Why Not The Best of Two Worlds?

[suavial]

I would like to locate a venue wherein the following two organs can be installed together side by side as follows:

Great A Classic
Great B Symphonic
Swell A Classic
Swell B Symphonic
Choir A Classic
Choir B Symphonic
Pedal A Classic
Pedal B Symphonic
Antiphonal or Ancillary

Both organs are available regardless of what is stated to the contrary.
The Classic organ is of the American Classic and the Symphonic is likewise American Symphonic.I believe firmly that these two organs together would make a sumptuous ensemble that would serve admirably in every role that such an instrument might be called upon to serve.

http://database.organsociety.org/Sin...?OrganID=29506

http://database.organsociety.org/Sin...?OrganID=32910

Open to input from the forum......

[Leisesturm]

Your post is most unclear which is perhaps why it has received only views, but no responses at the time I began to compose this. Why would anyone set up two pipe organs "side by side" for any reason? There are of course large organs controlled by two different consoles and there are large "venues", to use your terminology, that have organs in different areas, say a chancel location and a gallery location. What exactly are you after here? Moller must have conceived these instruments to be self-standing. There would be a criminal amount of duplication of resources if both were brought to the same "venue". So... what exactly are you after? If it is indeed a combining of the best attributes of each instrument, that of course can be done, and is done all the time by the borrowing of pipe-work from one of the instruments to the other. If it is something else... you would really have to explain it more fully.

H

[suavial]

Kindly specify the needless duplication.

[Leisesturm]

The entire second instrument is a needless duplication. Kindly explain your plan for combining them into a practical instrument. No one has time or money to install two complete organs in the same space to satisfy whimsy.

H

[suavial]

Are you able to specify WHY it is a duplication?Rather, in what WAY or manner is there duplication and NOT additional DIFFERENT tonal material: different design as in scaling.mouth dimensions, wind pressures, cut-ups, nicking?

[Ryan the organist]

There is no need for that many similar stops in an organ. Yes the two analogous divisions might be different, but the styles are similar enough that making compromises in voicing/scaling/etc. would be a more economic way of doing the same things. Yes, a Harrison Hautbois is different from an EMS Hautbois. But when I play a substantial piece for you, not only will you be unlikely to notice which one it is (bet I can fool you with touch and musicality), but if you notice, you're missing the point of the music. More important than the perfect solo stop or ensemble or mixture is the approach of the organist, the overall quality of the instrument, style aside, and some respect for the composer (which doesn't always translate to faithfulness, depending on the instrument); if the difference between related stops is that important to the listener, the organbuilder and organist have failed. I'd rather listen to Bach or Messiaen or Reger or even Guilmant than to organ stops. Your idea would be nice for a digital organ though, might as well incorporate as many styles of instrument as the budget allows in a digital instrument, so long as the sound is consistently good and the console comfortable.

Sorry to rant, but this really bugs me about organists. Often we care more about the organ than music, sad but true. I helped with a radio broadcast of organ music recently, and received many phone calls from irate organ fans, saying "you need to say what organ he/she's playing". Why is that so important? Seems they want to judge the performance before it even begins, and by meaningless criteria! What about listening to the music and judging on the right terms--the performance and sound? I heard an absolutely bewitching recording of Buxtehude recently, and was amused afterwards to learn it was played at Woolsey Hall, a great orchestral organ. If I told you which organ was used before letting you listen, would you listen with the same ears? Yes, there are organ fans who are genuinely interested in instruments, and there's nothing wrong with it; they just need to realize that they can easily make all organists look like crotchety stamp collectors, even those that aren't, and remove us even further from the mainstream of classical music.
Please argue!

[Leisesturm]

No argument from this organist. I couldn't have said it any better Ryan. Nobody listens to cut-ups or nicking or wind pressures. But even if they did, it would still be neccessary to build a new console that could control both instruments at once. The only way to create a "sumptuous ensemble" from the marriage of two organs is to have them both playable from one console. At St. Thomas Church, NYC, a large Aeolian-Skinner sits up front in the chancel. A small Taylor and Boody is in the back gallery and is set up to specialize in the more Neo-Baroque repertoire. An American Classic specification should have enough tonal material in the Choir division to pull off Baroque Repertoire. To be honest, I think the smaller of those two instruments to be the more versatile. At least on paper.

H

[suavial]

American Classic so-called and American Symphonic organs are very different in their sound. They are distant relatives of one another, say cousins. but NOT sister organs. The 2 greats in the links are a 1936 Whitelegg Moller and a 1977 Gillett Moller. Any two different makes would work. Skinner and Aeolian-Skinner. A 1910s or 1920s Austin and a Piper-Austin from the 1950s or later.

The two greats in the Moller line-up don't even approximate each other. The 1977 great Principal 8 is totally different in sound from the 1936 Open Diapason 8. Duplicates? Not at all. Anymore than First Diapason 8 and Second Diapason are duplicates or even similar in a Symphonic Great Division. The Great Clarabella of 1936 is not even close to the 1977 Great Bordun. Are there Great divisions in other organs with two 8ft flutes? of course there are. And often if there are they are different but still 8ft flutes none-the-less.

