Loud Organs His Glory

[Pierre Lauwers]

Of course we do not agree about some of those "Bach" organs. But they are all
fine anyway.


Best wishes,
Pierre

[Ian van Deurne]

Can someone please explain to be as to what on earth is "a Bach organ"? As far as I know, none of the Bach family ever built organs, although it is true that the great Johann Sebastian was often asked for advice regarding new instruments that were to be built around his homeland.
       One such instrument was the aforementioned organ in the Schlosskapelle in Altenburg, south of Leipzig and eventually built by Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost of Bad Langensalza (not far from Erfurt), competed in 1739. This is an organ I know personally very well, and apart from its visually stunning case, is both a pleasure and delight to see and play after its comprehensive rebuilding in 1976 by Hermann Eule of Bautzen which included replacing most of its front pipes that had been sacrificed for metal reserves during the war.
The tonal design if this organ does seem to generally conform to what little knowledge we actually have as to Bach's preferences in tonal design. This includes a large selection of 8ft ranks and of course, his known fondness for 32ft reeds. Silbermann never made one, though he did consider including one for the organ at Zittau. It is also said that Bach originally wrote the Praeludium & Fuge in Es-Dur BWV 552 to play during his opening recital on the Altenburg organ, it certainly dates from this time.
       The other fact that needs to be taken into account is that this organ was originally contracted to be built by Gottfried Silbermann
in 1736, but he found that he wasn't able to deliver on time, so then 'giving away' the contract to Trost.
       Apart from this organ, mentioned above, the organ in Trodheim and the Hildebrandt organ in St Wenzel, Naumberg, Bach never played, or probably never even knew about, especially not the organs in the Netherlands.
       The organ in the Michaeliskerk in Zwolle was entirely newly built in 1721, the contract being signed in 1718 by Arp Schnitger and completed by his youngest son, Frans Caspar. Whether Arp had any hand in the actual construction is highly debatable as he was miles away when he died, working on his final organ at St Laurents in Itzehoe. I see that the organbuilding family of van Hagerbeer
is also mentioned here but the fact remains they had not, or never had, built an organ in this church. The previous instrument was completed as far back as 1505 by Johannes Jacobsz van Bilsteyn, with 3-manuals, containing a 34-rank Blockwerk, a Rugpositief of 4 voices and a Bovenwerk of 4 or 5 voices with attached pedal. Jan Morlet III completely rebuilt it in 1643, which included splitting up the Blockwerk and making its lower ranks playable on the Pedal. Then in 1669 the church tower burnt down after being struck by lightning which badly damaged the organ but because of lack of money, the organ was dismantled and stored. Thereafter the congregation worshipped without an organ for over 50 years until in 1718, the local physician and mayor of Zwolle, donated 12,000 guilders for a new organ, with his brother donating another 2,000 guilders.
        The organ in the St Laurenskerk in Alkmaar, which happens to be in my home town, was given a comprehensive reconstruction by Frans Caspar Schnitger in 1725 from the original instrument by the van Hagerbeer family of Leiden, completed in 1645 although it had already received some modification from the Duyschot family earlier. Today it is often known as a van Hagerbeer/Schnitger organ and indeed still contains about 25% of its original pipework from 1645, all in completely altered form, however. Schnitger used much of it within his new independant Pedal department. The only stipulation given at the time was although he could do what he liked within the interior, he was not allowed to alter the casework to accomodate any of it, which of course to us would seem abhorent today, but at the time this was more to do with passing off the rebuild as 'repairs', rather than any conservation exercise.
       As regards the Mueller organ in St Bavo,Haarlem, although a very famous and noteworthy organ, due mostly to its Handel and Mozart connections, cannot today be regarded as in any kind of original tonal condition, having been rebuilt several times since conception. Christiaan Mueller, it is thought, worked extensively with Frans Caspar Schnitger on his arrival in the Netherlands from the Harz mountain region of Germany, before setting up business on his own. Much of the St Bavo organ's so-called 'wild tone' may be more than a little due to the restoration carried out by Marcussen between 1959-61, which unvelievably included adding two large quint-mixtures to the Hoofdwerk and Pedaal (the originals contain third-sounding ranks) and enlarging the compass of the pedal from d' to f' (27-30 notes). Such blatent violation to an organ of such historical significance would never be considered today - well at least I hope it wouldn't!





























