Passion for organ building is something I have carried in my heart since I was a child: at 10 I began to build the first, clumsy, wooden pipes and even my first instrument as an adult, my Opus 1, was a small organ. Working on organs at any stage, from design to final tuning, has always excited in me particular energy and satisfaction. Unfortunately, however, for these instruments it is extremely difficult to combine artistic passion with professional needs.
As long as the builder is also the final customer, as in the case of hobbyists, no problem ever arises: since architect, organ builder, client and musician are the same person, there is perfect identity of views. This is obviously an extreme case, which easily becomes a vicious circle: not only doesn’t bring any profit, but it also hinders quality development.
On the opposite, when building organs professionally, one encounters every kind of constraints coming from outside: the builder rarely runs short on problems and these quite often forces him to deviate from his own artistic principles. This can often become another extreme case, where the builder risks becoming just a paid worker.
Particularly in the case of church organs, the situation tends always to be very complex and I always had the impression that my construction goals (sound of the instrument, touch, solidity and aesthetics) have little in common with what clients usually considers most important (price, size, interaction with architectural elements, practicality…).
Speaking with several organ builders only confirmed that this is often the case: most of them have been rarely able to build an instrument according to their construction principles (whatever they may be). Since I don’t accept reversing my priorities, letting money, space and windows set the coordinates of my work, I have chosen to take another professional direction.
This topic would be closed, if it weren’t for the fact that in my experience with private clients, I discovered that there are indeed concrete possibilities of establishing a dialogue between manufacturer and musician.
For this reason, approaching the age of 40, I decided to explore the possibility of building small organs, which will comply to my building criteria and goals. I have no need to build them, because I have plenty of work with clavichords and harpsichords: I will only build them out of passion, like all of my other instruments, and where there is good agreement with the customer.
The latter, moreover, partly even because of the financial commitment, will, no doubt, dedicate himself to the conservation of his instrument with a devotion that is hardly ever found in parishes: this in the future will prevent my commitment and efforts from being wasted.
To understand what kind of instruments I am talking about, it is better to clarify what my principles for building a good organ are. Since these are partly personal criteria and someone might criticize them, I will start by saying that I have no doubt that several others principles may exist. After all the organ is an instrument with over 2000 years of history: I have no problem accepting that Roman craftsmen or medieval monks were seeking for something quite different than what builders of the late XIX century were aiming for. Nor do I question that my construction principles, ideally inspired by instruments built from the Renaissance to Classicism, might not be the only ones for the long period in question.
This notwithstanding, guided by my own taste and experience, I have come to draw up this list:
-A good organ must have bellows (I mean here primarily wedge bellows of traditional construction). They are the instrument’s lungs, which allow it to breathe. Of course by making the wind completely stable, as in the XX century, instruments can withstand any kind of musical abuse and almost no one will have serious reasons for criticism. Unfortunately, however, the sound of the organ is by its nature static: in the very moment when the instrument stops breathing and the wind becomes entirely still, the sound, although pleasant, also loses much of its impression of liveliness.
– The mechanics should ideally allow for the maximum possible control over attack and release of the pipes. And this is not an obvious point at all: some mechanics are very difficult to control because they are too sensitive and light; others are unresponsive for the exact opposite reasons. To tell the truth, the topic is indeed more complex and is not limited to the mechanical part: the lower the wind pressure and the smaller the surface of the pallets, the easier and effective it will be to precisely control attack, release and even steady sound (!). Unfortunately when pressure is too low and especially when pallets are too small, they do not perform as well in combinations of many stops and one risks air problems in the whole plenum. There are no perfect formulas, that I know of and it’s more about finding a good balance between these two needs: you might want pallets and channels that provide enough air for the plenum, but small enough to be sensitive to the touch. For this reasons, however, in small organs it is technically possible to obtain a much more refined touch than on a large 16′ Hauptwerk.
-An organ must have an elegant, solid and well-proportioned case , which encloses and protects internal parts, also helping to blend and direct the sound outwards. With rare exceptions, it will have an elegant façade which also reflects, within certain limits, the size and character of the instrument.
-An organ must have stops that offer adequate foundation both to the full organ and to other musicians when playing in an ensemble. This rule is so general that it applies both to the pedal section of monumental organs and, on a smaller scale, to the 8′ Gedact of a tiny positive. Instruments with little foundation became fashionable because of a misunderstanding of ancient practices, which were interpreted throught the glasses of late-romantic practice – and in strong opposition to it (Orgelbewegung).
Good historical organs I know of, despite obvious differences, all have enough foundation, therefore I think that instruments lacking foundation are definitively to be rejected.
– An organ must have a plenum . The mixtures were the voice with which the medieval organs enchanted the chroniclers of their times and even today, in their clear elegance, represent perhaps the most magnificent and peculiar timbre of the instrument, which should never be missing.
The mixtures developed by the great organ builders of the past, represented ultimately, their Klangideal. Today, however, the mixtures are highly standardized in composition and repetitions and in general they attract little attention compared to other registers. I think they should be given again the importance they deserve.
The basis of the plenum is always 8′, 4′ (3′) and 2′; but it’s not quite enough: a complete disposition, even of a small positive, must include at least a higher stop (1.1/3′ or 1′) in order to give the impression of a real plenum. Even better would be two ranks, keeping in mind that the octaves give brilliance, the fifths sharpness: the traditional basic disposition of Italian organs (Principal, Octave, XV, XIX, XXII) has resisted since about 1450 to the present days, because it is perfectly complete in its minimalism.
