I imagine all the singers and plod-abouts on the altar going home and leaving me to play in peace. ;-)

You may have heard me mention this before, but a local organist and teacher had Andover draw up a design for an organ in a Lutheran church. In its early stages the organ was small. Over time, as money became available more was added according to the original design. A final bequest given by someone allowed completion of the instrument some number of years after the project was begun. It is a beautiful instrument and the company stayed consistent with design and voicing over the years. It doesn't have to all be done at once.

Noel, I'm sorry that I don't have time to respond in detail right now, but the short of it is basic physics. The way that a pallet opens and closes underneath a pipe regulates the way that air is admitted. As a result, you can create accents, decrescendi etc and really bring the music to life with tracker action. All the electric systems are binary (ie. there's air or there isn't). No control. There was an article in Choir and Organ recently about John Wellingham, which covers plenty of this. It really does make a difference. Since I've started applying these techniques to hymn playing, the congregation has really come along with me. You really can differentiate the first beat of the bar from the last etc. It's very exciting and sounds beautiful!

What I really should do is post two recordings of the same piece - one in which the player doesn't control the pallets (either through an abuse of tracker action or by using electric action) and another where the player is in control. M. Jackson Osborn and Kirchenmusik - You both know what we're looking for, so please do scan YouTube while I sleep, if you feel like it!

A good tracker action allows you to control both the attack and release of each key (fast or slow, and an infinite range from legato to staccato.

So the speed of the key fall under your finger as the palette opens, admitting air to the pipe and the speed at which you release key pressure can be heard by the listener in the way the pipe sounds as it begins to sound. And the speed at which you release the key at the end of the note also affects the release sound?

Does the steady state heard by the listener while the key is depressed sound the same every time, or does the depression of the key alter the steady state as well?

Here's how you get more people singing on pitch,and a better parish music education for your parish school: hire licensed, degreed teachers, and pay them a living wage that makes it feasible for them to focus on one job only.

Was anything sacred composed after 1970?!

Nuances in organ playing are always good, but other organists hear and appreciate them most. Folks who go to orchestra concerts pay to attend and want to be there. They tend to listen more closely. I think there is a lot of tuning things out with Sunday mass crowds who would prefer to be elsewhere.

CharlesW - I disagree strongly. In my experience, it's the musicians other than organists who hear the biggest difference. A good friend of mine is a professional conductor, and told me that she doesn't like the organ because everything sounds 'the same' (no sense of beat hierarchy, shading etc). She likes my playing because she says that those things come out properly. Too many organists have forgotten how to listen for beat hierarchies and accents in their own playing.

Respectfully, I don't think you've studied tracker touch since you left university. There have been some amazing research developments in recent years, that demonstrate composers up until the 19th(!) century, used touch to shade their playing. It was only the invention of electric action that killed off this approach. For a start, read Jacques van Oortmerssen's 'Organ Technique' (available through GOArt, Sweden). Then, listen to William Porter and attend some his masterclasses. It will all become very clear.

I don't know if I quite agree with you CharelsW. In a way you are right about musicians are more discerning than non-musicians but haven't you ever been to an amature concert, they are playing the same notes as the professionals do but they don't have that pulse, the dynamics, or the GROOVE of the piece, so to speak.
I think that is more Palestrina is talking about.
The more variation (or feeling) you put in a piece if music the better it sounds.
The PIP doesn't know why it's better they just know that one organist plays the music better than another was does.

I don't know, Charles. I've played on numerous instruments from Bach's time and the generation before Bach, that are exceptional in their sensitive actions. If they are well maintained, they still work great. There's no reason to expect that old=clunky or unresponsive.

It's interesting that Bach's go-to home practice instrument was a clavichord - an exceptionally subtle and sensitive little instrument. In which pressure on the keys does indeed alter the tone (in addition to nuances of attack and release) - the player can add subtle vibrato, similar to a string player.

However, to answer Choirbook's question the nuance on a tracker organ is limited to attack and release. While holding the note, you can't add nuance.

Oh, and one other thing - someone made a point about earlier repertoire benefiting more from tracker organs, and I think that is valid. Some of the more pianistic/virtuosic French Romantic rep (while I would still prefer to play it on a tracker) is less dependent on subtleties of touch. However, play any ornamented Baroque chorale or French Classic piece with intricate ornamentation and you will understand the importance of the immediacy and direct control a good tracker gives you.

Merry Christmas everyone, and whatever instrument you have play it well today and tomorrow!

So the advantage to the control a tracker gives you is the control the way the pipes sound only in the instant while the key falls as you begin the note and then later, when you let go of the key?

From what I understand it can be very helpful in creating a soupy legato touch.

(Have you stopped beating your wife?)

Merry Christmas, all!

