This was a nice instrument, built in the 70s and with tonal finishing by John Schantz. I played works by Bach, Franck, and the composer Piet Post. They all sounded pretty good on that instrument.

So! It's to be a schoenstein is it! How gruesomely dissappointing. One had hoped for better, but intuiting from what their 'priorities' seem to be, one isn't very surprised. These 'eclectic', 'neo-romantic', glorified American all purpose organs seem to be quite de rigeur amongst certain types now. Too bad if one wishes to play early music somewhere near to what it may have sounded like... just too bad, my dear fellow! These are the perfect instruments for the now popular arrangements of Franck chorales (not, mind you, Francks' Franck chorales, but certain persons' own special personal arrangements of them... and everything else... Oh: and they are wonderful for playing the now popular symphonic arrangements and other such grotesqueries. These, of course, are not liturgical instruments, but, strangely, that is of no matter to the choirmaster who isn't into real liturgical music. At the very least, they could have gotten a Schantz. At the very very least, if they wanted an 'English' organ they could have gotten a English-built one instead of this American mongrel. There is no substitue for the werk-prinzip for stops each of which is a gem by itself and in chorus with all its brethren, and in which the divisions of the organ actually do and sound like what they are supposed to; and interrelate as they should.

And, Paix - I look forward to your answers when you can supply them.

Bedient & Schoenstein are both outstanding builders of quality, integrity....and politeness when speaking in public.

I am a bit more enthusiastic about some "American Classic" organs. Notice, I said, "some" not all. There is an Aeolian Skinner in town built during the later days of the firm. It pretty well does whatever you ask of it, depending on registration. I have heard it do a wide range of literature well, when the organist could register it suitably.

Schantz and Austin are both good, and seem to be built well. I have heard Austin is building some French-inspired instruments, which I would definitely like to hear. I agree on meantone and American Classic instruments.

MJacksonOsborn,
What is so distressing about a Schoenstein, and, by extension, an Aeolian Skinner, since that is what they try to copy? Looking at some of the stop lists, I don't see why Bach couldn't be played on them. I do understand that they duplicate a lot of stops at 8', which is a mortal sin in some quarters, but they do have a plenum ... Why can't you pull the principals at 8, 4, and 2, and add the mixture to play Bach? All of the Schoenstein stoplists I'm looking at have those voices.

I'm not challenging you, I want to learn.

Individual preferences and "ears" are a big factor. That "crisp pop" that Francis prefers is, to my ears, often harsh and unpleasant. Organs evolved in different countries, with different music, and different tastes and preferences. I am glad they don't all sound alike. Although I wouldn't call myself a fan of Bach, I have played and heard others play Bach on an Aeolian Skinner and it sounded pretty good. It was all a matter of registration. I like Schoensteins and would gladly trade my 1953 Schantz for one any day.

This can go both ways. I heard a French organist demonstrate what he called, "The more romantic side," of an Andover organ. It was lovely. Who would have thought such an instrument capable of this. But this is a pretty well-designed instrument that generally sounds good. Much depends on the organist, to be sure. But some instruments can just sound bad, no matter what you play on them.

Having played Bach in St. Sulpice and La Trinite and ND de Paris, you would be really surprised at how well it works, withstanding changing tempos to accomodate the room.

ya know, his playing is nice, but IMHO the organ just doesn't work with this music. the left hand registration is not to my liking. too muddy. the right hand mixture is nice however.

Addressing Paix's question, I shall add two more cents. This question reminds me of the story about the staunchly CofE English m'lord who was asked why he didn't believe in papal infallibility... his lordship snorted 'why that would mean giving up my own infallibility!' And so it is with organists (and other humans) who staunchly hold that their preferred school of organ building is the only one worthy of respect, and carry on about it with an air of seeming infallibility. The truth is more complex. We can be thankful that we have Silbermanns and Cliquots and some modern instruments inspired by them on which we can play Bach, Buxtehude and de Grigny or Frescobaldi with a respectable degree of honesty. We can also be thankful that we have Caville-Coll and some modern instruments inspired by that tonal aesthetic on which we can play more recent literature with a degree of honesty. Then, there are the modern instruments from Aeolian-Skinner on up that try, with widely varying degrees of success and unsuccess, to present us with a colour scheme which will, more or less, play everything from the Buxheimer Orgelbuch to Messiaen convincingly to all except those who know better. The best of these, such as Pasi's instrument at Houston's Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, succeed remarkably well in playing the gamut of literature in a manner convincing even to those who DO know better. Several of the comments above address some of the differences between 'baroque revival' and 'romantic revival' (and others) as ones of voicing, scaling, wind pressure, and available timbres. Some are far more suited to playing clearly the polyphonic textures and vibrant tone colours of earlier music, while others excel at the symphonic complexities of later times. It ocurred to me earlier this evening that the journey from 'baroque' organs to later ones rather mirrored the fashions of colour in other instruments of the orchestra. A consistent theme from early to recent times has been the systematic reduction of overtones in the sounds of various instruments - a sort of tone cleansing or 'purification'. This is why (to some of us) modern instruments are less vibrant, piquant, or colourful than their predecessors of earlier times. This is why Bach or Charpentier seems to have more integrity and personality, and sounds 'authentic' with a 'period instrument' ensemble. It is why others think that these tone colours are outlandish.

