I suppose I've been playing long enough to know pretty well what I'm doing in Bach Preludes and Fugues - I suspect I picked up habits from my Novello scores - but I am more and more keen to know that what I do is sound scholastically and although I listen carefully to different interpretations by downloading to my ipod, I wonder what there is in print these days that points in the right direction. Is it Peter Williams' book that I want, or is there something else out there?

Dear Martin,

At the point we are now, that is, mid-2010, I think an interesting
way to question Bach's registration would be a tour in Saxe and Thuringia,
plus the Brandenburg (because of the Joachim Wagner organs) with your
pile of music scores.
And play the organs, the village's ones included: the Trosts, the Wagners,
but also the others, less well-known ones.
(I suggested just that to some belgian organists, the result was a change
in their practice. I already wrote here about that matter, but nothing can replace
one's own discoveries).
And finally, to make your own religion with it.

Pierre

If there was a "right direction" we might as well all give up and hand over to a computer. Surely the essence of artistic performance is that you bring something of your own character to the work and show your interpretation of the notes on the page?
JC

A starting point (not prescription) is the section Hints on the Registration of Bach, his Contemporaries, and his Immediate Predecessors from Peter Hurford's book Making Music on the Organ (OUP 1988). A footnote in the Hurford says, "See 'Registration, general rules of' in [Peter] Williams, The European Organ (1450-1850) (Batsford 1966)."

For a while I've been thinking of starting a thread about "independent" pedal departments. When I began to learn the organ in the 1970s I had no access to any instrument where an independent pedal was possible; it is still relatively rare for me to be in the presence of a Pedal Mixture. How important for, say, a Bach Prelude and Fugue would Hurford and Williams (I don't have the books you mention) and people here think a Pedal Mixture is? I've noticed that our hosts and many other "enlightened" builders from all parts of the world rarely include them on small or medium-sized organs.

Ah, the Pedal Mixture Mantra !

Some hints:

-The independant Pedal Mixtures were a northern feature.
In the area where Bach lived 90% of his lifetime, save in the biggest
Silbermanns (the little Silbermann had often just a few stops, 16-8 flues + 16 reed),
there were either no Pedal Mixture, or it was borrowed from the great (this is
the case with Scheibe and Trost).

As an example, here is the Specifications of the Pedal in the Leipzig Scheibe
organ Bach praised so much:

PEDAL

Gross Principal-Bass 16' (Borrowed from HPTW)
Gross Quinta-Tön-bass 16'(HPTW)
Sub-bass 16'
Octav-bass 8' (HPTW)
Jubal-Bass 8'
Nacht-Horn-Bass 8'
Gross-Hell-Quintbass 6'
Octav Bass 4' (HPTW)
Quint-Bass 3' (HPTW)
Octav-Bass 2'
Holl-Flöten-Bass 1'
Mixtur-Bass 6r (HPTW)
Posaunen-Bass 16'
Trompeten-Bass 8'

It is interesting to note we have here the "new style" Pedal, with a bias towards
deep tones, and the "old style" as well (Cantus firmus, also with high-pitched stops),
togheter. As Bach belonged to both styles, we may suppose this scheme might
be interesting...)

Pierre

=============================


Hardly a bias towards deep tones, with but a single independent 16ft flue and probably a quite full-toned Posaune at 16ft.

The rest of the stops are either unison from 8ft to 1ft, with a 2.2/3 ft Quint and then a 6 rank Mixtur.

There are distinct limits as to how much deep sonority can be obtained from low pressure pipes, without increasing the scale so much that the pipes are slow to speak.

In the "North," Schnitger had used 24ft quints and 10.2/3 Quints to great effect, and I doubt that anyone would accuse the Martinikerk, Groningen, neo-Schnitger of lacking bass.

Just what evidence is there that Bach preferred this or that sound for his OWN music?

Approval is not some sort of annunciation, and there are lots of organs I approve of for different reasons. It doesn't mean that I would necessarily like playing Bach on a Skinner, a Wurlitzer or an Arthur Harrison instrument; yet I approve of them as variants on an original theme, and for quite different kinds of music.

Bach was reasonably well-travelled considering the problems of mobility. He went north, he obviously knew Thurnigia and he went to the Czech region at least once.

