Audsley Revisited

[Guest]

Has anyone tried to re-write George Audsley's "The Art of Organ-Building" to rid it of the flowery language? Here is an example from his Chapter XXXIII, followed by my attempt to eliminate the excess verbiage:

Pipes constructed of wood form a very important section of the sound-producing portion of the Organ. This fact was fully realized by the great masters of organ-building, and notably by the renowned Schulze, of Paulinzelle; but of late years there has appeared a general dispositioin among organ builders to use them very sparingly. The causes which apparently have brought about this undesirable neglect are, however, unworthy of serious consideration by the artistic builder, in comparison with the tonal advantages which attend the proper introduction of wood stops. The causes may be summarized as follows: In the first place, wooden pipes are more troublesome to make and voice in an artistic manner than ordinary metal ones; and when carefully constructed of proper materials, they cost as much, if not more. In the second place, more time and trouble are demanded in their proper tonal regulation.

Pipes made of wood are important to the sound of the organ, a fact well known to masters of organ-building, such as Schulze of Paulinzelle. More recent builders have tended to use wood pipes sparingly, an unfortunate trend considering their tonal advantages. Abandonment causes include the fact that wooden pipes are more troublesome to make and voice than their metal counterparts, and they cost as much if not more. Wooden pipes also require more time and effort to regulate tonally.

[pipecutter]

Re: Audsley Revisited

I suppose the bigger question would be "why would you want to?" Audsley's work was of a very specific time period and relates little to modern organ building. There are some beautiful drawings and a few interesting historical facts. I can't imagine much demand for a re-write. While I covet my leather bound and signed limitedfirst edition copy, I rarely refer to it.

[VaPipeorgantuner]

Re: Audsley Revisited



any readers of this work in today's organbuilding world can read the first and last sentence of eah paragraph and go away with the meaning of the entire paragraph. Re-writing this 2-volume work may be problematic in that who would want to wrestle with things like the permissions needed (copyright issues), or the perpetuation of errant or out-of-date information. In today's world, anyone taking on the task of writing such a book (and consequently updating the technical information to current state-of-organbuilding practices) would be asking for a monumental "food fight" among organbuilders, organ aficionados, organists, etc. and this is why no-one in recent history has taken on the task aside from a few books that are very heavily rooted in the "orgelbewegung" movement.

just the opinion of one person.

Rick in VA

[Guest]

Re: Audsley Revisited



I agree with the above responses. Historic documents and treatises need not be reinterpreted linguistically for the modern day. Reading through the passage provided one can still clearly understand what is implied as the language is not so outdated to be unintelligible. While making information more accessible to an audience may be practical in some cases, this one does not seem to warrant it. Besides, the language is in ways poetic and a work in itself alongside the information it conveys.

You raise a good point however. Much of the previously compiled information on organ building is indeed difficult to interpret, especially earlier translations from languages other than English. The trouble in translating any document is one runs the risk of losing context or actual meaning since so many words are multi-definitive. It is good food for thought and should be discussed at greater length.

[soubasse32]

Re: Audsley Revisited



Yes, Audsley has a peculiar, grandiloquent style... but it is a product of an era. His tonal philosophies are rather peculiar buthe does providea wealth of information and very useful illustrations.

Ican't see 're-interpreting' his works astheyare not unintelligible.

To me the most tediouspartsarewhen he rants (often!) against "groove-loving tradesmen" and other such tirades; however when seen in a larger context I findhis writings haveaquaintappeal.

[Eppy]

Re: Audsley Revisited

Audsley, I think, seems to be the product of an era driven by big dreams and wallets to match them. He's a little crazy, but I liked reading his books. That said, if somebody would care to explain to me where he got the impression that the instrument in the Albert Hall was built by Cavaille-Coll (see The Organ of the Twentieth Century, page 275) I would be much obliged.

[toodles]

Re: Audsley Revisited



It'd be nice if modern reprints at least translated the French, Latin, Greek, and whatever other languages in the paragraph(s) he quotes. While modern readers are likely not versed in as many languages as Audsley, we had to spend our time studying calculus, statistics, physics (classic and modern), chemistry, and other "stuff" including a half-century or more of important history that he didn't have to clog his brain with!

