Sumptuous in G from Hereford

[heliocentric]

For sure. Post-1945, many ex-Nazis began to do things that they hadn't done pre-1939. And to say things. And to forget things...

What you said was that Karajan didn't perform Elgar because he hated the British. What I said was that this was unlikely given that he had conducted other British composers, and so on. Nobody disputes Karajan's Nazi connections. Using them as a spurious "reason" for whatever one happens to think is a pretty dimwitted thing to do however.

[Op. XXXIX]

I love Elgar's Music.

Towards the end of his life, at around the time he recorded Nielsen and Saint-Saens for the first time, Karajan ordered scores of Elgar's orchestral Music so that he could study them. He sent all of them back, except the Second Symphony, which he kept in his "reserve" desk. He died before he got round to either performing or ultimately rejecting it.

But Op XXXIX's comments don't "sound" like Karajan, who was never as "sharp" as this - even when commenting on HIPP enthusiasts! Where is the quotation taken from?

(And Helio is right: Karajan recorded Holst (twice), RVW and Britten, and performed Walton and Tippett in concert - to neither composer's satisfaction!)

Thank-you for the very interesting info about Karajan.

As for the 'second-rate Brahms', that was in a review of a Karajan recording of the 'The Planets' (did he not record it three times?) by Michael Kennedy. It has been a while since I saw the review, but Kennedy was rather mystified by Karajan's statement, as he couldn't hear a note of Brahms in Elgar, but plenty of Brahms in the Holst.

(Don't know that I agree with Kennedy, but if I do hear the occasional Brahmsian references in Elgar, it's never bothered me.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thanks, Op. I'm only aware of two Karajan recordings of The Planets - the 1960s DECCA with the VPO and the 1980s DG with the Berliners. Not sure which works by Brahms that Kennedy (a fine commentator on Music) can hear "plenty" of in the Holst (the Academic Festival Ovt in Jupiter at a push)?

[Wolsey]

Whilst I take you point insofar as it goes, I did not write of short-sightness per se and tout court but "ongoing" shortsightedness, by which I mean the short-sightedness that has continued to ensure that this shortcoming has never been addressed in any subsequent refurbishment of the instrument; substantial works have been undertaken at various times on all three (Hereford, Redcliffe and Westminster), yet no one has thought to extend the console and ranks.

Probably because of the cost and the extensive work involved: new console to accommodate new manuals and pedal board, new soundboards and action, new pipework to match the existing material. This is an alteration of questionable musical worth to an historic organ.

[ahinton]

Probably because of the cost and the extensive work involved: new console to accommodate new manuals and pedal board, new soundboards and action, new pipework to match the existing material. This is an alteration of questionable musical worth to an historic organ.

Yes, I agree (indeed, how could I or anyone else do otherwise?!) that the costs involved would be / have been significant, but consider them as part of the amounts expended on those instruments since their respective inaugurations and such costs would surely not seem unduly unreasonable, especially since they would have enabled repertoire to be performed without compromise on the magnificent Hereford Cathedral organ that can only realistically be given on such instruments as the two Westminsters, St. M R and others that have the advantage of full compasses - but what's so "historical" about the Hereford organ that it should not be tampered ("tinkered", Sir Edward?!) with in the way that I mentioned?

[Wolsey]

..... but what's so "historical" about the Hereford organ that it should not be tampered ("tinkered", Sir Edward?!) with in the way that I mentioned?

I suggest you ask the Heritage Lottery Fund who supported the 2004 refurbishment. I stand to be corrected, but from what I know of their strict conditions, they would not have financed the work eight years ago if the organ had been "tampered with" in the way you suggest.

[mopsus]

What I hear behind Elgar's choral music (this thread is getting a little like I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue's Tag Wrestling) is Bruckner. I recently sang Bruckner's Mass in F minor for the first time and realised the affinity between the two (there's even a yearning phrase with prominent leading-note in the Bruckner Agnus which I'm convinced Elgar lifted for his setting of the Benedictus).

[Op. XXXIX]

What I hear behind Elgar's choral music (this thread is getting a little like I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue's Tag Wrestling) is Bruckner. I recently sang Bruckner's Mass in F minor for the first time and realised the affinity between the two (there's even a yearning phrase with prominent leading-note in the Bruckner Agnus which I'm convinced Elgar lifted for his setting of the Benedictus).

And the quietly undulating octave tremolos at 'O gen'rous love!' in Gerontius are certainly derived from the Brahms Requiem.

[ahinton]

I suggest you ask the Heritage Lottery Fund who supported the 2004 refurbishment. I stand to be corrected, but from what I know of their strict conditions, they would not have financed the work eight years ago if the organ had been "tampered with" in the way you suggest.

That I couldn't say, any more than I could usefully speculate as to who else might have financed that or any earlier refurbishment instead; I wasn't just referring to the 2004 work - it could have been done at any time before then if the money were forthcoming and, let's face it, the Lottery Heritage Fund is only as old as the National Lottery itself, i.e. less than 30 years. I would not in any case regard such extensions as "tampering" in any pejorative sense but as improvements to the instrument's specification that would enable certain repertoire to be played on it without compromise as it can be on instruments such as the two I mentioned.

[Wolsey]

I would not in any case regard such extensions as "tampering" in any pejorative sense but as improvements to the instrument's specification that would enable certain repertoire to be played on it without compromise as it can be on instruments such as the two I mentioned.

Whatever...

[Simon]

For what it's worth, I like the sound of the Hereford organ so much that I don't care about any inadequacies that it may have. I haven't played it myself, but everything I've ever heard played on it has sounded wonderful and IMO it's one of the best in the country.

[ahinton]

Whatever...

"Whatever" what?...

[ahinton]

For what it's worth, I like the sound of the Hereford organ so much that I don't care about any inadequacies that it may have. I haven't played it myself, but everything I've ever heard played on it has sounded wonderful and IMO it's one of the best in the country.

I like it very much too (although, unlike you, I am not an organist, even though I have written a few pieces for organ). I readily agree with you that it is indeed one of the best sounding organs in England; it's just a shame that the compasses of its manuals and pedals are short - that's all - especially given its other splendid qualities!

[Miles Coverdale]

I see that the Hereford organ, or at least a digital sampling thereof, is to feature on a forthcoming recording by the King's Consort of ceremonial music by Stanford and others.

http://tkcworld.org/news/page/93/

[ardcarp]

....just to stick in my two penn'orth about the Hereford organ, I played it TWO rebuilds ago (pre-Massey days) when it was very 'Willis', especially the wonderful old Willis console. I spent the inside of a week accompanying a visiting choir and for that purpose it was unbeatable given the sort of repertoire done in those days; a huge palette of sloppy Romantic sounds was available with a swell-box that could fade away to the almost inaudible. I seem to remember it had some weird couplers such as 'great to choir sub-octave' or some such thing! I'd better stop [no pun intended] 'cos I feel an anorak coming on.