Thoughts on programming a Crescendo ......

[NYCFarmboy]

I'm getting ready to program the Crescendo pedal/shoe on my pipe organ at home and was wondering what some good thoughts/guidelines are?

I probably will program it to be similar to how my original console controlled the 5 original ranks...the exact order that I've not yet written down but am going to attempt to do so this morning...

Is it really just simply "soft to loud stops"?..i.e. starting at the Dulciana and ending up with the reeds..then adding the couplers for the "all the way open" position?


Also: I'm guessing some stops don't really belong in the Crescendo..i.e. Vox Humana, and the Celestes should be left out? thoughts on this?

[Manum de Tabula]

Re: Thoughts on programming a Crescendo ......



The Crescendo pedal can be a good tool in limited circumstances. On a small organ it becomes a distraction when used while any pipes are sounding because the addition of the next loudest rank is very noticeable. On a large organ starting with the softest stop and adding the next loudest is not so obvious. Sometimes a rank does not blend well with other ranks, adding it with the crescendo is asking for trouble (that may be more of a voicing problem but if not, don't put that rank on the crescendo). There are also certain 'I vant to speak alone' stops which should not be added to the crescendo. As you mentioned the Vox and Celestes would be in that group. Other examples would be the chimes and other percussion stops and festival trumpet etc. designed to speak louder than the rest of the organ. Inter-manual couplers are another issue which may be best determined by the music you intend to play. My personal preference is to leave them off the crescendo sequence. There is usually a piston or toe stud available for them. The crescendo is not as easy to control as the pistons/stops/drawknobs/tablets, so if there is any stop you would not want to add accidently, don't put it on the sequence.
</p>

</p>

Of course you know what works on your insturment better than anyone, so do what you think will be most functionable, you can always change it if needed.
</p>

</p>

</p>

[soubasse32]

Re: Thoughts on programming a Crescendo ......



I typically start with all couplers on - I believe this is the most common way to do it, at least on the organs I've played.</P>


It is also logical: if you build up each division separately, then any coupling will result in a big "bang" when that division is added to the Great. The goal of the crescendo is to build as smoothly as possible.</P>


It can take a huge amount of time to program the 'perfect' sequence; I usually will use key weights to play a spread-out four or five note chord for the duration of the programming. I test each stop to find which oneis the least noticeable (based on what is already drawn). As I increase, I may opt to remove the string stops and perhaps any 4' or higher flutes. At the very end, I may add chamades and 32' stops, or not. I may also add subcouplers (since I play lots of French literature). But Irarely add supercouplers.</P>


If I have a choice of crescendo settings, I will create one that brings on the reeds before the mixtures, and another one that does just the opposite. I sometimes create a string/celeste crescendo (If I'm feeling in a Wanamaker mood [:D] ); I sometimes create a 'petite' crescendo, whichcan be useful when accompanying a choir.</P>

[davidecasteel]

Re: Thoughts on programming a Crescendo ......



Hi, all! I'm back from my cruise to Hawaii and reviewing the boards I go to.</P>


As usual, I will preface my comments by an admission that I'm not an expert and what I have to say is primarily to raise a point of discussion.</P>


In the orchestral world, it is generally acknowledged that the longest, smoothest crescendo was achieved by Ravel in his "Bolero". In that orchestration, instruments are not simply added to the mix in order of their loudness to increase the volume of sound: rather, groups of instruments are added and removed from the mix throughout the piece to produce a uniform smooth increase in volume. At some point 2 or 3 soft instruments might be removed and 1 or 2 louder ones might be introduced to produce a slight loudness increase; those softer instruments removed at that point would then be available again at a later point to add another slight increase. Ravel was a genius at orchestration and he achieved a remarkable crescendo in that manner.</P>


Would it not be possible to program a modern crescendo pedal to function in this same manner, both adding and subtracting stops along the way in a pattern that created a smooth increase in sound level? I can see that older crescendo pedals may have had mechanical limitations that would preclude such a practice, but modern electronic ones should not. Or am I just not informed and modern units already work that way?</P>


David</P>

[soubasse32]

Re: Thoughts on programming a Crescendo ......



The crescendo programs of which I am familiar, allow for adding orsubtracting any stop or coupler, in any order. </P>


Three of the organs I frequently program allhave 60 discretestages and four crescendo settings.</P>


I find that it usually works best to add or subtract a stopona singlestage, but I don't often do both simultaneously -the fewer the changes per stage, the more seamless the crescendo.</P>


Also... if the instrument is not very large and has 60 stages I find the best results by programming every other stage or every third stage.</P>