Unofrtunately, whilst there are a very few manual change directions in Bach's music, there is no indication of what constituted "correct" registration, so far as I know, and this was typical of the day. The performer was part of the musical recipe, and it was only in the 19th century that the composer assumed a greater degree of control over the precise sounds required.

Surely the whole point of contrapuntal music is the concept of "concerted" musical dialogue, which is why so many of the "northern" instruments are so good for Bach. It is also true that much of Bach's music works perfectly well on a pedal harpsichord, a decent synthesiser, a piano, and, of course, an organ. It is perfectly possible to play Bach extremely musically on a Wurlitzer, using what may seem like bizzare combinations. So I have to suggest that any sort of historical or stylistic straight-jacket may well be counter productive and possibly inartistic, because once the performer is compelled to do this or that, we take the music out of one era and place it in another.

MM

"So I have to suggest that any sort of historical or stylistic straight-jacket may well be counter productive and possibly inartistic, because once the performer is compelled to do this or that, we take the music out of one era and place it in another."
(Quote)

What I understand from this:

1)- It is uninteresting to study the organs Bach actually played;

2)- The organs Bach played were not the "good" ones, because we think
he belonged to another era and place than his own one. Which one ?
We decide.

Am I wrong ?

Pierre

THE REGISTRATION OF J.S.BACH'S ORGAN WORKS - Queentin Faulkner (Wayne Leupold Editions) - a good collection of primary sourced material though at £50 plus it is not cheap!

Allegro Music in Worcestershire can get it.

A

Would Alfred Brendel choose to play Beethoven on a piano with the sound of one from 1800, or would he choose the best sounding instrument available in 2010?

Surely there is a difference between understanding how the music sounded to the composer and imitating that sound?
JC

The essence, yes, but the be-all and end-all, most certainly not. I'm sorry, but, intentionally or not, what I'm picking up here is an implication that the dots on the page contain all there is to say about a musical composition and form a template for an "artist" to invent his/her own creation. I have argued before that this sort of approach, while producing results that may be very musical on their own terms and even highly enjoyable, have precious little to do with the compositions they purport to present and are an insult to the composer. It is obvious that this is of no consequence whatever to many, but I'm afraid it is to me.

For me a truly artistic performance is one that has the stamp of individuality (surely there always was and is room for this) while at the same time respecting the composer's wishes with as honest an approximation as feasible. There is actually more to this than a slavish adherence to period registration, which, depending on the acoustical circumstances to hand, may actually need to be ignored, or historical fingering/footing. Projecting a piece of Bach, or any other early music, is a more complex issue than just a question of period practice and I wonder whether even the HIP fans (in early music at large) have really begun to address the issues properly. I know I haven't, but one does one's best according to one's understanding.

On the question of Baroque registration, I did once read, maybe around ten years ago now, that Andrew Benson-Wilson had produced a little booklet summarising the then current knowledge, which was obtainable from him personally for a very reasonable price. I'm ashamed to say I never got around to getting a copy, but if you can trace him it might be worth asking whether this is still obtainable.

.

1)- What means "best" ?

2)- So we should know how it sounded, an then do whatever ?

The end result can only be: all electronic.

Nein, Danke !

Pierre

========================


Now this is the perfect example of interpretation and artistic licence. I write one thing, and someone else thinks it means something completely different to that intended.

The more serious question musically, is to ask WHY Bach's music translates so well to such a wide variety of instruments, and indeed, to such a wide variety of organs.

I like to hear historically informed performances, even on "wrong" instruments in the Netherlands, but I am equally happy to listen to Straube editions, Stokowski transcriptions, Ton Koopman doing what Ton Koopman does best and Bach played on the old "Moog" synthesiser by Wendy Carlos.

To ask another question, WHY does Bach work better on a Father Willis organ, than Herbert Howells, (God forbid), works on a Trost or Silbermann instrument?

I have said this before, but Bach was the dullest of innovators. He did absolutely nothing new at all, and this is exactly why his music was considered "old hat," "academic" and "dusty" by the early classical composers and the younger generation.

I think, (hope) that John Carter would agree with me when I suggest that the interpretation of Bach is as important as the written notes, because the whole ethos of baroque musical performance relies on certain well-known practices which few saw need to write down and codify. Musicians were craft-trained rather than academically trained; often working as apprentices and copyists before going on to more ambitious things. Some may have started as boy choristers, and worked their way through the system, just as many of the "old school" cathedral organists did in the UK.

