I have come to the conclusion we live in odd times, so I am not surprised by the odd match. It seems many modern church buildings are angular and sterile enough to delight the heart of a hardened Calvinist. As an organist, I have never understood the "tracker thing" either. There is a new organ in town that takes 3 people to play, sounds so harsh I can't even stand to listen to it, and is only capable of being played in certain keys. It's strictly a personal opinion, of course, but I have decided that both Vatican II and the organ reform movement marked the time when the inmates took over their respective asylums. It must have been a 1960s thing.

"I have decided that both Vatican II and the organ reform movement marked the time when the inmates took over their respective asylums. It must have been a 1960s thing."

It seems to me that these two seemingly odd bedfellows are brought together by one crucial thing: historicism, whether real (in the case of the organ) or imagined (in the case of the liturgy).

That being said, I like trackers, but I also like electric action organs, symphonic organs, etc. But not electronic organ substitutes.

Charles offers an important caveat about organ building in those times. Indeed, many instruments which were built to sound "Baroque" actually just sound ugly. One wonders if these builders ever bothered to go listen to a Silbermann. So, my assertion that historicism in terms of organbuilding is "real" needs to be tempered by the fact that so many of these projects were grossly mishandled.

O... sorry. I didn't know that this was a previous debate. Please point me to the original debate... I would like to read it (and maybe chime in)!

Here's my take.

Organs are just like people. No two are alike. In fact, if you could find twins, they would still be radically different once you got to know them. I have had a few three manual pneumatic Casavants in my various posts over the years (triplets?) They were OK. I don't care for the mushiness of romantic EP's. They were always too tubby and unresponsive for my taste. Just a personal preference. Exception: the Lively-Fulcher in the Franciscan Monastery was by far the best EP I have ever played. I was dully impressed! Bach is just as clear as the romantics on that thing.

As for trackers, I have only played one tracker I did not "like" in my lifetime. (But I would have given my left small toe to have it my living room nonetheless) It was a Reiger in my own home town. It was far to brightly voiced. But that was just a matter of voicing which can be easily remedied with air pressure and regulation.

DA: I am sorry you have had bad experiences with trackers.

Building a tracker is one thing, building a tracker for the acoustic for which it is intended is entirely another. You cannot separate the two. In fact, you cannot separate the two for ANY kind of instrument; piano, organ, or orchestra, tracker or EP. One can have the most beautifully built instrument in the world. But put it in a bad space and it becomes a bad instrument. There is no getting around that!

While we are debating this, I might as well chime in on my real estate clause: location, location, location! IMVHO, you cannot put an organ, especially a baroque (or higher pressure air instrument) on an altar. You can get away with this if you have a romantic instrument with lots of reverberation and/or mid to high frequency dissipation, but an organ belongs up in the air (in a building with fine architecture.) This is why the very small churches of old were built like mini-cathedrals. Architects and acousticians understood the theory back then. Today, we have 'the environment of worship'. I won't even touch that one.

Organs are made to be in one place. High ceiling, loft in the back (or on the side) and the organ in it.

OK. I guess I have stirred up the organ bees nest now! I am ruuuuuuuunning for the hills!

No apology needed, especially from you, DA! However, I know just what you are getting at! "Please, not another camp!"

Have no fear. Of all the musicians in the world, Francis Koerber will never join any 'camp' 'cept the one that Jesus and Mary are running from heaven! Everything else down here is going to dissolve into eternity in a matter of time, and then I am off to play the great and mighty pipe organ in the sky!

FK

For my money, the stunning mechanical-action organ by Paul Fritts & Co, at St Joseph's RC Cathedral, Columbus, OH, is a beautiful example of what can be achieved. Would anyone call this organ ugly in appearance? I've heard it in a number of recordings and it sounds as beautiful as it looks. The key action is only a very small part of the story of an amazing instrument that does justice to pretty much all of the organ repertoire of the Church, and which has the luxury of great acoustics. It takes the right builder to get these things absolutely right. The same standards can be achieved with smaller instruments as long as they are are well thought-out.

http://www.frittsorgan.com/opus025.htm

Most of the organs I heard or played were built by CASAVANT FRERES from Quebec. These organs were of the electro pneumatic symphonic style, Very gentle sounds for chant and hym-singing. The tracker organs are ideal for Bach Organ concerts. They are too harsh and overpowering for chanting and choral Mass accompaniments.

I have played some 19th century American trackers that produced some really lovely sounds. However, I tend to get annoyed with the mechanism of trackers. It all seems to me like giving up my car and going back to a horse and buggy. Granted with gas prices, the horse may have some advantages, but I am not anachronistic enough to value early transportation over modern. The same is true with organs. Most of the trackers I have played had flat pedalboards - not good for those of us who are short of leg. My biggest tracker complaint has been that I was too close to the organ to hear what the congregation was actually hearing. With some of today's trackers, I can't understood putting essentially North German Lutheran style instruments in Catholic and Anglican churches where they don't fit the music.

Oooo, Francis! You've written some solo organ music? I'm intrigued!