   

[MusingMuso]

Can someone please explain to be as to what on earth is "a Bach organ"? As far as I know, none of the Bach family ever built organs, although it is true that the great Johann Sebastian was often asked for advice regarding new instruments that were to be built around his homeland.
       One such instrument was the aforementioned organ in the Schlosskapelle in Altenburg, south of Leipzig and eventually built by Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost of Bad Langensalza (not far from Erfurt), competed in 1739. This is an organ I know personally very well, and apart from its visually stunning case, is both a pleasure and delight to see and play after its comprehensive rebuilding in 1976 by Hermann Eule of Bautzen which included replacing most of its front pipes that had been sacrificed for metal reserves during the war.
The tonal design if this organ does seem to generally conform to what little knowledge we actually have as to Bach's preferences in tonal design. This includes a large selection of 8ft ranks and of course, his known fondness for 32ft reeds. Silbermann never made one, though he did consider including one for the organ at Zittau. It is also said that Bach originally wrote the Praeludium & Fuge in Es-Dur BWV 552 to play during his opening recital on the Altenburg organ, it certainly dates from this time.
       The other fact that needs to be taken into account is that this organ was originally contracted to be built by Gottfried Silbermann
in 1736, but he found that he wasn't able to deliver on time, so then 'giving away' the contract to Trost.
       Apart from this organ, mentioned above, the organ in Trodheim and the Hildebrandt organ in St Wenzel, Naumberg, Bach never played, or probably never even knew about, especially not the organs in the Netherlands.
       The organ in the Michaeliskerk in Zwolle was entirely newly built in 1721, the contract being signed in 1718 by Arp Schnitger and completed by his youngest son, Frans Caspar. Whether Arp had any hand in the actual construction is highly debatable as he was miles away when he died, working on his final organ at St Laurents in Itzehoe. I see that the organbuilding family of van Hagerbeer
is also mentioned here but the fact remains they had not, or never had, built an organ in this church. The previous instrument was completed as far back as 1505 by Johannes Jacobsz van Bilsteyn, with 3-manuals, containing a 34-rank Blockwerk, a Rugpositief of 4 voices and a Bovenwerk of 4 or 5 voices with attached pedal. Jan Morlet III completely rebuilt it in 1643, which included splitting up the Blockwerk and making its lower ranks playable on the Pedal. Then in 1669 the church tower burnt down after being struck by lightning which badly damaged the organ but because of lack of money, the organ was dismantled and stored. Thereafter the congregation worshipped without an organ for over 50 years until in 1718, the local physician and mayor of Zwolle, donated 12,000 guilders for a new organ, with his brother donating another 2,000 guilders.
        The organ in the St Laurenskerk in Alkmaar, which happens to be in my home town, was given a comprehensive reconstruction by Frans Caspar Schnitger in 1725 from the original instrument by the van Hagerbeer family of Leiden, completed in 1645 although it had already received some modification from the Duyschot family earlier. Today it is often known as a van Hagerbeer/Schnitger organ and indeed still contains about 25% of its original pipework from 1645, all in completely altered form, however. Schnitger used much of it within his new independant Pedal department. The only stipulation given at the time was although he could do what he liked within the interior, he was not allowed to alter the casework to accomodate any of it, which of course to us would seem abhorent today, but at the time this was more to do with passing off the rebuild as 'repairs', rather than any conservation exercise.
       As regards the Mueller organ in St Bavo,Haarlem, although a very famous and noteworthy organ, due mostly to its Handel and Mozart connections, cannot today be regarded as in any kind of original tonal condition, having been rebuilt several times since conception. Christiaan Mueller, it is thought, worked extensively with Frans Caspar Schnitger on his arrival in the Netherlands from the Harz mountain region of Germany, before setting up business on his own. Much of the St Bavo organ's so-called 'wild tone' may be more than a little due to the restoration carried out by Marcussen between 1959-61, which unvelievably included adding two large quint-mixtures to the Hoofdwerk and Pedaal (the originals contain third-sounding ranks) and enlarging the compass of the pedal from d' to f' (27-30 notes). Such blatent violation to an organ of such historical significance would never be considered today - well at least I hope it wouldn't!