How informed is "historically informed?"

It doesn't begin to compare with being there, at the right time and in the right place; knowing how the master thought, breathed and what type of tobacco he liked to smoke in his pipe.

All we have are reports from the likes of Mattheson and C P E Bach, for example, as well as the various treatise on ornamentation from other regional "schools."

You can read all these as an "academic" study, but let us not delude ourselves, because they are not the same as being there and "breathing the ether."

So it comes down to one thing.......interpretation within the context of contemporary thoughts, expectations and beliefs, which may be affected by the type of instruments we play or are confronted with.

So in a way, as a musical experience, what Stokowski or Straube did to Bach, were every bit as valid as what the current crop of "historically informed" performers do to-day, and in the process of doing what they did, they open our eyes and ears to new things. I forgot who mentioned it, but even the inner parts and counter-subjects in Bach are often so beautiful and lyrical, it is worth hearing them soloed out from time to time. That may be contrary to the ethic of concerted-music, but it's awfully interesting, if a little on the expressionist side of things.

Each age has its musical heroes and villains, and it is reassuring to know that Bach was seen as the latter towards the end of his life.

MM

==========================

A past "friend," (the American one), had a Longman & Brodrip square piano. I tried Beethoven on it and it sounded bloody awful!

Out of curiosity and under the heading of "Oh! That's interesting," I have a couple of volumes of Beethoven piano transcriptions of the Symphonies dating from 1840 or so, published in lithograph form by Cox. (They're probaby valuable).

I should learn them, dig out a square-piano and supply schnaps....I'm sure I could fill a small room.

MM

================================


Don't worry Pierre, similar arguments rage about Shakespeare. There's nothing more comical than a group of "luvvies" scratching each other's eyes out over a single word.

"It's Coriola®nus, not Coriola(y)nus," I'm telling you.

"Yes dear, and the difference is what you're talking out of"

"Bitch!"

MM

Kein Problem, MM, any contradictions & discussions are welcome !

"The more serious question musically, is to ask WHY Bach's music translates so well to such a wide variety of instruments, and indeed, to such a wide variety of organs."
(Quote)

My two Cents: Besides the huge value of the music itself, which will percolate
through any instrumental means because of its quality:

-The central and southern german baroque organs became the models to be followed towards
the end of the 18th century. It "took the north over", and became the basis upon which
the romantic organ evolved. (Central: Jehmlich, Ladegast, Schulze... Southern: Walcker).

-And as all romantic organs worldwide were deeply influenced by this german development
(Where do you think Cavaillé-Coll's "Viole de Gambe" came from ?), it is not surprising
Bach's music can cope with them, and, to a certain degree, what followed, though I personnaly
believe the neo-baroque organs do not fit that music.

Here is an interesting example of how Bach goes upon an early Walcker organ,
that is, like a hand in a glove -up to tierce Mixture-:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0fNVvtnpk

.....It is interesting to compare that with a crude, "village" thuringian organ (built byVolkland):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV8qfMJew1I

.....As for the "romantic foundation stops", here are authentic baroque ones to be heard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovFjxHj7PxE...feature=related

Sorry, but this is genuine "Bach sound", and it is still available....

As for why Bach "goes better" on a romantic organ than Howells on a Trost, the half of the question
is answered above, while it is evident it is easier to leave a swell pedal and a Crescendo Pedal
alone than to have to imitate them with mechanical, heavy stop handles....

Pierre

Would Alfred Brendel choose to play Beethoven on a piano with the sound of one from 1800, or would he choose the best sounding instrument available in 2010?

[/quote]
And would his choice be the right one?

The aim of modern piano builders is to make an instrument in which there is a single steady gradation of tone from the bottom to the top, whereas early pianos often had three distinct regions, and composers exploited those differences.

As for Bach, there are some instruments (and not just organs) from which the separate contrapuntal lines can be heard clearly and distinctly, and others which simply produce a blur of sound.

I agree completely MM.

I am certainly not implying that one should throw the composer's intentions out of the window.