CharlesW, I'm afraid that I have to disagree again about 'advances' in tracker touch. Early instruments are quite alright. The Silbermann that I played a couple of weeks ago was so sensitive that I really had to work hard to control it. It's a different kind of touch, which will feel very strange to people who aren't used to it, but it's certainly not any less sensitive than a modern action, and is usually more sensitive.

Congregations may not be able to tell you the difference that they notice, but they will notice something. It's a bit like Eliza Doolittle getting taught to speak by Dr Higgins. She identifies his way of saying something as 'more genteel.' I have found that by working with the beat hierarchy properly, I have been able to lead congregations much more effectively. I hear far too much playing where one cannot tell which beat of the bar the organist is on, which doesn't make things easy to sing with at all.

Look up Van Oortmerssen and all the references to touch in the writings of Romantic organists. It's not just about playing Frescobaldi - it's about playing anything musically. My old organ teacher used to refer to playing without differentiation in touch as rather like listening to somebody without any teeth trying to sing - All vowels, no consonants! He was right. Although fingerings change depending on the period and works concerned, the principles associated with articulation on tracker organ stay the same. There's too much playing out there with too many stops and not enough understanding of how to use them!! You mention that not all music was written with tracker organs in mind. I'd put it to you that all music is written with the idea of making music in mind - phrases, hierarchies, melodies. It's the organist's job to make the music appear. If all the notes are treated the same way, how can these important structural elements be brought out? Simple answer is that they can't. So even if a piece wasn't written with a tracker organ in mind, tracker instruments can still help to bring out the important elements of the work in a way that an electric action organ simply cannot.

Noel, the only times that one can control the note are in its beginning and end, so you can hear a very sharp "on", such that the constant pitch is reached quickly, or something slower, where it gradually blooms, and also a very quick "off", where the note is cut off straight away, or allowed to cut of in a way that is basically a decrescendo. There are also all sorts of degrees in between, so you really can create a beat hierarchy etc. I still haven't had any time to go through YouTube recordings, so please give me a few days to come up with a suitable pair for comparison.

I'm not sure that I can promise you the same instrument played both ways, Noel, but I'll try.

Yes, you're right: it's all in the way that the key is pressed down and allowed to come up. Sometimes this does involve some micro timing changes too e.g. leaving the key a demisemiquaver earlier than notated to allow more space before the next beat. This doesn't change the touch on the release of the key though.

Rather than listening for the micro details, what I advise is listening to the music - is it easier to hear beats, phrases, shapes etc? The answer is invariably yes. It's not about some set of rules without reason, but rather in allowing the organ to truly sing. Learning all of this through my old teacher stands as one of the most important moments in my development - a true moment of change. Trying to understand each of the possible positions/movements/timings is rather like trying to do the same for jazz - Ultimately very frustrating. We know it's there, but trying to create taxonomies really isn't a great idea. There are some brilliant organists out there who set a good example of touch variations - Try William Porter and Jacques van Oortmerssen for a start. Probably best to listen with scores.

Merry Christmas to everyone

Rather than listening for the micro details, what I advise is listening to the music - is it easier to hear beats, phrases, shapes etc? The answer is invariably yes

I am not entirely clear about just how effectively we are separating a number of related but different qualities in this debate regarding tracker vs assisted actions.

In general tracker action has usually been associated with a genre of organ which typically owes more to the baroque than the romantic. Is this apparent clarity of shape in the music due simply to the type of action or the way the instrument is designed and voiced and perhaps because these instruments are more commonly played in places where these qualities are prized and which may tend to have more sympathetic acoustics?

Barker levers and other systems were invented for a reason - straight trackers become impossibly heavy on large instruments; delicacy and refinement of touch are much harder to realise consistently when you are required to apply a touch measured in pounds rather than ounces for a long period. I do wonder whether fatigued fingers on a tracker will invariably produce a better result than relatively fresh ones playing on an assisted action.

tracker players invariably have longer left legs

Wise guy. This can now all be explained in terms of natural selection.

This is a comparison of playing actions ONLY. Compare the pair: one is tracker and the other is electric. I'm making no comment about either player's interpretation, actually. JUST the action.

Possibly you could explain what you perceive as the difference?

Hear we have one instrument with microphones closer to the pipes awhile the second has been recorded at a distance from the pipes, so the audio carries more of the development of the sound of the organ in the room than the first.

The difference in sound here does not reflect on either organist or organ nor the action, since action has nothing to do with the acoustical properties of the room that the sound of the organ resonates in.

The only really valid way to show a person who knows nothing about this subject as well as the expert, which I've been told I'm not, is to hear the identical organ played with electric action and tracker organ action by the same organist, giving us a chance to actually hear the limitations of modern actions over tracker.