The two Great 4ft Octaves. Unrelated. The 1936 specimen altogether different in tone and volume and what each can do.The 1977 4ft Great octave will readily blend with the Great Bordun 8 to form a minor chorus.The claim that these two organs are needless and redundant is BOGUS. Anybody who really knows the American Classic and also Symphonic organs would quickly understand that names of stops do not in themselves imply duplication.
More later.

- - - Updated - - -

American Classic so-called and American Symphonic organs are very different in their sound. They are distant relatives of one another, say cousins. but NOT sister organs. The 2 greats in the links are a 1936 Whitelegg Moller and a 1977 Gillett Moller. Any two different makes would work. Skinner and Aeolian-Skinner. A 1910s or 1920s Austin and a Piper-Austin from the 1950s or later.

The two greats in the Moller line-up don't even approximate each other. The 1977 great Principal 8 is totally different in sound from the 1936 Open Diapason 8. Duplicates? Not at all. Anymore than First Diapason 8 and Second Diapason are duplicates or even similar in a Symphonic Great Division. The Great Clarabella of 1936 is not even close to the 1977 Great Bordun. Are there Great divisions in other organs with two 8ft flutes? of course there are. And often if there are they are different but still 8ft flutes none-the-less.

The two Great 4ft Octaves. Unrelated. The 1936 specimen altogether different in tone and volume and what each can do.The 1977 4ft Great octave will readily blend with the Great Bordun 8 to form a minor chorus.The claim that these two organs are needless and redundant is BOGUS. Anybody who really knows the American Classic and also Symphonic organs would quickly understand that names of stops do not in themselves imply duplication.
More later.

[Ryan the organist]

Leisesturm, I find the St. Thomas chancel organ as of now (after the recent rebuilds) is extremely brilliant, more than the T+B at the back (the mixtures are like canned lightning, the reeds blaze away, and one shudders to imagine the effect of the Terz-zimbel back when it functioned). I'm giving a recital there in a bit more than a year, and the question of ideal rep will be interesting to consider.
Suavial, not convinced yet. Of course they are different, much like every organ is different. Take important features from each--a diapason not too foundational and not too bright but perfectly in-between, like those by Walker (recital coming up on a gorgeous little Walker than can play literally anything), a chimney flute without too much chiff and with a nice soaring top, a neutral octave and a bright fifteenth, a middle of the road trompete or trumpet, and a mixture with substantial scales--and you have an excellent Great. No contrast between foundational diapason and bright diapason? The audience is too busy enjoying the pleasant sounds (more money to spend on better metal and attention when finishing), and I'm too busy enjoying the simpler console, possibility of sensitive tracker action, and more straightforward registration process.
Really look forward to hearing further thoughts on this from you, though. Organbuilding does need something new.

[suavial]

The American Symphonic organ as pioneered by Skinner and his contemporaries is by far the MOST sensuous, sumptuous and voluptuous musical instrument ever devised by man. No other school of organ building can even compare.The American Classic so called ,also a uniquely American innovation, is still today the organ of choice of many clients; both new and rebuilt/relocated examples, as it satisfies the needs and desires of MOST ordinary institutions that still use pipe organs.

The two similar but very different genres are the product of many artisans' loving labors. Beautiful vintage pipework that is extant in the warehouses of builders both large and small deserves a new lease on life. These pipes are generally well-made and decent in sound. I am dead set in my determination to pay homage to these two uniquely AMERICAN organ styles. I will actively pursue a real venue with a talented performer that will use to full advantage these two types of pipe organs. And yes a single console. But these 2 consoles in the 1977 and 1973 replacement console are both pneumatic anyway.

[majestique]

The concept of combining the two instruments is interesting, but I see several tonal deficiencies that would result. Rather than treating them as two separate instruments, in my mind I combined them into a single instrument of roughly 70 ranks (depending on possible modifications).

A couple things I noted. One is that the resulting instrument would be heavy on Trumpet and Oboe voices, and light on most other reeds. Where are the other symphonic voices like the French and English Horns, the Corno di Bassetto, and even the basic combinations that would provide a full reed chorus for the Swell division (if not others)?

Similarly, there would be five(!) String/Celeste combinations, plus a Flute and Celeste. While I am one to enjoy good celestes, that is a bit excessive and lacking in variety in my opinion.

An organ of this size would certainly justify more than the single cornet of the 1977 Choir division, which is actually more of a Positiv than a Choir. A cornet of Flute voices in contrast to one in Principal voices would certainly be in order, quite possibly even with a Mounted Cornet of large Diapason voices.

It also strikes me that both instruments incorporate the highly-unified stopped flute in the Swell division, with little by way of independent voices.