I am not a composer, never will be, but throughout my life I have led creative projects. Others have come along and, while working with my original plan, have incorporated extra elements that I had not considered, improving the end result. I'm not insulted, I'm delighted.

It is that synergy of creator and interpreter that brings out something special in a piece of work and we should never stop looking for something extra, even after 250 years.
JC

==============================

This is interesting, and also has implications for ALL music.

Bach's music contains few performing indications....there were accepted ways of doing things, and he would have expected them to be utilised.

Invert the argument slightly, and consider the following.

When I pick up a piece of music I haven't learned, I do what Julian Bream said he did. I just ramble through it to get some idea of how it might sound and how much work it needs.

At that point, I NEVER look at tempi, gradiations, registration markings or anything else.....I just play through it as best I
can. The interesting thing is, the actual notes, the pattern of figurations, the style of writing, (all combined with previous knowledge of the repertoire), tell me far more than all the markings ever could do. A musician can do this, because they understand almost instinctively what creates what, and why things are written the way they are.

What often amazes me, is how right that instinct often is as time goes by, when more particular attention is paid to the composer's intentions.

That's what we need to have: knowledge of how things should be or are likely to be, which of course, the baroque performers of the day would have known.

It was only people like Lully who pounded a big stick on the floor, and where is he on the list of composers?

Music is not about conformity to this or that dictate of fashionable scholarship, but as John says, a synergy between composer and performer. That is the only thng which makes musical art a living, exciting entity.

MM

We've gone off track a little, and the question as posed is important enough to answer.

I think we should give this some thought.

MM

So weit, so gut; here is the Specifications of an organ
which works extremely well in Bach's P&Fs with only 30 stops:

http://www.die-orgelseite.de/disp/D_Angermuende_StMarien.htm

There is a tierce rank in the Scharff (HPTW), while the Quinta and Tertia
of the OW can be added to the Principal chorus.

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r70-WPZrvzk

....But this registration does not tell us all: the organ presents a wide palette of alternatives
in those P&Fs. As absolutely all combinations work -you can draw blindly whatever stops and it works-,
you could try, for example, a mini-Grand jeu (Trompet+Kornett), a 8-8-4, a 8-8-4-2,
a Principal 8' + Flute 4' or a Bourdon 8' + Principal 4'...There is just enough chiff to get a fine
articulation so that all styles of playing are possible, Legato included; no "Tschack-tschack" to
be feared then.
This is one of the best organs I know for Bach -and per se-.

Pierre

===============================



Neither of them come close to this for Bach.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmHqpNQaLj8&NR=1


Now THAT'S a proper organ.


MM

I have no disagreement about the sound, it's wonderful, but why is it so fast at the start? To me, it's just a jumble of notes. My copy has the direction très vitement, but this goes too far for my taste in that acoustic.

JC

The Mixtures in Naumburg sound rather modern to my ears...

Pierre

==========================


I'm inclined to agree with this observation, but isn't the organ just wonderful?

Anyway, here's an equally surprising rendition of the infamous "Gigue" Fugue BWV577.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IABnUHOwZQ&feature=fvw

This man never ceases to confound.

MM

BACH REGISTRATION - DELETED. SEE NEW ENLARGED POST

BACH REGISTRATION - SEE LATER MODIFIED POST

I believe that on another thread, Herr Sprondel informed us that Buxtehude would have used 16ft manual stops, even when accompanying his choir, when he needed more volume, as opposed to drawing more upperwork. Perhaps this was common, too, in solo music.

When HIP people refer to playing a piece without changing registration, I think what they mean is not fiddling with the stops (much) during the piece. I don't think they mean also remaining on the same manual throughout. What are the other manuals FOR if not to bring in a contrasting colour? The point being that fiddling with the stops wouldn't have been terribly practical on the larger organs of Bach's time unless he had a registrant.

What I've never seen discussed is when the practice of having a registrant (or two) became common. Perhaps the academics on the board might pick this one up. Did organists from time immemorial recruit choirboys (who may also have been organ pupils) to draw the odd stop for them?

=================================================

No, it's much worse than you think it is Nick. There's a whole school of thought about "flatline" registrations for Bach, with many adherents who argue their corner with academic certainty and passion.