In closing, it seems appropriate to remark that it is really unfair to label one or another school of organ building 'church or liturgical organs' and the others as 'recital or concert' instruments. Statements such as these have zero objective or academic value. All they mean is that the speaker is not at home with the instrument he or she is denigrating. The truth is that they are all 'liturgical organs' due to the fact that they can or cannot play a respectable portion of the repertory of liturgically inspired organ literature, accompany choir anthems, and lead a congregation in song. It is equally unfair and mean to hear the oft heard accusation that a certain organist had 'saddled' his/her parish with such and such an instrument. LIkewise, a statement without objective basis or academic worth. What this means is that the speaker was denied the opportunity to 'saddle' the parish with his/her own desired organ.

Francis, of course his playing is "nice." He is generally considered one of the world's best organists. I hear that those who have met him were impressed with his generosity and willingness to help aspiring young organists.

Both the examples of organ playing above are not the best that could have been given. We are shown Roth (a stellar artist) playing a Bach partita with all the manuals coupled (!) on an organ whose sound is not that of the best Bach playing. One notes the rather 'tubby' and somewhat dull tones of this fine organ do not present us with clearly expressed contrapuntal lines and crytalline timbres that Bach would have known and envisioned. The Swiss instrument, on the other hand, really brings Bach to life; although it is unfortunate that the organist's playing is rather dull, and lacking in life-bestowing articulation and phrasing - an almost continuous legato.

The recording of DR at St. Sulpice does not do justice to his Bach playing. To hear him play at St. Sulpice sounds as good as any German instrument "dedicated" to playing Bach. CC organs are a lot more flexible than we give them credit. Hearing them live is never the same as a recording. Few recordings do CC justice. Francis, it is time for you to go to Paris. Spend some time in the great churches playing Bach and Franck and Widor. You will be shocked.

CharlesW -
What I was saying was somewhat more than that 'music and instruments change over time'. This is, as Sherlock Holmes would say, 'elementary'. We can accept and welcome changes of taste and style which, as you note, happen over time as a matter of human ingenuity (which is not always merely 'fickle'). The tenor of my comments, however, was to see change more as additive than as a total alteration or replacement. We are pivileged in our time in ways that previous generations could hardly imagine, and this enables us, by aid of our scholarship and curiosity, to know pretty well what music sounded like in the past and how it was performed. This applies not only to baroque or mediaeval music, but to romantic and more current music as well. Thusly do we literally 'own' all of it! It takes, it seems to me, a rather deliberately cultivated insularity of thought to label such and such an organ or musical style as archaic, or efforts to perform it in a manner informed by research as somehow dinosaurian. Such efforts are the scholar's and the church musician's privilege, responsibility, and delight.The present does not negate the past: it is additive to it, which makes us richer. Change of taste in instruments and music is not eradication: it is additive to that which we have. With such scholastic wealth we do have everything from organum to Messiaen, with Franck and Liszt in between, reasonably close to how it was conceived and heard in its time. A 'baroque' or 'romantic' instrument is not yesterday's instrument. It, along with Tournemire's and Hakim's, is the instrument of today. Think additive=plus, not change=outre'. If there is anything that is really old-fashioned, it is thinking that only 'the way we do things now' is important; it is thinking that 'we have changed'... we haven't until we think in terms of addition.

I am not sure I have ever heard a truly American Classic Pipe Organ. Anyone have an idea or samples? American (to me) is just a melting pot of various European organs for the most part with either a French, Italian, German, etc. influence(s).

Interesting notes on voicing and comparisons with human voices. Food for thought.

I tend to take some modern scholarship with a grain of salt. Having gone through academic institutions for multiple degrees, I have a pretty good idea of how they work - or don't, as the case may be. Scholarship can rest on coming up with the next novel idea to get a grant or committee approval for an advanced degree.

Remember when all those "scholars" told us we couldn't use our heels when playing Bach? I would have to search my files for the issue, but the AGO magazine had an interesting article based on a marked authentic Bach score - with heel markings. I suspect, also, that Baroque music is greatly over-articulated, based on the supposition that the Baroque composers never really understood the concept of legato. This has also given us a generation of rattling flutes created by the desire for chiff - based on E- Power Biggs recordings with the microphones placed too close to the pipes. Modern trackers have a sensitivity of touch and a responsiveness not present in some of the genuine instruments from the day. Contemporaries of Bach have commented that he played church music very slowly - likely because of the clunky and cumbersome action of the organs of his time. In short, the organ world and organ scholarship are sometimes based on a heck of a lot of BS.