In this case, I prefer the sound of the first instrument because of the microphone placement but for all we know the second organist may be outplaying the first organist but microphone placement was chosen to favor the room ambiance as an element.

Rather than listening for the micro details, what I advise is listening to the music - is it easier to hear beats, phrases, shapes etc? The answer is invariably yes

The comparison of these two instruments shows that close miking makes it easier to he beats, phrases, shapes and more, but does not show the organ as heard by the congregation, but rather the people in close proximity.

Noel, it's not a matter of microphone placements. I can see where you're going with this now, and I'm going to refute it now: subtle articulations are not lost in the acoustic. An organist who understands the technique also understands how to vary it according to the resonance of the building. The type of comparison that you want is not available via YouTube. I've given you references to the materials which will make the differences clear so, if you really do want to understand what makes tracker and electric actions different, I'm afraid you'll have to put in the reading and listening time for yourself. To do any less would be like trying to get somebody on these boards to explain semiology to you, post by post.

Eccles, this idea that tracker owes more to the Baroque than the Romantic is untenable, given the number of fine mechanical action organs that exist from the latter period. Not buying the argument about electric actions being needed for larger instruments, sorry... Have you seen some of the larger organs by Schnitger and Silbermann?

I think that this discussion has stagnated. Neither side of the argument is going to convince the other, and both have begun to pick at every little detail of the others arguments. I am concerned that this has ceased to be a healthy discussion of the merits, as it appears that both sides have been heard, but the issues have not been resolved. The following question must be asked: what are you seeking with your arguments? Are you seeking knowledge, deeper understanding of the subject? Or is it more personal, such as winning the argument for the sake of winning? I think much of the latter has begun to happen. So, for the fact that I am concerned that this has become a waste of everyone's efforts and time, I urge the proponents of both sides to ask themselves the following question with the goal of coming to a resolution: what are you looking to achieve? I also urge you to understand that essentially you are arguing over opinions, which are rightly under the control of their respective owners and therefore do not have to change, even in the light of insurmountable evidence that "proves" the contrary.

It just sounds to me that the question of why a tracker is superior has been asked and answered several times on this discussion. Some say it gives superior control over the attack and release, which is properly something that can really only be felt by the organist, which in turn allows him or her to make what they believe is a better performance. That is quite clearly a matter of opinion. Others say there is no difference, and still others say that because there is no PERCEIVABLE difference for the untrained ear, the expense is not justifiable to a parish.

How then is the decision made? It seems to be about preferences, and that again is clearly a matter of opinion. In terms of whether or not advocates of tracker organs are going to guarantee that organ playing as an art form will die: I do not believe that is true. Why? Because even though they advocate for that type of organ, based on a preference, even when that preference can be supported by performance practice precedent, and also by academics and experience, the organist will play whatever instrument is provided, whether it is tracker, DE, EP, or some other action that has not been invented yet. Why did I play on an old Hammond that I could not stand? Because it is what I had available to me. If all a church had was a digital organ, I would play it, because the service should be more important. TCC, I'm all with you on the argument that diverse types of organs are indeed acceptable, as I have played many fine examples of each. I leave you with that olive branch, as I highly respect you and your intellectual discussions. Merry Christmas!

In reality, I have never worked for a church where I could oversee a new organ installation. In an instance or two, I was able to make some refinements to an instrument and correct some minor problems, but that is all. In every case I have had to play the instrument the church had. I didn't worry about what type of action it had. That was generally the most trivial of my problems.

What I want is three ranks scaled for Royal Albert Hall with tracker action. This would allow me to properly interpret and articulate the Recto Tono Fantasy in F Sharp. I think that was written by MatthewJ. Not sure about the composer but it sure sounds like one of his works. What hath Matthew wrought? Being short of leg, I could use the extremes of the flat pedal board for leg lengthening exercises.

chonak:

Well, I was being purple text on that one, but yes, of those two I am aware. I am not much for minimalism. I think i preferred Taverner to those two, all though I truly like Part's beatitudes and other of his more motetish type works.

hartleymartin, with due respect, what kind of experience are you speaking from? You have shot from the hip for most of your posts here, so I am disinclined to take anything that you have said in your most recent post seriously.

ClergetKubisz, the argument can only be reduced to 'preference' when electric action advocates have processed the most recent scholarship on tracker action and touch. Until then, I strongly disagree with the points that you have made.

Is one organ harder or easier? Probably not, although non-trackers can have more conveniences, such as programmable crescendo pedals, and combination actions.
There are the "stripped down" (Amish wannabe) trackers with nearly everything mechanical, and the "pimped out" trackers with electric combination actions, etc.
Making an amateur sound worse? No, only practice makes amateurs sound better. That's true for all of us. Find an instrument that has a sound you like, and work with it.