CharlesW, you've hit the nail on the head in my book. I've played some really colorful and beautiful "early American" tracker organs with rich and woolly foundations, flutes and strings, smooth reeds and gentle mixtures. All too often modern trackers are built along Germanic lines with thin foundations, brittle mixtures and buzzy reeds which are, IMHO, great for playing the works of Bach, but not too well suited to accompany chant or traditional hymnody.

(It's just my opinion, folks. I've no doubt that there are many modern trackers built in the German style that are quite fine.)

I hate to make my first post on this great board one on the divisive issue of organs (or at least it seemed divisive in the last few issues of Adoremus!), but...

I really think now in the organbuilding world, funds allowing, the tracker is the best bet. If the organ is in the gallery, then the action can be well-designed (read: light!) and there are fewer compromises. Also, I would argue that the standards of workmanship and craftsmanship of tracker builders are much higher nowadays. Just look at organs by Taylor and Boody (http://www.taylorandboody.com/home.htm) or maybe even the new Noack in LaCrosse (http://www.noackorgan.com/instruments/opus/opus_150.html) and you can see the wonderful visual aspects (in addition to the actual musical qualities).

Now, one might say that "these are both pretty hard-line, Baroque builders". Not so; the realities of the economy (fewer contracts) and taste (lots of people want trackers, but with a more "romantic" or even "Cavaille-Coll" sound) mean that most tracker builders have broadened their horizons tonally, etc. In addition, a neo-classic or romantic stoplist does not a good organ make; it's all in the actual voicing, design, etc., not stop names. I know of a lot of trackers that, despite the stopknobs making it look like a pretty poor service playing instrument, impress with their flexibility and also the musical qualities of individual stops (as someone noted, 8' foundations, etc.) I haven't heard an instrument built recently by an American tracker builder that has anything other than a clear, vocal tone.

Also, there aren't any perishable parts in trackers, so there is no need for releathering (saves $$$) every 30 years. Actions need adjusting some, but even most pipes are cone-tuned, so if you can tune the reeds yourself (not that hard), there isn't a need for an expensive tuning contract. So, barring the initial high outlay, it is a better deal for a tracker. And, you are, with the right builder, getting a veritable work-of-art, rather than something someone in a factory turned out, not really caring where it is going or what it will do.

Now, having thoroughly dissed electric and e/p action instruments, let me say that some of my favorite instruments (Aeolian at Duke Chapel, any late 1920's Skinner) are not trackers. Especially if there is an awkward church layout, they are sometimes absolutely necessary. From my experience, though, there is one important aspect to getting a really good e/p instrument for your church: you have to "ride herd" on the builder. Along with the consultant, the church needs to be very specific about what it wants, how it should sound, the level of workmanship, etc. If that is done, things will be fine. Also, some friends of mine have had good luck with Casavant and Letourneau in this area, without having to make "interventions" regarding the quality of work. Just something to think about...

I do understand the gripes some of you have with trackers; I am graduating from the University of Texas-Austin this spring, and our big Visser tracker (4man/90rks) plays like a truck because the builder will only build balanced (rather than suspended) action. It took me about a year to get used to, and is still my big knock on the instrument. In any case, I'm sorry for this looooong epistle, but just thought I would contribute.

Welcome, Bruce.

Gotta love the Noack. Did you play the Flentrop at Duke? What an Opus!

DA: Wow, do I miss playing trackers. I have access to a small Jardine about a mile from my house but it is in disrepair now. It's in a chapel in a Catholic girls school where I was the organist and choir director at one time. It is very similar to this one:

http://home.comcast.net/~stjohnriverdale/organ.jpg

The OHS did a restoration on it back in 1990 when I was there, but it has been neglected over the years.

Back on topic.
I have been waiting for the cathedral organ specification to appear on the organ builder website.
The info is now available here:
http://www.letourneauorgans.com/default.aspx?lang=EN-CA&p=/pages/upcomingProjects/the-cathedral-of-christ-the-light.aspx

eft

Are you near this bad boy?

Google maps says 8 miles.
Might as well be thousands due to my own bench demands.

Despite the short distance,
I have a full schedule of weekday office tasks, weekend music tasks, variable volunteer tasks.

I have been at the Cathedral three times:
May 2008 for a brief tour (during which a brass quintet was rehearsing);
Nov 2008 for a shoe-horned Saturday morning Deanery Mass, at which I accompanied two choirs
on a temporary console controlling the Choir and Echo Choir pipework
(installed liturgical north at ground level behind the choir seating
in shaded chambers hidden by a grey burlap screen);
May 2009 for a Confirmation (see Forum Discussion 266).

Perhaps I will hear it during one of the Dedication Concerts (see Forum Discussion 2696).

FYI, you can see, during the Cathedral Provost video, the Choir and Echo Choir "screen" I was talking about ...
http://www.ctlcathedral.org/resources/video_display1.shtml
More than half way through the video, after the description of the cathedra,
is the description of the ambo. In that scene background, below the shelf,
between a white lightswitch plate and very dark exit tunnel is the "screen".

The rest of the instrument has been installed in the last few months
on the two shelves, left and right of the altar, above the choir and cathedra.