Klais v. Audsley

[Philip the organist]

I checked out quite a few books from the Rochester Public Library on all things musical. Among them were George Ashdown Audsley's <u>Organ Stops and their Artistic Registration,</u> and also <u>Organs of our Time</u>, Volume I, a coffee-table type book from the seventies published by the Praestant Press. <u></u></p>

<u>OooT</u> is a collection of 65 or so organs built by the firm of Johannes Klais of Bonn, with a picture of the facade and a stoplist for each instrument. Audsley's book opens with a discourse on the different tone families of the organ, their proper registration, praise of the swell box, and then there is a lengthy list of every stop known to organ builders as of publication in 1920. </p>

I noticed several similarities and differences between the philosophies of the two, and I wanted to post and see what others thought about several issues.</p>

<u>Audsley</u>:</p>

"[Placement of reeds en chamade is] to be condemmed on all
musical grounds; for the powerful lingual stops so disposed should
be enclosed in swell boxes, and so endowed with powers of
flexibility and expression. Uncontrollable lingual stops are an abomination from every musical point of view." CHAMADE, p53</p>

Praises enclosure, even proposes enclosing stops from the same
manual in 2 different boxes.
</p>

Prefers smooth, sweet, round English principal tone, condemms the Montre for its stringiness.</p>

Great lover of the Dolce, proposes it at many pitches</p>

Loves mixtures, but also for many 8' s </p>

<u>
</u></p>




<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.2 (Linux)"><meta name="AUTHOR" content="Philip Fillion"><meta name="CREATED" content="20090203;13043000"><meta name="CHANGEDBY" content="Philip Fillion"><meta name="CHANGED" content="20090203;13090900">






<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>

</p>

<u>KLAIS:</u>
</p>


Extensive use of Chamades, whether Trumpet, Regal or
Vox
Humana.
</p>



Numerous organs of 3m with no enclosed divisions.
4-manual
organs with only a Schwellwerk manual

Prefers loud, unrefined German principals</p>


Rarely numerous soft stops.</p>


One Röhrflöte often comprises the unison pitch on one man.
even when there are 2 or 3 Mixtures on a man.</p>


What are your opinions?? I think I agree with Audsley.</p>

[soubasse32]

Re: Klais v. Audsley



There is no rightor wrong tonal philosophy, only suitability to a musical purpose.</P>


If I had to choose an organ for a romantic/symphonic piece or orchestral transcription I'd go with Audsley's specs. If I was to play a program of music written before the 1850s or after the 1930s I might opt for the Klais approach.</P>


Incidentally, Klais today has evolved from where they were in the1970s.</P>


Anyway, if I had to do a recital on one or the other I'd tailor my program to suit the instrument.</P>


If you stay flexible you can cover a lot more territory, musically speaking. [:)]</P>

[Guest]

Re: Klais v. Audsley

Klais has begun a slow gravitation toward a more inclusive tonal palette. Similarly Marcussen and others who previously were noted for excellent work founded in period focused eras have begun to shift with the market toward a more ''all purpose'' type organ? God forbid! That almost sounds ecclectic like G Donald Harrison--heresy! heresyI say!!

[davidecasteel]

Re: Klais v. Audsley



My church's relatively new (2006) Klais instrument has 4 manuals, but only 3 are currently active (Antiphonal Division has not been built yet); nevertheless, 2 of the 4 existing divisions are under expression (Choir and Swell, the Pedal and Great are unenclosed). The Antiphonal Division (expected to be only 4 stops) is in negotiation and so we are not sure what it will be like. Originally, when it had 7 stops, it was intended to be enclosed (except for 2 horizontal reeds); with only 4 stops, one of which is a horizontal reed, I'm not sure whether it will be enclosed or not.</P>


Our instrument was built to be more eclectic than a typical "German" organ, with a lot of emphasis on creating a more "American" sound. I believe that this was accomplished. Of course, there are always things that can be improved. There were a few stops left out of the Main Organ in the original build for financial reasons, but those are being addressed (I am told) in this follow-on build. Our organist has noted a few "flaws" (no 4' flute in the Choir, for example) that she wanted fixed, and I believe those are also to be included. Some have complained that the Great Principal chorus is not solid enough, and it may be that something is being done about that. All things considered, though, I think we received an outstanding instrument and we are generally very pleased with it. We all eagerly await its "completion" (although I suppose no active instrument is ever really finished). We have a concert this month with Bradley Welch as performer and I'm really looking forward to it.</P>


Local response by organists to this instrument has invariably been positive, even with the minor shortcomings some have noted. Some organists from distant places have also praised it. Our congregation is extremely pleased (we don't even get many complaints about the organist playing too loudly, even though it can certainly be loud).</P>


When our Organ Selection Committee visited the Klais factory in Bonn, Germany in 2001 before finalizing our recommendation, we were taken to many Klais instruments in that area for the 2 organists in our group to play. Philipp Klais (current CEO) included instruments built in several different eras of his firm (which has been around for about 120 years) so that we could assess how the business and practice has changed over the years. We even visited the Maria Laach Monestary and heard its instrument, which Philipp really did not like--it had been built in the 1950s when organ design was going through one of its more extreme periods and it did sound very harsh. (He promised that ours would not sound like that, but he included it to show that his firm did build instruments to meet the desires of the customer.) Obviously, we were impressed and we did recommend that Klais build our new instrument. Our Building Committee accepted our recommendation, and we have a fine instrument today.</P>


I have read one of Audsley's books and found it quite interesting to compare his take on various stops and their usefulness in an instrument to the comments in the on-line Encyclopedia of Organ Stops; Audsley frequently had some very different ideas about what was desirable, and I found that I fairly often disagreed with him. His book was written in 1923, though, and it is apparent that the art has changed considerably since then (several times).</P>


David</P>

[Philip the organist]

Re: Klais v. Audsley



Mr. Casteel,</p>

I'm sorry, in no way did I intend to put down the fine work of Klais Orgelbau. I have heard their newer instruments several times on Pipedreams and found them very pleasing tonally. Their work at/with your church seems very impressive. Perhaps I should have titled this thread "Audsley vs. German Organs of the 1950s-1970s," or "Audsley and the Orgelbewegung" to avoid confusion.
</p>

[davidecasteel]

Re: Klais v. Audsley



Philip, I did not interpret your message as a put-down at all. I was pointing out that their current philosophy is sometimes quite different from that you had postulated in their earlier instruments. I found your discussion very interesting and you have nothing to be sorry about. </P>


And please call me David--"Mr. Casteel" is so formal.</P>


David</P>