QUOTE (Philip J Wells @ Apr 6 2010, 10:27 AM)

I see the author notes that Vann "played the cathedral organ only infrequently and had a poor opinion of its quality".
I have never heard the Peterborough organ in the flesh, and whilst the case is admired this is the first time I have seen a criticism about the organ generally. Is Vann out of step here or did he prefer the more muddier sounds that were fashionable pre 1954?
PJW
I have never heard him say that even when I was a chorister. He used to bemoan the fact that it was sharp (compared to concert pitch) and so he obtained a 'chamber organ' for use with orchestras (this has long since been replaced). A past Precentor used to love to hear Stanley play and accompany the psalms. He used to find effects on the organ other people did not, especially when improvising.
Before the 1980/1 rebuild the few pistons could not adjusted (save for ONE on each department) although the tuner could do so. If Stanley played for a service (and I was with him once or twice when he did) he would go through the pistons to check what as on them as he was unfamiliar with them once they had been made more 'spiky' by my organ teacher soon after his arrival as assistant.
Granted the old cathedral organ had some weird stops (a 32' on the Great for example) and the old Choir dept. was of limited use but I am surprised that he reported as having had a low opinion of it. Perhaps this has come from whoever the journalist spoke to. Of course in the decade or 2 leading up to the 1st rebuild it was held together with string and chewing gum - one got the impression.