would be to facilitate this
>variation in the middle of some complex passage. It is a skill that
>requires a lot of practice to acquire, a life-long commitment to master.
>So it isn't fair for an EP-trained person to play on a tracker once or
>twice and then write them off. This is how the notion that tracker
>action is just an unimportant museum curiosity gets accepted. It is
>pasced down from EP teacher to EP student, and so on. This is exactly
>whad seems to have happened in your case, as in an early posting you
>said that you thought trackers were "hocus-pocus", apparently repeating
>what your teacher had told you.
>
Tom Knotts
>Regarding swells, thank you for accepting my point! This is just what I
>was saying all along - in Baroque music, one leaves the boxes open, and
>then there is practically no difference.
It is interesting that you say "practically" no difference. I recall once
hearing that even an open swell will disrupt sound flow. But if this is
so, I have always wondered about the Prestant facade pipes. Shouldn't they
too disrupt sound flow? Perhaps the best kind of swell is one that is
removable, or completely retractable.
>I have always liked the thought of slider-chests the best of all - they
>can be used with either action to great advantage!
An EP with one (insensitive) valve for all common pipes is certainly
preferable to a Pitman-type design. This will at least guarantee unity
of speech.
>If EP action can be made touch sensitive, it can be then substituted in
>larger instruments with no actual change in sound either!
I'm still a little skeptical about this....
>Be careful, especially regarding French reeds - they are considerably
>different from German reeds!!! The came regarding the mixtures! This
>could foul things up efen there for you!
Yes, I had missed Couperin in your composer list. The Fisk at Stanford has
a copious collection of both German and early French reeds. This makes it
quite adequate. I don't think it has any of the later, high-pressure French
reeds of which you occasionally speak. These probably require action
assistance, and aren't consistent with the Baroque theme.
...[stuff about "Thou Art the Rock" by Henry Mullet]...
>I hope you like it using the registration that is supposed to be used -
>NOT as might be reregistered a` la German Baroque (which is a practice -
>as with im- posing ANY school [not just the German Baroque] on another -
>that is abhorrent to me in the highest!)?!?!
I am most familiar with it through a recording of Virgil Fox on the Riverside
Skinner. By the way, a little irony. That album cover has a picture of Fox
in the foreground, and the Christian Mueller *tracker* baroque organ in
the back round. Hmmm....
By the way, regarding a Baroque interpretation. Have you ever heard the
recording of the Widor Tocatta from Sym 5 by E. Power Biggs? It is played
in a Baroque-like manner, although I know nothing about the organ that he
uses. It may not be along the lines intended by Widor, but it is certainly
a nice and valid interpretation. I like to compare it to Fox's interpre-
tation on the above-mentioned album. It is quite a contrast.
>Be that as it may - I hope eventually to see for sure if there is more to this
>fuss than what I to date have thought.
I promise that I wouldn't lie to you. Hear from you in January.
tom
Tom Knotts
>Schweitzer also said:
>
> The organ will be placed fully in the open, free-standing yet within
> also by its sympathetic vibration acts somewhat as sounding board.
>
>
> their wind-flow characteristics allow superior pipe voicing. Wind
> pressure will be low. Correct pipe voicing will produce articulate
> and well-rounded speech.
>
> The movement of the valve beneath each key-channel will be controlled
> by tracker action, that is, by direct mechanical linkage between key and
> pipe valve.
And one more thing that Schweitzer said that I forgot to mention. He
also said to test an organ, 'the best and sole' standard was its fitness
for playing JS Bach's music. A man after my own heart.
tom
----------