Calming down is certainly in order - there is no need to trade personal insults on musicality or performance quality. Still, the original question was from a beginner, which is what sparked my comments. For a teacher there is a responsibility to teach well, as it will form the beginner. If you are going to teach beginners, you need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the fact that musical aesthetics have changed over time. Bach is not Beethoven, nor is a Romantic-era pianoforte legato aesthetic applicable to the early 18th century. If you encourage a student to play Bach however they feel is best, then frankly you are irresponsible as a teacher. The way you introduce an organ student to Bach forms their approach to one of the greatest organ composers (and greatest body of work for the instrument), for the rest of their life. Please, please do at least a bit of research before encouraging students one way or another. The phrase "we don't have Bach recordings" is a trite way to avoid dealing with all of the treatises, fingering guides, and discussions of technique we do have from Bach's time. For a very basic intro, I recommend Quentin Faulkner's "J.S. Bach's Keyboard Technique: A Historical Introduction."

I also want to give my disclaimer again that the issue is not 100% certain as to the one CORRECT way of playing Bach - that's why you need to do some studying. What I am talking about is a specific French approach from the turn of the century that is clearly at odds with the aesthetic of Bach's time - the absolutely strict legato style. IOW, you can eliminate some specific methods without having to propose that there is only one way to play something.

And while you're discussing credentials, you have to realize that many American teachers and schools were formed by the French (esp. Dupre and Widor) dogmatic insistence on legato in Bach (for example, Arthur Poister and Albert Schweitzer). So you can still find high caliber organists teaching who have not grappled with the issue (or they just do what their teachers did).
Francis' insistence on a completely relativist, absolutely subjective personal approach to music is a bit disturbing. But I don't necessarily begrudge it to him, as long as he doesn't teach beginners that nothing matters stylistically.
Next up - I will release the complete works of Franck...STACCATO! A landmark recording! Come on - is it so horrible to suggest that we need to think about things like style and context and what we know about the composer, when approaching a piece of music?

[Deleted by author]

Francis,

Just to be clear I did not think you ever insulted me - nor did I think I insulted you (if you think so please provide a quote because that was not my intention). I was actually hoping to calm things down between you and MichaelM above. His comments on your recording struck me as kind of mean-spirited.
If the student says "I like to play Bach legato" and the teacher says "Dupre legato is not stylistically appropriate for Bach, any more than detached playing is appropriate for Dupre" - this is in no way an insult to the student. They are not a bad player or musician, however they need some help in the stylistic department. A student who says "I like doing this music my way, and I will be insulted and crushed if any teacher says otherwise" - is a bad student. At the extreme least a good student needs to do things their teacher's way while studying with that teacher. All of my teachers have had this understanding. While I'm with them I do things their way, and they know that what will make me a unique performer is my critical decision about which things to take away from their teaching.

A teacher who said categorically "you play Bach horribly" would be a fool and a failure as a teacher. A good teacher would say something encouraging (such as "you are an excellent musician") followed by something constructive: "here are some ways to play Bach better, in my opinion."

In my studies I have often been told that I could improve things, and I have many times been told that something I was doing was flat wrong. It never broke my spirit - on the contrary, I appreciated working with excellent teachers who had substantial things to say. I have seen some students who approach with the attitude that their personal way is best - they just don't do very well with instruction. Even the most patient teacher will eventually say "why did you bother coming to study with me if you have no interest in learning anything?" I'm honestly not sure what the elevation of science over God has to do with this discussion, but I believe our Christian tradition has something to say about humility and teach-ability.

If you think the non-legato approach is just 'my way' you need to do some studying of the literature and the practice of the great teachers around the organ world today. In other words, make your own decision, certainly, but make it an informed decision. Credentials can be suspect, which is why it's so important not to base your understanding on the two or three teachers you have happened to study with.
If you know my other posts, you will know I have an intense dislike of our modern music schools. But one thing I will give them - being in school has put me in contact with music scholarship and with visiting artists and masterclasses with the top teachers from around the world. Please understand that my opinions on the legato/non-legato are not just 'my way' of doing things.

