Almost free Chamber organ for Hauptwerk

[zurek]

Dear Hauptwerk users,
while waiting for the giant Schnitger virtual instrument from the workshop of Sonus Paradisi (it will take perhaps 6-10 weeks to finish it, I have just completed the first division - Brustwerk but I strongly hope that it will be finished by Christmass) I would like to entertain you with a small charming virtual instrument. This time, I have prepared a small positiv organ by Daniel Prib (contemporary Prague organbuilder). It was sampled twice: dry (close-up, mono) and wet (ambiental). You can download freely both sample sets in one package from my web pages to test it. If you like it, I ask you to make your contribution for the further development of our project. The dry version will be extremely good for live performance (as a continuo for choirs and other music consorts) while the wet version will please your ears when hearing with headphones in private.
Since Daniel Prib is our good friend, we made an interesting experiment when our Hauptwerk model was ready. We put the original instrument on one side and the dry sample set in a Hauptwerk setup (using Viscount speakers present there) on the other side into same chapel and we listened to the performance of both the instruments. The timbre of the sound was very similar in the overall scale, but the original instrument was still somewhat more "lively" in the 8' Bourdon. When playing some kind of plenum, then the sound of the virtual and real instrument was quite undistinguishable. That was very pleasant surprise for me.

The information about the sample sets is to be found on the Hauptwerk.cz web pages.

Could perhaps someone provide nice live performance demos for my web page, please?

[adri]

I must have missed something: which giant Schnitger organ are we talking about here?

[hschoof]

Hi Adri
I think that must be the St Michaels kerk in Zwolle, I think there was some discussion about that before under an other topic.

Regard

[Anton Heger]

Hello Jiri,

Will the Zwolle sample set be a wet strereo or a dry mono one, or both?
Can you provide some details?

Anton

[adri]

Yes, now I remember very well; my brain was still half-dead early this morning when I posted that. Sorry about that.

I also strongly recall that I posted my deep dismay over the choice of this not terribly authentic sounding instrument, which is in dire need of a good restoration. They are gathering funds for that right now. Many have agreed with me on this dismay, also by private emails. No need to rehash.

I am especially concerned on the mistaken idea that bigger is better. Zwolle is big, not better.

For example (just one example)
A delightful CD came out recently with small Swedish organs, and only once was the full organ sound of one of the 7 organs used, while all the other selections featured individual and small ensemble stop combinations.

The CD: 7 Organs: Seven historical organs in Sweden played by Naoko Imai



In Holland we have a saying: "Wie het kleine niet eert, is het grote niet weerd". Freely translated as : If you cannot honor/appreciate the small things (in life), you are not worthy of the larger things (in life).

This is how I feel about organs: quality over quantity. Once you have quality first, then you will also have quality-centered quantity.

I know very well that to play the larger organ works, you need larger resources. But many of us also play the delightful littler works, which are charming, musical, gems, inspiring, fun, etc.

[zurek]

To Anton:
The Zwolle Schnitger instrument will be both, ambiental (this is however going to be surprise) and dry. Also because of this it is terrible amount of work.

Regarding Adri never ending comments:
few people agreed with the purist Adri, many people disagreed with him. I do not think this is the right place to open the dispute again, but I personally strongly disagree with Adri after spending endless hours at the instrument. It is absolutely unfair to say the the instrument is "not terribly authentic sounding". However, I do not want to open this issue, it is enough to read the earlier thread in this forum about this matter to see the variety of opinions.
Rather, I would summarize in simple words the purpose of Sonus Paradisi for those who appear to be a little slow to understand. Our goal is to document the sound of historically significant instruments for future (we know that restorations always alter the sound): In 30 or more years from now our children will criticise our present purist restorations for not being authentic enough in the same manner as we (together with Adri) criticise those who were restoring the instruments 50 years ago. Thanks to Sonus Paradisi, our children will have at that time the archival recordings of how the instrument sounded before our restoration. This was the main reason why we went to Zwolle, the authorities expressly wanted that the current state of the instrument is documented for future.


And well, Adri, if I did not love the delightfull authentic organ sound of historical gems, I would never record Doksy-Kruh or Hruby Rohozecand similar instruments. In fact, Hruby Rohozec is my most beloved instrument. If you try them, I am sure you will fall in love with them as I did. And now, also newly built instruments are charming. Just try the now released model ofDaniel Pribchamber organ...