A Bach organ is one best suited to the music of Bach, or one of which we imagine Bach would have approved. I think (hope?) we are aware that he and his somewhat extended family, didn't built organs.

I think we also stated that Bach would never have known the later organs built in the Netherlands (and elsewhere), but assuming that a "Bach organ" is one ideally suited to the music of Bach, the Netherlands does have something of an embarrassment of riches in this respect.

I would suggest that Bach was very aware of what was going on elsewhere, even if he didn't travel. Whatever lines of communication existed, may have been more effective than we think. (How did a Joachim Wagner organ end up in Trondheim, Norway?  How did the Englishman Charles Burney get to learn of the St Bavo organ? Why was Amsterdam a music-publishing centre?)  After all, Bach expressed interest in a Cantor position in Poland, but was not considered for whatever reason. Musically, Bach's outlook was virtually pan-European, at a time when most things in Germany were regional at best, and parochial for the remainder. Perhaps we tend to project our modern understanding of things on Bach's life and working environment, but I would suggest that he was never anything more than a hired musician, and the organ-builders of the period merely "tradesmen."  Leipzig wasn't Lubeck, anymore than Zwolle isn't Leiden or Rotterdam to-day, and in the case of Germany, it was a collection of princely fiefdoms, where only "the best people" made important decisions.

Even in the Netherlands, certain people had the power to prevent the use of the organ during divine worship, and I don't think anyone was listening to what mere organists thought at the time.

It doesn't help that Bach almost never left any indications for registration; that being left to the anyone who still regarded his music as worthy of being played towards the end of his life. Not only had he been the hired musician, he was the "old man" who wrote pointless academic fugues; despised by the new order of young, dynamic classicists bravely moving towards "Sturm und Drang" and immersing themselves in Sonata Form.

As we can't dig "old Bach" up to ask him face to face, there isn't much prospect of ever knowing what his tonal preferences were. We might even conclude that he would always be in the position of being obliged to defer to the decisions of others: people like Mattheson; super-rich, well connected, educated and influential. (Was the Trondheim organ his doing?)

Even the fact that Bach may have played this or that organ, (as we all have), doesn't mean that he approved of everything, (as we all haven't). After all, organists are not noted for being totally content with a stop-list for very long, as The Rev Canon Sydney Smith at St Paul's Cathedral, London, pointed out.

"Organists are like broken down cab-horses; always longing for another stop."

Well let's stop here, because we don't know and never will know what Bach may have liked, despised or wanted, and to anyone who would quote his "glowing approval" of certain instruments, I would urge a modicum of caution. I suspect that there would have been consequences for anyone who disapproved of anything which had first been approved by those in a position of power and authority, and with a large family to support; I think there may well have been a hidden agenda. Unfortunately, once again, we don't know.

I would suggest that, instead of crawling around the few organs which Bach knew or may have played, and which still remain, we go to the music instead.

Rather than playing the great Preludes & Fugues on an organ, try playing them on a pedal-harpsichord. Does it work? 

It most certainly does, and therein is a clue to the sort of tonal architecture required of the music. A spread of evenly rich harmonics across a wide-range, only possible with complete choruses of closely related and matched Principal tone; the very foundation of the true baroque organ.

Does Bach call for colour and variety in the Partitas and Chorale Preludes?

Listen to the cantatas and oratorios; the vocal lines and dramatic contrasts. "This is opera in church!"

Would Bach have enjoyed the gravitas of a 32ft reed or a 16ft manual flue chorus?

Listen to the opening of the St Mattheus Passion.