Peace :)

My point is, and will be, Bach utilized an articulate touch to a lot of his playing, as a teacher, students should be exposed to that, call it what you want, method, style, whatever,,,, but it was what he used. Organists of all sorts can utilize that very method or style, and still interprete the music in a very exciting and joyful style. It's not a matter of being boring or uninspired. When in fact that non-legato, non-staccato form, makes it just as exciting, why??? because as pointed out, the french romantic legato school of thought, is the only one being engrained in everyone's minds. When I finally ended up with an excellent professor, she made it a point to, point out that Bach isn't merely a legato style of playing. You can move over fingers without worry, (freedom + liberty), to reach other notes, you can articulate in a way, known to Bach, in his very artistic and improvisorial sense, without the legalism of legato.

I enjoy improvising as well, and wouldn't go a day without it, but when it comes to one of the greatest master's of the organ, Bach, I side with kirchenmusik, in that we should definitely be exposed and interprete Bach's works with that same, core fundamental technique he used, which above all, promotes even more the thought of improvising, and being "inspiring" , freedom, etc.... Being legal to legato, to me, shows uninspiring, and boring. Everything should be connected, your foot move like this, your fingers have to be like this...... nahhh, I don't subscribe to that.

I think what you find as a legalism to following Bach, is really actually an open door to more. Instead of constantly playing everything "legato"

One final thought I will leave with you, and the rest of the crew watching this outward display of craziness and non-sense is this. I have asked that my account be canceled to this forum, and I will tell you why, as I am waiting for their response. I am new to this forum in the last couple months, and was warned by several colleagues before coming on here at all, not to join, or come. Why? Some might ask? Well, in discussing with a few very highly respected, couple of reknown organists (names witheld to respect their privacy), they shared the fact that these forums invite pissing matches, bickering, tit for tat, and reflect very poorly on church music in general. It is a very poor reflection on the CMAA. I was cautioned, and should have listened.

It's no wonder, change for the better of church music, will be stalled, or barely break ground, with non-sense like this going on. Many a good organist, with lots to offer, won't join groups like CMAA, AGO, NPM, etc... etc...

Perhaps we need to re-examine ourselves, and think, is working against each other, really going to promote positive change.

Good Luck, God Bless!

It's not a matter of healthy discussion, or no confrontation, that all stops at the door when we start to come off with unprofessional banter. I recognize that things aren't all pretty and nice, this is evident in the liturgy alone, but when we are all trying to work towards a common goal of cleaning that up, it is counterproductive to be tit for tat against each other at any rate.

Bach was known for being the superstar, or jazz artist of his time, my point was and is, in better utilizing his method or technique, style, whatever we wish to call it, that opens the doors to a more correct way of interpreting his works. Correct not meaning, you have to hit this note, at this time, or else..... it's quite contrary, and if any evidence of Bach is more clear, is that his techniques were very much a jazz of his time. Not holding to very legal ways of playing. Opening the door up to more exciting playing, without worry about making sure I substituted on that descending scale, or used heels to move over to the next note. From all research on him, it wouldn't have mattered, he would have just picked up his foot, and moved it over an octave without worrying about substituting to make that happen.

Well marajoy, I hate to burst your bubble, those heated debates that you refer to, the occasional ones, are still "unprofessional." If you believe it's not unprofessional, it just adds to the cautions I was made aware of beforehand. When I came, and observed, and in reviewing older posts, can see exactly what was explained to me. There are ways to have good debates, without deliberating baiting others into anger. It's business management 101.

As for my crossing the line. No ma'me. When you bait someone into an infuriating conversation, and it's clear from other's posts, that that was the intention. I'm sorry. It is unprofessional.

A wealth of knowledge there may be, and how unfortunate, that these, "occasional" heated debates as you put them, seem to cloud in the way of providing that knowledge to others. There is no reason to be holier than thou. I'm sorry!

No one said it had to be a professional forum, but as musicians in a church, we should be professional! Period! No matter where you conduct yourself.

No I was not specifically referring to you in that statement. Why don't you stop trying to fuel a fire! Maybe reading the rules of etiquette on the forum, might help. I know I sure reviewed them. Hence my decision to delete previous posts.

As for your comment about doors hitting me on the way out, nice, and very classy!

To whom it is referring to, is those select few, that in reading many, many past posts, that did get into a few heated debates, and continued to fuel those fires.