Bach never played the best organs, as his son C P E Bach stated, and if we take Arnstadt as an example, the organ wasn't very big, and the stops were set out in three, easy to grasps columns either side of the keyboard. (1 + 2 presumably!) Changes of registration would have been a very simple matter.

I'm not sure I know what the consoles were like at Weimar and Mulhausen, but I seem to recall a Bach console with vertical stops each side, and a horizontal row of stops above the organist. (Herr Sprondel may be the man who can tell us). Perhaps it wasn't a Bach console at all that I have in mind.

An interesting thing about the organ at Arnstadt, was the lack of any manual 16ft register. Nevertheless, there was a 5.1/3 Quint, which is a 16ft harmonic. Perhaps this produced a certain gravity of tone; which when coupled to a 16ft pedal, may have acted like a "Monkey Quint" or somesuch. With very few stops, the manual to pedal coupler would have been used a great deal, I suspect.

As regards registrants (or registruncles), I have never read anything which mentions them in relation to Bach, and even though they were paid for the task, they had great difficulty in recruiting choristers to man the pumps.

Everything is therefore a matter for conjecture, but knowing how things were, with the organs often in a west gallery with the choir and/or orchestra, it is quite probable that registrants would be on hand to help. That's a practice which was certainly very common when I was a chorister; organ consoles often being quite a social meeting place for the mentally deranged or musically deluded. Of course, I wasn't around in Bach's time, but you know what organists are like, and they never seem to change much.

We should also be aware of how music was taught in Bach's day. Musicians were like apprentices, and would act as copyists and general dog's bodies for much of the time.

If the master said, "Today you will change the stops for my new Fantasia & Fugue," I doubt that they would have complained or sloped off to the tavern early.

We are in the world of conjecture I'm afraid, but there is one conjecture which is a fair certainty. Imagine the dropped jaws when Bach really DID play his latest Fantasia & Fugue. What an experience THAT must have been.

MM

Well there are various Baroque styles, not all of them necessarily involving contrapuntal dialogue. It is there in fugues, but there the rapport between the instruments is one of equals, as it was in Renaissance counterpoint (of which this after all is an evolution). The (relatively) monochrome nature of the harpsichord and clavichord is accepted readily enough.

QUOTE

Bach went to Lubeck for a reason, and stayed there for some time; no doubt intrigued by the music he heard and the prevalent "Stilus Fantasticus" of Buxtehude, heard at the Abendmusic concerts.

But of course Bach would already have been well acquainted with the stylus phantasticus from hearing (studying with?) Böhm in Lüneburg. We tend to think that Bach's youthful trips to hear Reinken and Buxtehude were undertaken specifically to further his organ experiences. No doubt this was part of it, but it not likely to be the whole story. We take Bach's career for granted, but the young Bach may not have been at all clear about where his musical future lay. He was a particularly bright lad and knew it. Did he aim to spend his life as a mere organist or cantor, or did he have grander ambitions? Like Elgar, Bach was a self-taught composer. Opportunities to experience the full possibilities for composing ensemble music may have been difficult to obtain in Lüneburg and Arnstadt in a way that it was not for keyboard music. It is perfectly possible, even likely, that his visits to Hamburg were made in order to experience opera (which was why Handel went there). If he did, he decided to travel other roads, but his experience of opera (wherever it was obtained) was later put to good use, as the cantatas and passions show. Similarly, while Buxtehude's organ playing at Lübeck was bound to be educational, his instrumental music may well have been the bigger draw for this budding composer. He timed his visit specifically to coincide with the Abendmusik; he could have heard Buxtehude play at any time.

QUOTE

The "Dorian" Toccata & Fugue has certain indications of manual changes, but this is a more or less isolated example. However, it does prove beyond doubt that Bach approved of the practice of contrasting voices rather than a preference for monochrome registrations throughout.

Of course, as also do the chorales for two manuals (not that there was anything new about that). One should be aware, however, that in those cases where periodic manual changes are specified – the "Dorian", the concertos, Ein feste Burg, Wo Gott der Herr (assuming the directions in these are authentic) – Bach only changes manuals at very clearly demarcated ends of phrases or sections. In other words, the points of change are always properly punctuated, entirely logical and easily managed. This treatment is fundamentally different to his practice in the large fugues, where the episodes tend to merge seamlessly into the middle or final sections, thus tending to make getting back onto the main manual a rather contrived and gauche affair (getting off is mostly easy enough). Could it be that the reason getting back is never clear-cut is that Bach never intended a change in the first place?