Oh, and I suspect "American Classic" design was an attempt to build instruments that could play the widest range of music possible. Sounds like a worthy goal for a church organ.

Some of the American Classic instruments seemed to be heavily influenced by English organs, which were very popular at one time.

I don't think they were bland, they were actually more Victorian. Thankfully, though, no sharffs on them.

Someone once told me to never buy an organ or a car from a country that has lost two world wars. LOL.

English organs were designed for Anglican liturgy. Given your Baroque Lutheran musical preferences, I understand why you wouldn't like them tonally. The biggest difference I had to adjust to was English console design, particularly the pedals. They didn't quite feel the same as an American pedalboard.

Schantz organs seem well-constructed, and tend to have long lives when properly cared for. I have seen both good and bad Schantz installations.

Mollers were all over the place, tonally. I have heard some that didn't mesh well with the room or its acoustics. Their later instruments were pretty good, and a couple of those are in my area. My part of the world has gone through several organ builder periods. In the first part of the 20th century, Hook & Hastings reigned supreme. The Moller period was a bit after World War II, for the most part. Schantz organs are plentiful because of the fifty year career of their local sales rep beginning in the 1950s. Who knows what builder will next be on top.

I believe that the details of this can now be disseminated publicly.

This organ is being relocated to Mary Queen of Peace, a parish in the diocese and city of Cleveland, Ohio.

Mary Queen of Peace was established in 2010 by a merger of two previously existing parishes, Our Lady of Good Counsel and Corpus Christi. The church of Our Lady of Good Counsel was chosen as the worship site and is the parish church.

The parish website is www.maryqop.org. The parish has three weekend masses, with a semi-professional choir at the 11 am mass. The professional singers of the choir also make up, by themselves, the schola, which focuses primarily on renaissance polyphony. The choir sings chant, polyphony, and choral music of all eras up to the present day. There is also a concert series in place at the parish which aims to provide quality offerings from groups ranging from college choirs to professional ensembles taking advantage of the church's 4 second reverb.

The organ will be placed in the loft at the rear of the church, to one side of a rose window, so as not to obscure it. This will also allow the choir to stand somewhat NEXT to the organ, so as to have a better view of a playing and conducting organist than if the organist were in the center up against the back wall.

The organ is expected to be installed sometime in November 2013. As of this time, there is no dedication date, but it appears that the formal dedication will take place around May 2014, with an organist of note playing the dedicatory recital.

This organ will replace an aging 5 manual Baldwin organ currently in use which has seen better days and is experiencing significant problems. This organ will be a significant blessing and will enhance the music program greatly.

The organ was given to the parish by Georgetown University, for which we are very grateful. A very generous donor made a contribution which is paying for the organ's transport, cleaning, reinstallation, and voicing.

That's great! This has certainly worked out well for you.

Well, Mark, It's not being rebuilt just reinstalled in the current configuration.

I do appreciate multiple view points and I can see how some wouldn't find this to be their favorite instrument. However, in the organ's defense, I will say that when I visited it at Georgetown, I played Bach, Buxtehude, Franck, and Langlais on it and I found that it presented credible performances of all of them.

My first organ teacher played in a church on a Noack with no pistons and on which I also had my lessons and practiced; I did further studies at the Oberlin Conservatory, and if you know anything about Oberlin, you know that all of the instruments there are historically informed and most do not have pistons either. For me, this was not a deal breaker. In fact I'm beginning in the fall as a graduate student at the Cleveland Institute of Music, studying with Todd Wilson. Todd is music director at the Episcopal Cathedral in Cleveland, and the organ is a fine Flentrop of three manuals - and you guessed it, no pistons! It's all what you're used to.

Will this "limit" our repertoire? Sure, it might. I can see having trouble playing some Vierne or Widor on it, especially without a registration assistant. Oh well. But is there a LOT that this organ CAN do? I believe so, and I'm really excited to start working with it!

Organs at Oberlin pretty much fit the whims of the ideologues who run the department. They are definitely tracker heavy, with instruments that shriek and those that don't. They used to have a fine Skinner, but I had heard they trashed it. Supposedly, the new Fisk is really nice, but I haven't heard it. Since my niece graduated from there some years ago, I have lost contact with the school.

I am glad you were able to get the instrument. Did you say you had a Baldwin? Given that, this would have to be a vast improvement. I could not, and would not, live with that Bedient, but if you are happy, more power to you! Enjoy!