I love the quip about just reading the 1st & last sentence of each paragraph!

Though his style is a bit much for modern tastes, there is lots of good in the simple declarative sentence. It adds a lot to clarity, if not to poetic qualities.

Toodles.

[myorgan]

Re: Audsley Revisited



Interesting comments on this thread. I used to have the Audsley books until my wife threw them out with lots of other stuff(long story).

From what I'm reading, it seems most don't have any use for his work at all. I wondered about the pipe scaling charts, descriptions of stops (also referenced in the Encyclopedia of Organ Stops), as well as his comments on contemporary work and instruments. Are all those things without merit--even from an historical context?

Did my wife do me a favor?

Michael

[Eppy]

Re: Audsley Revisited

Well, Audsley's ideas may be grandiose and impractical, but we shouldn't completely dismiss them out of hand as unworthy of reading - there's a rather famous and large organ in Philadelphia built on his model that's certainly notable for its power and orchestral colors (albeit manufacturing the original core of that instrument bankrupted its parent firm). Audsley's ideas work for their time, but they're out of fashion, as is most of the music that would have been played on his instruments, and the fact that they're very, very expensive and unsuitable for the more virtuosic works among traditional repertoire most likely contributed to its demise as well (counterpoint does not sound good on a Violon chorus, I'd imagine; that's a registration I don't think I'll bother to try). Audsley's work is something that should be studied on paper, and then picked apart as an exercise in why so many of those ideas aren't necessarily good ones (mostly because they are exceedingly expensive).

[Guest]

Re: Audsley Revisited

Audsleys books give a very comprehensive description of organ mechanical design. These books make good reading for those who are interested in how organs work and how the pipes are designed and built. He comes from a time prior to the organ reform movement when pipe organs were very popular musical instruments. The organ in the department store in Philadelphia is his design. These books make very good reading.

[soubasse32]

Re: Audsley Revisited



I agree - in spite ofsome peculiar tonal philosophiesthese books cover sound organbuilding principles and construction in thorough detail.

As far as that tonal philosophy goes: I think it is important that it be preserved forstudy;the best organbuilders learn from the past.

[Guest]

Re: Audsley Revisited



There is still definitely much useful info for the modern organ builder in Audsley.

His flowery prose does not bother me as much as his continous stream of opinion, much of which he tries to cite as "universally understood", but in fact it is mostly his personal opinion.

Technical writing has evolved a lot - these days treatises are usually not minglings of fact and opinion, as writers are usually careful to separate the two.

You don't have to go back as far as Audsley to find the same problems. William Barnes well known-book on American Organs was written in the mid 50's and is almost as bad (and again, it is a good book in terms of the technical information). No I don't want to be toldthat (he thinks) pipe voicers are likely to hit the bottle...!

[Guest]

Re: Audsley Revisited

I like the varied tonal philosophies described by Audsley and Barnes. Too much of the recent past has been only one tonal type allowed. It is interesting to learn about a variety of ways to design organs.

[davidecasteel]

Re: Audsley Revisited



When I constructed a spreadsheet to explain the proposed Stop List of the Klais instrument beingsuggested forour new church building, I took stop descriptions from both Audsley and the online Encyclopedia of Organ Stops; this spreadsheet was intended to assist the non-organists on the Organ Selection Committee in understanding to some degree what was being proposed by that firm, as an aid to making a decision. I did similar treatments of a couple of other instruments so they could make a comparison. I think it was a successful activity, and we did select Klais as our builder. While doing the research I did notice that Audsley was quite explicit in his opinions of voicing style, some of which I disagreed with. (I don't claim to be an expert, though.) The diagrams of the various pipe forms were very helpful.

David

[Guest]

Re: Audsley Revisited



The Albert Hall Audsley is referring to isn't Royal Albert Hall in London, but rather Albert Hall in Sheffield. The building, and alas, the Cavaille-Coll organ were destroyed by fire in 1937.

More here:

http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/reso...hall-sheffield