Not so. The autograph score of BWV 596 contains specific registration directions in the first movement. One wonders why they are there. Did Bach need to remind himself of the pitch level at which he had transcribed the orchestral score? Whoever the markings were intended for, the fact they are unique amongst Bach's organ autographs could very well point to such changes being wholly exceptional, prompted by the orchestral texture that Bach was transcribing.* The addition of the 32' Subbass and left hand 8' certainly marks the point at which the orchestral texture changes. Unfortunately so few of Bach's organ autographs survive that one can do no more than ask the question and suggest that this instance provides no reason to think that such changes were routine.

As I have pointed out before, the use of the manuals is very clearly signalled throughout the D minor concerto, even if only by differentiated dynamics ("f" versus "p"). The one exception is the fugue, which has no markings at all, either for changes of manuals or registration. Given that the rest of the concerto is so conscientiously marked, why not? One might argue about whether or not the "organo pleno" registration for the link passage still obtains, but it does seem that this fugue at least is to be played on one sound throughout.

Incidentally, the pedal opens with an 8' Principal. Is the later addition of the 32' one of Bach's eyebrow-raising registrations which we should take at face value, or should we take the addition also of a 16' for granted?


Renaissance-style counterpoint in which all the "voices" are of equal importance does sound odd to my ears with a 16 ft pedal since the suboctave tone destroys the parity of the voices (assuming an 8' pitch for the manuals). But, if Bach was (one of) the first to use the Pedal as a suboctave division, where does this leave the Werkprinzip? I always thought that one of its aims was to provide clear octave distinctions between the various divisions (or is this a neo-Baroque misunderstanding?)

* There is one other comparable moment, but not in an autograph. If, as generally accepted, the concerto transcriptions were written for the Weimar Castle organ, the organo pleno direction in the first movement of the A minor concerto must indicate a change of stops since it clearly means something different from the directions "Oberwerk" and "Rückpositiv" and the instrument only had two manuals. However, it is not clear how authoritative these directions are since the secondary manual on the Weimar organ was apparently not a Rückpositiv: the pipes for the Unterclavier were below those of the Oberclavier – though Peter Williams does wonder how room was found for this arrangement.

Oh, that's easy. Because we think it does. It really is as simple as that.

It all depends on what you've conditioned yourself to accept. It's a perfectly conscious thing and can be controlled at will. I have conditioned myself to accept or reject certain performance practices, but I know from experience that reconditioning myself to accept alternatives is perfectly easy. I've done it lots of times. All I need is a good reason. If someone could come up with convincing evidence for playing the episodes of Bach's fugues on subsidiary manuals I am quite sure I would change my whole reception of the practice, probably within hours. Similarly, the only reason people don't like Bach fugues played on one registration throughout is because they don't want to like it. No other reason.

Oh, and I've 2 CDs of Howells accompanied at New College (with some solo pieces too) and one at Queen's, Oxford. All three are superb.

That's true enough. If a performer cannot understand Bach's music in the way Bach meant it to be understood he might as well abandon any attempt and go his own way. A performance that is uncommitted to the music is not likely to be successful. That is why I dislike teachers who insist on imposing their interpretations on players. If I can't feel the logic of the interpretation from within the piece is doomed. The goal for any music should really be to understand the wider context first and develop the interpretation from there. At least, that's the way it works for me. YMMV.

The Trost organ at Waltershausen has stops above the music desk as well as to left and right. Not an organ over which JSB presided, but certainly one he is known to have played.

"if Bach was (one of) the first to use the Pedal as a suboctave division, where does this leave the Werkprinzip? I always thought that one of its aims was to provide clear octave distinctions between the various divisions (or is this a neo-Baroque misunderstanding?)"
(Quote)

The organ evolved incredibly fast precisely during Bach's career, and precisely in his area; to the point
the central german organ took over the leadership in tonal design upon the north afterwards.
The Pedal went from one role to another: the "Cantus firmus Pedal", with high-pitched soloists, was
replaced by a "Bass Pedal", with less high-pitched stops and more deep-pitched ones.
As for the Werkprinzip, as I already wrote, this was completely foreign to the organs
Bach played. The organs built in his area during his time did not even have a Rückpositiv
save if there were a previous case to be re-used, while the Pedal division was at the back...