In the plenum it is better to avoid leaps wider than an octave between a stop and the higher one, otherwise a vacuum will be perceived.
An even more fundamental rule is that the octave, fifth and third rows of the mixture must never repeat down outside the harmonics of the fundamental (VIII, XII, XV, XVII, XIX etc..). Fifths and thirds lower than their first appearance in the harmonic series dirty the plenum and are to be avoided. Conversely, it should be kept in mind that the composition and repetitions of the mixture will determine its minimum basis. In other words the lowest feasible quint in a 8′ plenum is 3′ (XII) and conversely the basis of the plenum cannot be higher than 8′ if there is a 3′ quint in the mixture.
– Each stop must have its own personality and purpose. Anything superfluous, characterless or redundant has no reason to be found in the disposition of a good organ. This is a much more frequent issue on large organs than on small ones, because one pays much more attention on a single stop out of 4 than on a single stop out of 100. But since in the end somebody will have to pay for all 100 of them, it’s good that each one has its own character and charm or you’re better off just leaving something out. I for myself am convinced that it’s more useful a single excellent stop than 100 mediocre ones.
This characterization notwithstanding, stops must blend with each other, providing a good number of combinations both for accompanying and for solo pieces of different affects.
Each single stop, up to 2 foot, should ideally be able to be played by itself, without need to add anything else due to lack of body or personality.
Foundation stops, i.e. 16′, 8′ and 4′ are the one that you play alone the more often and so their musical value is much higher than others. I use to say that a good Principal 8′ is worth half of the organ sound quality. Thought this sounds very primitive it’s indeed a good rule of thumb, especially whenever principal is the only 8′ stop. On positives and divisions where the Principal is substituted by Gedact 8′, a similar principle is true. In general, no matter how good the Cornet III, the Trumpet or the Querflöte 2′ are: if foundation stops, particularly principals, aren’t any good, the organ won’t bring much joy.
-The most radical think that even within a register each pipe should have, to a certain extent, its own identity; this is ideally achieved by trying to make each pipe sound at its best, rather than by trying to equalize them as much as possible. The variation can be compared to the shells of a necklace, which may have slightly different shapes and shades, but are all clearly part of the same series. This is precisely what one finds on original or well restored historical organs and, despite going mostly unnoticed by the player (except if he listens carefully to each single pipe), contributes greatly to their charm.
Turned into practice and within the limits of my possibilities, these principles can realistically materialize in the form of a positive organ, the size of which can vary from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of approximately 7-8 registers. The general layout may be either following the German or Italian building school and the characterization may be oriented towards models ranging from the early Renaissance to late classicism.
Keeping in mind that each instrument will be an unicum and as such will require a detailed project, here are some general ideas:
Bellows can be placed above or behind the instrument, as in regals and oldest positives; or alternatively in a lower case, on which the upper one with the mechanics and pipework will rest. This is the classic solution of late XVII and XVIII century positives, and in this case is possible to provide for the organist to pump the bellows by himself, as in several Dutch positives, which is very practical.
The mechanics can be suspended with trackers and rollerboard, as generally in Italian instruments; or with sticker action, as in German positives.
Pitch could be anything from 410 to 470 Hz or above. The range of keyboard that makes most sense for this type of instrument is generally about 4 octaves (C-c”’); a little more or a little less depending on the characterization. As with harpsichords, the range will be a factor in determining the price.
There is also the possibility of dividing some registers into bass and discant, if the disposition makes it advantageous. The so-called short or broken octaves or the omission of some notes in the bass allows for significant saving of costs and space; it definitely makes sense, excepts when your musical needs ask for something different.
Meantone organs represent a special pleasure for the ear; something that would deserve to be heard more often; to broaden their possibilities and practical use, one could think about adding some subsemitonia, as I did in several harpsichords.
The most important families of stops for this kind of organ and which will form its disposition are:
– Wooden Principal (façade or interior): 8′ to 3′
– Tin alloy Principal (façace): 4′ or 2′
– Lead alloy internal Principals : 3′ to 1.1/3′ (stops higher than 1.1/3 will be repeating)
– Wooden Gedact, alias Copl : 8′ or 4′
– Wooden Rohrflöte : 8′ or 4′
– wooden open Flute : 4′ or 3′
– Wooden Spitzflöte : 4′
– Wooden Viol di Gamba : 8′
Although many other registers exist, there’s little doubt that with these it is already possible to create a variety of dispositions, which respond to different needs. Over time I will also add other flue stops and some small reeds to this list.
As in the best Tyrolean tradition, I will make great use of wooden registers. Even if the construction is more laborious, they are lighter, more stable and resistant to transport and manipulation. Generally they offer a good foundation, but less higher partials than metal pipes. In a domestic or chamber musical context, this is to be considered more of an advantage than else, both because the performer is very close to the sound source, and because these registers will blend better with the other instruments.
Metal registers, on the other hand, are absolutely necessary for a nice plenum, especially in large rooms; and generally they are used in those registrations where a silvery sound is sought. A clever combination of wooden and metal stops in the disposition can generate very interesting and multifaceted instruments.
Anyone who shares my general approach and is interested in an instrument that responds to these characteristics, should contact me to develop a detailed project together.