If that then becomes the basis of our search, (in terms of colour, variety, nobility and sonority), where do we find the best "Bach organs?"

I think our friend in the Netherlands could probably manage to find one with only the aid of a bicycle. The Laurenskerk instrument at Alkmaar spectacularly meets all the above criteria, as do the organs at Zwolle and at the Bavokerk, Haarlem.

Does it matter that Bach never played or heard them?

Is our quest historical or musical?

I hope the latter, because the passionate depth and intensity of Bach's music still has the power to make us fall to our knees.

To lighten this up a little, and as an amusing postlude, I wonder if our friend in the Netherlands expects sympathy?

Yes, Marcussen really messed up at the Bavokerk....rubbing out the nicking, re-voicing things constantly ever since, fitting a  modern, suspended action and lowering the wind-pressure. 

Well consider yourself lucky!  They at least created possibly the finest organ in the world to-day.

In England, we didn't restore anything in the 19th century: we threw them on bonfires and called in Mr Willis to build a new organ. Then came along Mr Harrison, who (derogatory comment deleted) changed some. Then came along J W Walker, who (changed)everything that Mr Willis and Mr Harrison, (and every other organ-builder), had created before they got their paws on them. Now we're ruining the things which ruined the things which had replaced the organs we scrapped.

Why was this possible?

Money!

Had the Netherlands not fallen into relative decline after the "Golden Age," all the old organs would have been changed, chopped about, thrown into skips or sold to the highest foreign bidder.
Instead, the old organs were neglected or patched up to keep them working, and when scholars started to look again when Mr Dolmesch told us to look at history, they discovered an absolute European treasure-chest of wonderful old organs; many of them emerging relatively unscathed from the day they were built.

Poverty is good for us, and we should make the best of it while it lasts.

MM

PS: I don't think my reference to Hagabeer had anything to do with Zwolle, but if that was implied, I apologise. I'll re-read what I wrote, but I thought I was referring to Alkmaar.

PPS: After writing the above, I remembered something. Bach used,(especially in the Passions), the musical word-painting of "highs" and "lows" to make a point between "evil" (low) and "good" (high), which I believe continued an older tradition of musical representation. Another example of Bach using specific colours and timbres to convey different things.

[pcnd5584]

So far, so good. Now some examples of thuringian organs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2QtMwpa9aM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG4dEu5mlWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY53wYOKt7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5WUJSouEw

I listened to most of each of the first three. I only managed about a minute of the fourth, before the tuning drove me to distraction.

I am concerned that the case for suggesting that instruments built by Trost are ideal for the music of Bach is pehaps less clear-cut than is being stated. He only attempted two major projects in his lifetime - and one of those (Waltershausen) had to be finished by another builder. In fact, Trost probably took almost twenty years to build this instrument (so far, I have been unable to find a precise documentation of the dedication), but might possibly have been completed by May, 1741. ...'These historical facts seem very strange when one considers what a significant organ project was involved. In the case of similarly placed organs, such as Zacharias Hildebrandt's organ in the St. Wenzelskirche in Naumburg (also a city organ project), there was a crowning completion ceremony with famous examiners (such as Bach and Silbermann) and an opulent feast of organ music. No report of anything of this kind has been handed down to us about Waltershausen'.

With regard to the first clip, I am afraid that the fact that the instrument appeared to be quite out of tune (as opposed to tuned to another temperament) rather put me off. In any case, I found the continuous use of the Pedal 32ft. reed extremely wearisome. The effect of this type of chorus work (with the tierce mixtures) again, I found tiring to listen to. I also felt that it obscured some of the part writing.

The second clip: again, the tierce mixtures simply came over as a reedy jangle - which quickly became tiring.

I thought that the third clip was less reedy, but also lacked any real brightness - and I do not simply mean that it should have been played using a high-pitched Cymbale - but it did sound as if there was little above 4ft. pitch for most of it. If there was a 2ft., it was rather weak. Of course one does not need a plethora of quint mixtures for Bach, but this piece, to me, demands something more 'sparkling' than this.