So perhaps in good reflection now, we can pay close attention to # 4, and # 10, of the etiquette, and remember that, yes, this is the internet, but that doesn't mean being professional checks itself outside of the forum.

And food for thought, while this may seem like a bunch of "amateur" lovers of liturgy, the organization of the CMAA, is a professional organization. What is represented here, should also reflect that.

And while your comment may make mention of "IF", there is no need for those "classy" remarks. You can just ask the question, if I was referring to you, before attempting to fuel more fire.

marajoy, I am glad that you have taking the time to look at "my" sins, and yet, fail to recognize your own. My conversation was between francis and kirchenmusik. None of us have apologized over the said comments, but have come to conclusion on the discussion, as reflected by francis in his last post. Nonetheless, as for criticizing, yes, I making an observation as to why many and many others, that would offer even more wealth to the knowledge already present, won't participate in this endeavor. Perhaps reflecting on why that is, would be of great value, and instead of newcombers, coming in, and reading all the past posts, which have all the above in it, and deterring participation, etc...

First of all, deleting all my past posts, including many with neutral conversation, was and is my choice. If I see that I have made a comment in a few that perhaps I repent, it is my choice to remove it. Period! It has no place to continue fueling a blaze. Again this is my choice, and it is purely from my perspective of recognizing my comments, and keeping from fueling this any further.

Now it appears you are just another one of those, that loves to fuel fires, and watch good fights. As far as I am concerned, I am done discussing it with you. You want to keep chattering on and on. Good for you. Prove my point more!

And on a final point, for your information, I am not going out out tell the rest of my colleagues, what has transpired here. One, I need not do that, because there are many good posters on here, that do provide good insight, and knowledge, and give the CMAA a good name. Their is no reason to drag down the CMAA over anonymous posters to it's forum. I believe wholeheartly in what it promotes, and that is a cleaner liturgy. So to respond to your statement that I am going to tell the world, that is clearly a no!

I think it time for some Ella Fitzgerald, a single malt scotch and a good bowl of Macbaren's Latakia.

MichaelM, I wish you the best and will hope to hear you play on or off video or audio at some point in time.

Godspeed.

Getting back to the subject of piano study, which was after all the original point of this post, I think it's worth noting that several outstanding organists were also outstanding pianists. Dupré, apparently, was a good enough pianist to perform Chopin and Liszt in the concert hall (and he kept up his piano practice along with his organ practice each day). Franck was a piano virtuoso well before he mastered the organ (and to the end of his days some hearers preferred his pianism to his organ-playing). And a former pupil of the late English organist-composer Harold Darke recently said to me: "I asked him how he practiced, and he said: 'I do 45 minutes each day on the piano."

I've never taken any piano lessons. I started taking organ lessons when I was 15 years old. I am now 63. I have been a church organist for years. I've been told by many that I play very well. So, a person doesn't need to take piano lessons before they study the organ. I can always tell when a pianist tries to play the organ and the opposite also.

Back in the day, I could tickle the ivories well enough (I managed the simpler Beethoven piano sonata movements) to realize my severe pianistic limitations. Falstaff's hopes of becoming Henry V's prime minister were the ultimate expression of gritty Machiavellian realism, compared with my childhood hopes of becoming a professional pianist.

Only in my late 30s did I perceive the fact that the organ was actually suited to my abilities, such as they were, in a manner that the piano wasn't. Organists need to think polyphonically: cool, since I could think polyphonically. Organists can use sheet music in concerts: cool, since my capacity for memorization was always limited. Organists need to improvise: cool, since I could improvise (though my improvisations, as Dorothy Parker might have put it, "will leave the Seine as damp as ever").

Perhaps something like this piano background is the happiest medium for an organist. I've encountered a few musicians whose training was entirely in the violin, the flute, the clarinet, or some such melody instrument. They really struggled with not just theory, but the most basic counterpoint.

In some place or other, Albert Schweitzer wrote that a thorough exposure to Bach's output (while he was thinking mainly of Bach's organ output, the observation stands in other contexts, whether pianistic or otherwise) robs any musician of the ability to take pleasure in composers where contrapuntal significance is lacking. I think Schweitzer had a point here; and whenever I've needed to re-approach - taking an extreme instance - Poulenc, I find that the absence of polyphonic interest in even Poulenc's best work really does rather get me down. These days, I suppose, Schweitzer is considered a bit of an Aunt Sally by breast-beating Orgelbewegung types, but I periodically go back to his writings on organ music with continued profit.