[[)Naeryl(]]

I totally agree with Jiri's choice of the Zwolle Schnitger organ, for the archival purpose of course, and simply as an Hauptwerk user wich want to play an excellent great baroque organ.

Plenty of "little gems" are already available (and even at the price of cathedral's organ if necessary) of many different style from XVIth century to today, and they will probably be mountains of others, so don't worry, Adri!

So, I could only say about this project: great new!!!!

[jocr]

I have prepared a small positiv organ by Daniel Prib (contemporary Prague organbuilder). It was sampled twice: dry (close-up, mono) and wet (ambiental). You can download freely both sample sets in one package from my web pages to test it. If you like it, I ask you to make your contribution for the further development of our project. The dry version will be extremely good for live performance (as a continuo for choirs and other music consorts) while the wet version will please your ears when hearing with headphones in private....

The information about the sample sets is to be found on the Hauptwerk.cz web pages.

Could perhaps someone provide nice live performance demos for my web page, please?

Just got my HW3 version working. Same piece, Kellner Temperament, +4dB with the wet set, different registration:

8' + 4 +2 +1 1/3' -4 -1 1/3 -2 +Mix +2 -4 -Mix

http://www.phantorg.net/hw3demos/walt_jmf_hw3.mp3


Some revised non-live demos here:

http://www.phantorg.net/mp3/jmfdemo.mp3 Dry

and

http://www.phantorg.net/mp3/jmfdemo_130.mp3

artificially wet, both using HW1 on a P3 with W98 and 768KB memory (2.25 MB each).

The output volume was 25%. I made a few divisional combinations to do the demo, but had been battling a mysterious cipher, now fixed by Jiri and available from the above URL as a patch for the HW1 version only. Here are the stops as they are used, from bottom left (excluding the Cancel) and the first three in the top row (in other words, all the 8-foot based combinations). The last chord contains the last combination (8 + II).



James Pressler

[Anton Heger]

It has been proven again: an organ don't need to be authentic or old-and-interesting to get a lovely and magnificient sample set of it.
You should download, try and you will agree...

[adri]

Jiri wrote:

few people agreed with the purist Adri

1. So? That cannot be a good argument. And actually, this is not true at all, as I received private emails from people agreeing with me. How many people who agreed with you really know Zwolle? One person who lives near Zwolle agreed with me. So, let's not fall into this argument of who agrees and who disagrees. That's not the issue here.

2. Purist? Not true either: I respect the history of instruments and do not propose rigorous reconstructions that are utterly questionable. That era is, thank God, over. But generally, all Dutchmen agree that the 1950s restorations by Flentrop and others of organs in Holland really need to be undone to the best of our abilities, as they did indeed destroy the original essence of the organs. Fundamental mistakes were made.

You cannot turn a baroque organ into a modern organ, it becomes neither fish nor fowl. That it is the current situation. Some may like the results, but personally, I don't. And you can hear that. The trick is to make these instruments make real musical and coherent and unified sense again. I agree that this is not an easy task. But I believe that good work can be done and must be done to that instrument.

In Noordwolde, e.g., they were very careful in how to restore the organ that still had an old 17th C. sound, but had been rebuilt in the early 19th C.; they only reconstructed one missing stop. But the organ is absolutely fantastic now; because of careful work done. No, it doesn't sound like it used to be in the 17th C., as nobody knows anyway, and I am not proposing any attempts to try to make that happen.

I am a purist only in the sense that I think an organ should make musical sense and need individual case by case approach. I think that this is not a purist approach by the old definition. Purist only in the sense of making it all work as well as possible. Informed common sense.

E.g. The organ in Haarlem is a wonderful instrument, but many people also know it's not a real baroque sound anymore. And they still dream to have that instrument brought back to a much greater glimpse of its former glory.

A friend of mine is organist in Groningen's Nieuwe Kerk, where there is a large 3-man. Timpe organ. It was poorly restored in the late 1960s. The organist pointed out all the mistakes the restorer had made, and he is making efforts to have these errors undone, to improve the sound. That's not being purist, that's common sense. An original builder does something in one way, which works best, and changes makes a organ function less than perfect, and such errors need to be corrected.

