theoretically, none... but the piano WILL strengthen your hands and perhaps give you an agility you would not have otherwise. (unless you are practicing on a tracker with heavy action)

I studied piano from ages 5-18 and then switched to the organ... wished I had studied organ from the start, but the priority of studying the organ was not cultivated in early years (in general), perhaps because it is was more difficult to get practice time in a church. Now with the advent of MIDI, home organs are becoming a reality.

Get your feet moving now... Don't loose a moment!!!

I had a year or two of piano before starting organ at the age of 15. When I was in college, I had to take another year of piano. To this day, I have no special ability on piano. Others say I play well enough, but I can tell the difference readily when I hear a real pianist play. So it is possible to play organ without much piano. As long as you read music, you can learn organ. Just find a good teacher.

Some say when a student can play the two and three part Inventions of JS Bach, he is ready to begin the study of the organ.

http://www.virtual-midi-organs.com/agoconsole.pdf

This link is to a specification of the "AGO standard console", mighty handy when building your own. Has all dimensions, etc.

My organ method says, that roughly 1 year of piano lessons is necessary, although with good disposition on the part of the student, half a year may suffice; it should always comprise all the clefs and the rest of notation and have a stress on legato playing, which ought to be continued for a certain period of time, when organ lessons have already started. Practice in score reading should start on the piano.

One cannot denie that the touch of an organ is quite dissimilar to that of a piano (and that no organ is the same); I suppose the preparing piano lessons the method are therefore only the beginning in note reading and transforming into sound, which simply does not take place on the organ because a piano at the teachers home is not in the cold (unheated?) church and does not require a bellows treader (taking into account the time of the first editions of this book). Therefore with a church that at times is "deserted" enough, so one can practice and give the lessons (which must be found later on anyway, when the feet are practised), the initial lessons might as well take place on the organ.

As others have mentioned, one reason to learn the piano for as long as possible, is that often organ practice time can be more difficult to come by (unless you have one in your house!)
Another reason to learn the piano first, would be that there is an immensely larger variety of options for pedagogical materials for the piano. (For example, most methods of organ playing I've ever seen--well, I've only ever seen two. Is there many more than that? -- assume that the student can already play 16th notes pretty fluently, and as someone above mentioned, something like Bach's 2 or 3 part inventions...)

To Kevin in Kentucky, you are absolutely correct. This is a crucial issue in church music today because so many organists fudge their way through because they have not mastered the articulations of the piano before beginning organ study. The old maxim of "master the two-part inventions of Bach before you begin organ study" should be given heed to, for the following reason: the issue is articulation of the separate voices, which entails lifting one hand while the other is still playing. This is further complicated in organ because another voice is introduced in the pedal. The world is full of organists who can play the first 30 bars of a Bach fugue but then fall apart because they don't know how to practice the contrapuntal articulation of the voices, which always entails lifting a hand or foot to begin a new phrase, while at the same time keeping the other voices going in a legato manner. There is no substitute for a great teacher. But unfortunately these are hard to come by. The second way is perseverence in listening and practice, as well as lots of prayer! You must always be able to pick up one hand while the other is still playing. This is what is meant by articulation. Mark all fingerings and pedals (toe/heel). It is tedious, but once you've got it, you've got it for life. God bless your efforts.

When AGO has hymn playing workshops in the area, they are not always helpful. Usually, there is a Presbyterian organist demonstrating how hymns are sung and played in the Presbyterian churches. In my Catholic church, the congregation hymnals are all in unison, and those other three parts are just accompaniment. Articulation of anything contrary to the melody line can be a waste of time and effort. Overdone articulation can cause the congregation to look up and and think, "Why is he doing that?"

I can almost see or hear Albert Schweitzer discussing with Charles-Marie Widor the intricacies of phrasing and articulation details in J.S. Bach's organ works...

I cannot but join with those who emphasize the importance of a well developed piano technique for mastery of the organ. Although the two are, indeed, quite distinct instruments with seemingly little in common except the keyboard, there is no question that mastery of Bach (and Beethoven, etc.) on the piano is of immense, even crucial, value in the mastery of organ technique and literature. Dispensing with this discipline and background is tantamount to deciding that one will go through life with less preparation and artistry at the organ than could have made a great difference in the level at which he will ever be capable of playing.

CHGIFFEN - is correct: one should master harpsichord technique as well. I knew that some might pillory me (perhaps even me, myself would do so!) for advocating Bach, et al. on the piano. But I do stand by my words, only adding that, of course! the harpsichord is an important part of this equation, too. Excellence in piano technique is remarkably preparatory, foundational, and adaptive to the organ's own unique demands. I should go so far, even, as to suggest that, in spite of the differences between the three instruments, each is remarkably influenced for the better by technique gained for and from the others. And, it is highly likely that musicians of early times would agree, for they were, as a matter of course in those days, equally proficient on organ, harpsichord, clavichord, cembalo, and to a limited extent, the piano. One can imagine how rich, universal, and dazzling their techniques must have been and how that each of the instruments' technique influenced that of all the others.

I have to agree with you YellowRoseofTexas, I have a colleague that never took a piano lesson in his life, and he is a top notch organist, playing repertoire that could put many organist, to shame. When I asked him if he lamented never learning piano. He said absolutely not. I wanted to study the organ, and did. Just the other day, he was firing away the Widor toccata without flinching.

I agree with some of you, that learning piano will definitely give a base knowledge of things, and some technique, but overdoing it, will take years of correction to organ technique. The two aren't the same.