Francis is right: theoretically none. I didn't have official keyboard or piano training before I started learning the organ (or rather teaching myself the organ). My piano skills actually got better when I started playing organ, not the other way around. Since then, I've also been able to use my newly developed piano skills to augment the organ skills, and thus the relationship has become symbiotic.

It helps to have familiarity with keyboard instruments (i.e. you can find where the notes are), and the ability to read music (which is one of the things normally learned in basic instrument lessons, such as piano, which is probably why most proponents of piano first will tell you that piano is necessary before learning organ: to learn how to read the music and get the familiarity with the keyboard layout).

In speaking with Reynolds Organ Co of Marion, Indiana, their CEO is a trained organist, with a degree from Ball State University, and studied with Dr. Kirby Koriath. His suggestion is that when a student can play a Bach two-part invention (it doesn't matter which one), they are ready to begin organ study.

Of course, all of the above is probably the best way to go about it, but I did it backwards and it worked out ok. I am actually a proponent of having some piano experience first, but I really don't put a number on the amount of years or whatever that you have to have before you can touch the hallowed keys of the organ. My goal is to get the student to have the above mentioned abilities: be able to read music at the keyboard and know where all of the keys are. The rest generally comes with experience, and advanced musical concept training.

I really don't think it matters, as these are two entirely different instruments. The advantage to playing piano prior to organ is that you already know the keyboard and basic theory. The disadvantage, of course, is that you only know how to play one keyboard and not triple manuels with different sounds. The technique is also very, very different. Most pianist have trouble trying to switch to the organ when they've been used to sustaining pedals. Even without pedal technique on the organ, loss of the sustaining pedal can be disconcerting to some (me included).

If you have a decent sense of musicality and know basic music theory, I don't see much of a problem with switching over. Of course, practice makes perfect!

Welcome, MDE!

John Stanley couldn't read music either, and had no pedal technique to speak of. With all that no one has ever suggested he wasn't a real organist.

From Dupre's Course on Improvisation (Vol. 2) - the first chapter of which is titled "The Piano, Basis of Organ Technique":

"It is impossible to play the organ well unless one has first a real pianist's technique. That is why an organist is on the wrong track unless he devotes several years to an intense study of the piano."

More telling:

"An organist cannot any more than a pianist omit serious study of the Chopin Etudes and Liszt Etudes Trancendantes."

However, a good case can be made that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as Dupre came from a generation of organists schooled in virtuosic manual technique, and therefore wrote music that is pianistic. He also taught at a time when many major organs either had a pneumatic Barker assist to reduce the key pressure necessary to play. There was also a great deal of 'electrification' of organs going on around in the early 20th century in France, which again altered the fundamental technique of playing through a pluck point of wind pressure.

So, if Dupre starts with the assumption that piano is the basis of organ technique, and then writes pianistic music (assuming that you, the organist, are a master of Chopin and LIszt), then it follows that you will be pretty lost playing his music without a virtuosic piano background.

It does not follow that you can't play the organ well without serious piano study. You will be just fine playing the music of composers who worked before Romantic piano virtuosity pushed the boundaries of technique, or who do not base their writing on pianistic conventions. If, like some here, you hold the French Romantic as the ideal Catholic organ music, you would do well to take Dupre's advice.

The reverse situation is also good to keep in mind. If you are already a virtuosic pianist crossing over into organ, the best place to start may be with pianistic composers. Franck and Messiaen come to mind immediately, as composers who were not particularly proficient on the pedals.

I think you need to be able to read notes comfortably. Being old enough to reach the organ pedals is also helpful.

"...but of course pianos are more readily accessible and plentiful."

This is precisely why I recommend using piano to practice organ music. It's also the reason that harpsichords, etc. were used in the old days, and is of course a great reason for practicing piano. The obvious drawback is that you can't practice pedals on the piano, but you can master your manual parts in the mean time and devote more of your practice time at the console to adding pedal parts to the manuals.

Can you even imagine what one of those would cost?

that is awesome. So cool. If only I had one.

Wow, a new chaconne on Rota and Mancini's "A time for us" (Love Theme from "Romeo and Juliet")!