Personally, I like the idea of combined tonal structures such as these as long as everything is drawn together into a cohesive entity. It looks as though it could be done (at least on paper) with these two instruments as long as some modifications were undertaken. However, being on paper is a far cry from how it might work in reality. The acoustic of the room will likely favor one over the other. And of course each was (or should have been) voiced according to the acoustic of their original settings, which may be considerably different from each other and from the ultimate destination.

There is so much more that goes into the successful design of an instrument for a given room than whether or not it has the correct pipework and wind pressures, paper specifications, etc... Whether or not these two instruments could work well together is something that can only be determined once a location is selected, and then by extensive comparison of the actual pipework of the two instruments, preferably within the chosen setting. In the hands of a competent voicer and tonal finisher it is likely a good result can be attained, but it is also a recipe for disaster. At present, unless much more information has been gleaned than you're letting on, there is simply not enough to go on to determine whether or not this could work.

Another thing to consider is the cost of replacing zinc basses in the 1977 instrument. It is almost a guarantee that everything below 4'C will need to be replaced. The organ was built during the era of soft zinc, and the pipes (especially reeds, large basses, and anything mitered) are known for collapsing under their own weight.

My initial two cents.

Kind regards,
Shawn

[suavial]

The 2 swell 8ft flutes: one can view these as an 8 and a 4; the gedeckt at 8 and the rohrflote at 4ft or vice versa.

The high pressure orchestral stops that do not blossom until a good 7-10'' wind is employed would necessarily be later add-ons in a solo division for the best effect.

Cornets can be addictive. In a new job yes definitely more than one in this size organ.In a vintage pipe job no.

String celestes too many? Never.The 1977 swell violas are broad scale, wide mouthed, unslotted: an echo diapasons or lieblich principal and celeste and will blend an enhance the 1930s celestes mightily....

Successful design: How successful?
Acoustics can make or break any organ regardless of how clever the design....

My off-the cuff replies to your thoughtful post Mr Keith and many thanx indeed for it.

Oh and 2 oboes? One is a petit trompette and fiery and the other a capped afair that is mellow and blends with all the flues in a seamless manner.

Too many trumpets? All are chorus reeds and can be viewed as very different in timbre, volume and degrees of blending capacity. None are even similar. The cornopean is not the same as the great trumpets nor the swell trompette. The pedal 16 reeds are very different beasts. One is full-length and the other half; one is tapered shallots and the other parallel.

[Leisesturm]

Absolutely and totally inappropriate, Frank. Who of us does not understand your frustration, if agreed upon deliverables have not been received. However, there are accepted means of redress that do not involve subjecting uninvolved users of a forum to your private issue with Shawn.
Agreed. The message in question has been removed from this thread -Admin

As for the project in question, it should be obvious by now that the weight of opinion is on the side of its being an answer to a question no one (except the o.p.) is really interested in. I'm sorry, but all this talk of "venue" ... what does that mean? Those are church organs and, married or not, they will underwhelm in any venue that is not a mainline house of worship. Even then, I don't know. This is 2014! The o.p. is nostalgic for a bygone era in the organbuilders art.

Another poster mentioned that it was time for something new in the art of organbuilding. I agree. Whatever you may think about his playing, his personality or his appearance, I think we are seeing in Cameron Carpenter, an honest attempt to move the world of organbuilding, playing and listening towards the 21st Century. The time, effort and money that it would take to re-home those two Mollers could more than build a drop dead Municipal Organ of immense resources and capability. All digital of course. Get over it! The future is NOT in crafting pipes out of Tin and Lead and fabricating immensely complex relays and winding systems! I am certain that CC's instrument will have a 64' stop or something that functions like it. Neither Moller even has a 32' flue!! Unacceptable. Any worthwhile new addition to the pipe organ registry has at least two 32' stops, one of them a flue. Whether they are pipe or digital is up to the builder but they must be there. The o.p. did not think this through. That happens. We should move on, I think.

H

[suavial]

The 1936 Moller has two 32s. And since you like digital organs, well.....enough said....The 1977 Moller has a real 32 reed.....

[Leisesturm]

The 1936 Moller has two 32s. And since you like digital organs, well.....enough said....The 1977 Moller has a real 32 reed.....

I don't like digital organs. I like organs. My ears don't care what makes the 8' Diapason sound and neither do yours! Its your brain that has the preference for obsolete technology. Organbuilders that have to service hybrid organs cannot tell which ranks are digital and which ones are pipe. If trained professionals can't make the correct call then I doubt the average concertgoer can either. Silbermann organs available to Bach sometimes had 32' Reeds. There is a real reason there weren't many (any) Untersatz's to be heard (felt) in the 18th Century. The bar is higher now. Or should be. Let me guess... one of the two 32' is a Bourdon and therefore 16' pipes. The other is the reed. Very little fundamental, mostly 2nd harmonic. Promise me that if you really do this thing that you will at least give the thing two more digital 32's. Frontline organbuilders of the finest reputation are using digital 32's. There is no more justification for using a million board feet of lumber for a pedal rank than there is for using real Ivory for key board naturals in the 21st Century.

H