Piano, organ, and harpsichord will be mutually beneficial when studied together, as long as you are able to clearly differentiate the techniques. Piano - percussion, harpsichord - plucked, organ - winded (but at least on trackers there is more affinity with harpsichord, as there is a pluck point as the palette opens). I think the worst idea is to play on an electric keyboard, which is none of the above. I suppose if all you have is electro-pneumatic organs and MIDI piano keyboards, then the entire discussion about piano or organ first is a moot point. You are discussing the exact same electronic instrument (in terms of action and technique), just with the addition of a pedal board. The best idea is to play on real instruments, learning their unique characteristics of sound generation.
Another interesting note is that the idea of practice on organs is very new - what people used to have was pedal-clavichords, pedal-harpsichords, or in the 19th century pedal-pianos. So the idea of piano or organ or harpsichord first is not really that useful. Just last year I heard Hans Davidsson talking about the introduction of the pedal-clavichords into the practice rooms at Eastman - he said it has been an incredible aid to the organ technique of the students there (as well as greatly reducing cases of tendonitis). Again, what is important is understanding the unique sound-producing characteristics of your (real) instrument. If the only real instrument you can access or afford is a piano, I would start there, then search out good organs in the area to practice on.

On a practical note, the most helpful piano exercises for my organ technique have been the Ernst Dohnanyi finger exercises. These zero in on finger independence, rather than the more scalar approach of Czerny or Hanon. This makes them incredibly useful for improving either your contrapuntal playing abilities (multiple voices per hand) or legato technique (with held notes and legato lines in the same hand). I highly recommend them to organists. In terms of keyboard rep, I would just second the Bach 2- and 3- part inventions mentioned by several people above.

And by the way, for the love of everything holy, PLEASE do not play Bach legato. This technique has been completely disproved - it is a holdover of the first half of the 20th century and the French symphonic approach to Bach (especially Dupre's editions). It is destructive to the music, and unfortunately still championed by some Americans. All three of my primary organ teachers were brought up this way (at Eastman), but thankfully they have adjusted to new musicological info since then. Sorry - pet peeve....

I studied piano from age 5 - 17 and then STARTED on the organ... it was like starting over except for knowing my scales and music theory. Get on the organ as soon as possible. Do both if you want, but they are totally different instruments. i.e., Finger substitution is a HUGE factor in organ pedagogy that is only touched upon in piano technique. You don't write the same music for piano as you do for organ unless it comes from the period where harpsichord was the dominant practice instrument.

Francis,

Of course you are correct about not playing mechanically, however just remember that you can re-register and re-interpret Bach (and adjust it to every space) in a human way, without ever playing it legato. There are many fine gradations of non-legato playing. Similarly, I could say that Palestrina should not be sung with operatic vibrato in all (or any) voices. The exclusion of one poor performance practice in no way renders the many legitimate, sensitive interpretations robotic. And as a musician you should care whether you are playing Bach or Beethoven, to give a good performance of the piece.

Why harp on this? Because the choice of legato or non-legato in Bach changes everything about your fingering, learning, and interpretation of a piece. This is incredibly important for a beginner - for example, to know that it is fine to just pick up a finger and play the next note. Constantly in Bach, you have a descending soprano line in long notes, with activity in the alto. The proper way to play is just to pick up your pinky and move it to the next soprano note, which in turn allows you to relax the hand and keep all other fingers free to play the alto part. Your choice of fingering IS your learning of the piece, as you figure out hand positions and so forth. A legato approach completely changes how you learn a piece, and how you understand it motivically - it is not neutral.
I used to believe that I could just finger the piece legato, and then do whatever I wanted with the touch later. Thankfully, after years, my teachers broke me of that habit - and it revolutionized my approach to Bach.

[Deleted by author]

Piano helps with basic knowledge of which key corresponds to which note. After that, I think it would probably be very beneficial to start with the organ as soon as possible. I took piano lessons for 8 years, and, after a year and a half of organ lessons, I am much more proficient at the organ than at the piano. It depends on the person, but I really think you should just dive in to the organ- If you start at ground zero, you don't have anything to 'unlearn'. :)

Yet another perspective.

http://nodrylight.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/bach-legato-or-staccato/

I am silly to be arguing this stuff. I like Bach HowEVER you play it as long as it is played well!!!

congrats, Scott!

I like Bach, but realize that his church music was written for Lutherans, not Catholics. While some of it can be used in Catholic settings, Catholicism was not his theology.

Thanks to some of the organ reform nuts, some of the more contemporary playings of his works might be unrecognizable to Bach himself.

I suspect he adjusted his playing to the acoustics of the building, just like most of us still do.

yeah, why are we arguing over Bach? Let's play Langlais and Tournemire in our *Catholic* Churches!

:-)

Also, Re: Bach:
Define "correct." The way Bach did it? Ok, fine, that's one definition. But couldn't "musically interesting and expressive" or something similar also be a possible definition? Is the ONLY "correct" way of playing something ever the way the composer had in mind? (Sometimes, with not-so-good composers, the performer can *improve* on what the composer had in mind!) The people who thought that Bach played legato thought they were doing it "correctly," so what's going to happen to everyone's opinion of "correctness" if/when the next round of "Bach research" occurs and brings new possible interpretations to light?

[Deleted by author]

[Deleted by author]

[Deleted by author]

Many forget that there is no "correct" way of playing Bach. There are no recordings from his day. The supposedly authentic instruments from his time have been rebuilt and revoiced enough that they may not sound like they did in Bach's day. Even the great "scholars" theorize and make educated guesses based on little acutal evidence. It seems to me that Bach is more highly regarded today that he was in his own lifetime. His contemporaries didn't seem to have much of note to say about him.

My college organ professor said two things about Bach that I remember.
1.) You are old enough to play Bach the way you want him to sound.
2.) When you play Bach, make it sound musical.
I knew exactly what he meant.