Pierre

Yes, Pierre, I know - but the question is what was the practice of those earlier organists who did preside at Werkprinzip organs.

In any case, one could argue that it was not completely foreign to him, since he would have had experience of Werkprinzip organs in Lüneburg (though Böhm did not get his pedal towers at the Johanniskirche until 1712-14) and his sights were set northwards during these years, with several visits to Reinken (there is also the later one to Buxtehude and as late as 1720 Bach was interested enough to apply for a Hamburg job). His independent pedal writing, matched only by the northern composers, surely owes everything to their organs.

So weit, so gut.

Let us then see the Specifications of the Lüneburg organ when
Bach knew it:

RÜCKPOSITIV,
Principal 8'
Quintaden 8'
Octave 4'
Hohlflöte 4'
Sieflöte 1'
Sesquialtera
Mixtur
Scharff
Regal 8'
Baarfeiffe 8'
Schalmey 4'

WERCK,
Principal 16'
Octave 8'
Octave 4'
Nachthorn 2' (basse)
Mixtur
Scharff
Trommette 8' (basse)
Cornette 2' (basse)

OBERWERCK,
Principal 8'
Hohlflöte 8'
Octave 4'
Nasat 3'
Superoctave 2'
Cymbel
Trommette 8'

PEDAL

Untersatz 16' (not full compass...)

The Pedal was permanently coupled to the Werck by pull downs.

Independent, "Werkprinzipisierter Pedal " ?

Ach, so !!!

(As you said, Böhm had a new Pedal division built.....After Bach's time there)

Now another point.
It seems the "modern late-Baroque Pedal" does indeed not always work
for Bach.

Here is a Video from Altenburg which might be interesting to illustrate the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQgeCq0QhE

....Here, we have a slight problem, oder ?

But here, the Pedal is piccobello to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ2pZgMSMUI...feature=related


Pierre

==================================


Yes, and another interesting thing about the Schnitger at Hamburg. I'm not sure if I can re-discover the reference/source, but wasn't the full pleno spread across two manuals, thus requiring coupling?

I wonder if Pierre knows something about this?

If not, we'll have to dig around a bit, because it is interesting, and rather upsets the idea of "completely independent choruses" in the Werkprinzip layout.

The trouble is, my dears, we are all victims conditioned by a certain amount of false scholarship in the 1950's and 60's.

MM

========================


I found myself laughing all the way to bathroom!

Meantone Herbert Howells.....whoooop! How DO you condition your mind to that, I wonder?

More seriously, changing manuals in Bach Fugues is done to great effect by many, and I always find myself coming back to Chapuis for a good dose of this.

It certainly never sounds contrived to me.

One of my "finals" pieces was the P & F in B Minor, and getting back onto the Great (Haoutwerk) manual couldn't be easier or more convincing as the re-entries queue up one after the other, starting in the LH. The same is true of the F & F in G minor, where the pedal entry fairly thunders in with the theme.

Since I did "almost" study harpsichord at some point, I wouldn't say that they are 'monochrome' when there are buff stops and such. Of course, the German harpsichord was never as advanced as its French counterparts, but even so, they were not entirely monochrome.

My former American academic partner had a Clavichord. I found that I hated the clavichord; not because it was monochrome, (which it wasn't), but because I found it impossible to play!

Dynamic changes are possible on a clavichord, in degrees of pp/ppp/pppp and just plain inaudible, and of course, it is possible to introduce vibrato. Horrible instruments that they are, the only advantage is that it is possible to practice Beethoven at 3am without disturbing the neighbours.

Going back to the manual change thing, what about the echoes in the BWV565 T & F?

I always think that people phrase them all wrong, whether or not they use contrasting manuals, because the fugal theme starts OFF the beat, and when the echoes are played four-square ON the beat, they just sound plain odd; yet everyone does it.

It's far better to start the echo (or phrasing) a note later than normal!!


I'm all fired up now, so I shall just nip upstairs, find a Howells Rhapsody and nip over on the next plane to have a shot at it on the old choir-organ at Alkmaar.