Some restorers have made the following errors:
-changed wind pressure,
-altered voicing,
-changed cut ups,
-altered pipe lenghts,
-altered original pitch,
-changed reed resonator lengths
-changed windsupply canals and bellows
-added modern anti-leaking devices to windchests (and made them too perfect)
-changed key mechanisms
-changed actions from e.g. suspended to balance (e.g. Haarlem, Amsterdam Waalse Kerk)
-Removed valuable stops
-Changed mixture compositions
-etc.

Needless to say, a good restoration job has to undo these errors as much as possible and bring the organ back to its original musical vitality as much as possible.

Enough said. If this concern makes me a purist, I wear that badge with pride. But I think I am being very sensible, and speak from many years of listening to, playing on, and studying about old organs.

Sorry if I sound a bit feisty here, but I want to be understood for the right reasons.

[Grant_Youngman]

Sorry if I sound a bit feisty here, but I want to be understood for the right reasons.

Sorry if I sound feisty, but it seems to me this entire discussion should be taken off line. Jiri explained why he was sampling the instrument. Personally, I'm looking forward to the result.

Those who sample, sample what they do for a host of reasons. Not all of them having to do with purity of thought or sound or historical perfection. Why question the rationale, when it has been explained?

As I said before, if there are historically "correct" instruments worth of sampling, then perhaps those of you who wish to see them sampled, should play some role in getting the permissions and assist in getting things set up instead of simply grumbling.

[adri]

As I said before, if there are historically "correct" instruments worth of sampling, then perhaps those of you who wish to see them sampled, should play some role in getting the permissions and assist in getting things set up instead of simply grumbling.

Well, to tell you the truth, I have been involved behind the scenes to try to get permissions. If you read my points carefully, I was basically reacting to some misconceptions some people may have about me.

....And I think it's healthy and OK to differ in opinion. Hauptwerk is for everyone. I am not grumbling. I believe I am expressing very legitimate concerns about organ sound and restorations in general.

But OK, I'll lay low for a while, as I made my points already...perhaps too clear.

No disrespect intended to anyone. Only disagreeing with some.

[CHRIS 037]

Hello adri,

I'm not qualified to really enter into this discussion, however I have been wondering. . . do you feel there would be any possibility that using HW3's voicing capabilities that one could get a sound from these organs that would make them more what you're looking for? If it's a matter of tonal balance and volume, etc. an organ can be made to seem like a completely different instrument.

While I may not be able to hear the difference now, it would be nice to know that if I ever did develop the "ear" for it, and had invested the money in the sample set, that I could make such an instrument into a superior sounding one eventually.

Thanks for your comments,

Leo Chris.

[Grant_Youngman]

well, to tell you the truth, I have been involved behind the scenes to try to get permissions. If you read my points carefully, I was basically reacting to some misconceptions some people may have about me.

I wish I had the knowledge and the possibility of influencing anyone, including my children, to do ANYTHING. As a starving amateur organist, getting St. Sulpice sampled isn't in my realm of influence :-)

....And I think it's healthy and OK to differ in opinion. ... I'll lay low for a while,

Adri, I was't suggesting that at all. We all have opinions, and everyone should express theirs. It doesn't really matter if I disagree (that's for sure!) or others, or some agree, or what the overall the poll results are. I make a conscious effort to not take umbrage with much .. and frankly I clearly don't possess the knowledge that you do to fully understand the positives and negatives of the various instruments. Everyone is entitled. Still, I suspect Zwolle has something to offer -- especially to me, since I don't know any better :-)

I'm a relative newcomer to HW. Regardless, I think we all owe a substantial debt to the people that produce our sample sets (and Martin and Co. of course, wthout whom many of us would still be playing TC-1's at home or something equally boring -- and I can't say enough positive things about that without appearing stupid). Whether for a for-profit business, or as an academic preservation exerciise (with hopefully some profit so they can eat) these folks do us all a great service. In over 50 years of stabbing at it, and having had the opportunity to play some absolutely awful instruments over the years, I have never been more grateful to be a part of the community that plays HW.

I suppose one could argue that I'm just willing to settle for what we can get our hands on, but so be it .... :-)

[GDay]

There is a terrible problem with Jiri's choice to record Zwolle; it's not a French Classic Organ, plain and simple. Zwolle, indeed many otherwise admirable organs suffer from this flaw - not their fault really. I hope that one day soon Jiri will use his considerable talent and dedication to recording another French Classic Organ, and that Adri with his considerable aurgumentative skills will persuade him to do so. 'Nuff said.

G'Day