Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:08 am
I sincerely hope that the following essay is not going to start some big controversy. Also: This is absolutely not intended to hurt anyone's feelings, even though I am incapable of doing so; that's totally up to you; how you take it/interpret it. These are just virtual "words on paper."
Yes, I do speak my mind, I can be outspoken at times, but I am free to say what I feel like saying.
So here goes:
If you truly want to play music from all periods and regions as authentic as possible, such ability can never be determined by the number of stops you gather from different instruments. In that sense, such large 200 stop organs strike me as utter folly.
For example, a North-German baroque organ as by Arp Schnitger is constructed completely differently than let’s say a French Cavaille-Coll organ. The metal alloys, the way the pipes are made, their scaling, the languids, the wind pressure, the type of wind and wind delivery (canalization), the scale and physical layout of the windchests, the type of action, the mixture compositions, the types of reeds, etc.; all these factors are widely different between organs of different periods and regions.
Yes, with expert revoicing (you have be as good as a real organ pipe voicer), perhaps you can bring some harmony between all the different sounds, but I remain 100% convinced that these compromise organs that supposedly can do everything well you throw at it, displays a enormous ignorance on the part of the person/player who apparently is happy with this.
Yes, there seems be a demand by organists to want to play everything on ONE organ, and such instruments are made all the time these days, but I remain musically uninspired by them. They often seem neither fish nor fowl. Why can I say this? Arrogance? Fanatic purism?
I grew in the organ garden of Europe, the province of Groningen, were we have many historical organs spanning centuries. The 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century organs all sound very different from each other, because they were made differently. My ears were exposed to them all and extremely well trained in that respect. Take the sample set of Vollenhove, for example, and it is very clear to my ears what is 17th century and what was added later by two different builders. Not a totally happy marriage.
The organ of the Martini in Groningen seems on paper a total mismatch of pipe material from the Gothic period through the 20th century, but due to careful restoration work, voicing, etc. this instrument sounds quite homogeneous. It also reveals a certain continuity on building principles from those early days through the 18th century; if this organ had let’s say 25% truly romantic stops, they wouldn’t fit in the concept. Still, the success of this instrument’s musicality is owed to the restorer and the advice of organ expert Cor Edskes. That’s why some people call this a Jurgen Ahrend organ.
Thus, homogeneity of the materials/sounds chosen for a large composite organ is tantamount, but whether you can play authentically music of all periods on it? No way. Baroque organs were altered in the 19th century and given stops like Viola di Gamba, Voix Celesta, Clarinet, etc., but would Cesar Franck suddenly go well on such an organ? Of course not. These concessions were a horrible intrusion into the musical unity of the original instrument.
I truly wish the new owner of this 200 stop monster all the musical pleasures it will afford him, but believe me, but I would rather have a smaller instrument that can keep me inspired for hours on end, that draws the musical inspiration from deep within me, having drawn only one stop, that this need for more, more, more. Less is often more.
Note: I am writing this as a matter of organ building principles: a really good organ is one that is totally homogeously built, a true musical unity, in its entire musical cohesiveness approach, and on which even the silliest piece of music sound like a masterpiece and will give you goosebumps continuously.
Also, an instrument, built in a cohesive style, let’s early 19th century, can tolerate and do musical justice to organ literature from a much wider gamut of styles and periods than a so-called modern organ with myriads of stops. For example: The small Riepp in Ottobeuren will tolerate early romantic music very well, even simpler pieces written in the later 19th century. This organ is a prime example of versatility caused by unity of style, and even the silliest of music sound like master pieces on that gem of an instrument. All stops in any combination blend very well. I cannot say the same for the Vollenhove organ.
I know that tastes differ, but I also hope that we get away from this idea that many more stops is better. How many stops you do really need before the specificaiton becomes a prime example of overkill?
Thanks.