I am quite happy to accept that some here have a liking - even a preference - for this type of sound for the music of Bach. However, I am less happy (and certainly unconvinced) that these instruments are to be considered the preferred media of his own music, by Bach.

... But one thing we can already hold for sure: something like 8-4-2-Quint Mixture Bach never drawn in his life, save maybe during his months in the north ! ...

Pierre

I would agree with MM, here. I am not sure that we can state this as a fact. Surely the truth is that we do not know exactly what Bach would have done. We do know that, whilst he may have liked the organ at Altenburg, he also admired the instrument at Mülhausen - which did contain a number of quint mixtures.

Given his well-documented virtuosity and genius, it is not unreasonable to suppose (as MM has propounded) that Bach would have delighted in making the best out of whatever instrument he was playing and, ignoring any kind of rules of any school of thought, striven to produce the most musical result possible.

[pcnd5584]

Incidentally, it does appear that the second and third pages of this thread should be split from the original title and made to form a new thread. I shall have a look at this later - unless David wishes to do this?

[AnOrganCornucopia]

In England, we didn't restore anything in the 19th century: we threw them on bonfires and called in Mr Willis to build a new organ. Then came along Mr Harrison, who (derogatory comment deleted) changed some. Then came along J W Walker, who (changed)everything that Mr Willis and Mr Harrison, (and every other organ-builder), had created before they got their paws on them. Now we're ruining the things which ruined the things which had replaced the organs we scrapped.

I can think of certain organs in this country where historic material was well respected by the Romantic builders! There's a lot of Renatus Harris in the Chichester Cathedral Hill, for example - and when Arthur Harrison rebuilt and enlarged the 1840s classical Bishop at Jesus College, Cambridge, he left Bishop's Great and Swell (which became Choir and Echo) well alone, adding his own Great and Swell as well as a bit more of a Pedal division. Saint Peter's Cornhill - a Schmidt rebuilt by Hill and later R&D - still has much of the Schmidt pipework in it, essentially unaltered I believe but obviously tuned to equal temperament. The old Hill console survives in the gallery, disconnected and replaced by R&D's - it has pinned to the music desk a piece of paper, on which is scrawled a few bars of music and the signature 'Felix Mendelssohn'. The Bridge at Christ Church Spitalfields is another example - though why it is being restored to original condition, without pedals, when the later additions were so sensitively done is beyond me.

I am sure that others may be able to cite similar examples.

[AnOrganCornucopia]

Incidentally, it does appear that the second and third pages of this thread should be split from the original title and made to form a new thread. I shall have a look at this later - unless David wishes to do this?

PLEASE!

It's very valuable discussion but it's definitely in the WRONG place.

[pcnd5584]

I can think of certain organs in this country where historic material was well respected by the Romantic builders! There's a lot of Renatus Harris in the Chichester Cathedral Hill, for example - and when Arthur Harrison rebuilt and enlarged the 1840s classical Bishop at Jesus College, Cambridge, he left Bishop's Great and Swell (which became Choir and Echo) well alone, adding his own Great and Swell as well as a bit more of a Pedal division. Saint Peter's Cornhill - a Schmidt rebuilt by Hill and later R&D - still has much of the Schmidt pipework in it, essentially unaltered I believe but obviously tuned to equal temperament. The old Hill console survives in the gallery, disconnected and replaced by R&D's - it has pinned to the music desk a piece of paper, on which is scrawled a few bars of music and the signature 'Felix Mendelssohn'. The Bridge at Christ Church Spitalfields is another example - though why it is being restored to original condition, without pedals, when the later additions were so sensitively done is beyond me.

I am sure that others may be able to cite similar examples.

Richard - on the subject of the wrong place: is it possible that you should have posted this as a reply in the Mixture Compositions thread....?

[AnOrganCornucopia]

Hi PCND - sorry, should have made things clearer. I have now inserted a quote from one of MM's posts on this thread to which I was replying.

[pcnd5584]

Hi PCND - sorry, should have made things clearer. I have now inserted a quote from one of MM's posts on this thread to which I was replying.

Now it makes more sense....