MM

Both Jane Parker-Smith and Nicolas Kynaston have recorded the BWV 565 with the echoes played in this manner. I acquired both recordings during my teens, was struck immediately with the musicality and logic doing things this way, and resolved to do the same when I reached the stage when I could play the piece myself. Some time later, when I did get round to learning BWV 565, I discussed the matter with my teacher. His response was something along the lines of 'Oh yes, I see what you mean. It's obvious when you think about it. I wonder why no-one's done it before.'

See here for the Hamburg organ:

http://www.arpschnitger.nl/shamb.html

The organ has four manuals, with three "Postivs", among which
there is actually one tonal structure splitted between two manuals.
Schnitger took ancient material over from a previous organ, which had
already four manuals.
(The "Hinterwerk" was already known at that time, by the way...)


Pierre

Simple: like I said, you just have to believe that it works.

Actually, NC is variant of Thomas Young. I have never noticed any temperament issues. If I now find you have ruined my enjoyment of these CDs I shall sue.


Well it wouldn't. See my previous comments!


If, as I assume, you're talking about the LH entry at bar 59 then I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more strongly. There is nothing logical about a manual change here and it actually ruins the musical argument. The musically important event here is not the re-entry of the LH theme, but the introduction at the same time of a new countersubject entering in the treble on a top B, which is then taken over a couple of bars later by the pedal and continues in use to the end of the piece. This new component in the musical discourse needs to be centre stage when it first appears, not buried in the background of a subsidiary manual while the player "brings out" the theme on the Hauptwerk. Changing manuals in both hands here isn't an option either since it disrupts the line of the middle part and acts as a brick wall in the flow of the musical argument.


I first heard them done this way back in the 60s. I think you can make an argument for doing them either way.

Going back for a moment to the northern organ, I sometimes feel disconfortable
with the way they are registred today, and found an example here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md2qlTxG2ng&NR=1

....Though this is a superb organ, beautifully played, I am convinced that
Sesquialter or Terzian was never intended to be used that way. Or Schnitger
was going deaf like Beethoven...


Pierre

I've wondered why so many people (not all, admittedly) do that, too; it just seems so obvious that the phasing should match the theme.

Paul

I cannot possibly remember where I saw it, but I have certainly at some point seen some bowing marks in Bach that led me to think that, if he ever played BWV 565 (which he probably didn't! ), then he is quite likely to have phrased the echos off the beat. I don't think it has anything to do with matching the fugue subject though. That has three anacrusic notes, whereas, if you phrase the echos off the beat, the only strong note is the last one of each phrase - quite different (at least the way I see it).

The advantage of phrasing on the beat is that it preserves the rhythmic pulse of the piece better. In my experience, the off-beat interpretation is apt to displace the accents by a semiquaver. But yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

================================


Actually a quite interesting and apt observation, and with which I find myself in agreement and opposition at the same time.

I played it my way at Armley, with the Schulze terraced dynamics, and it died a death at that point: the Great so utterly dominant.

However, I did much the same thing when I was given free reign of the Bavo Orgel, Haarlem, and the RH was then on the very punchy Rugwerk. The effect was electrifying, because what you got was not a change of volume, but a change of timbre, with the 16ft Principal added to the Hoofdwerk and my host also drawing out at least one of the pedal reeds. (I forget at what pitch, but it worked). So the new countersubject actually took centre stage, as you rightly suggest, but with the most magnificent underpin as the fugue subject entered on the terzchor of the Hoofdwerk.

It's all a question of how the tonalities of these old organs work, which even to-day, very few (if any) British organs can begin to match on equal terms.

MM

================================


Anacrusic......that's a good word. I shall have to look it up. I haven't a clue what it means in my ignorance. But for the letter 's', it could be an anabaptist on a Good Friday procession.



MM

===================================


I can't bring to mind the exact quote by the late Stephen Bicknell, but I seem to recall him saying that Schnitger voiced the same way wherever he built an organ.

If it was a big church, fine. If it was a small church, tough!

In another article, he wrote something on the lines of, "You only have to go to Hamburg to know that Arp Schnitger wasn't afraid of creating a big sound."

I expect that with a full church, it will all mellow a little.

MM

"I played it my way at Armley"
(Quote)

Aaaargh !

Pierre