Digital Organ Choice

[Clarion]

I do honestly think that because Hong Kong was founded by the British, who built the 38th Victoria Diocese of the Church of England there,... So the only valid church with a valid identity to grant there has really been the English church and the related ones by the 1707 union, the Presbyterian churches, as well as the Wesleyan and Methodist churches. They seem the only ones that can give a justifiable identity to the British passport holders. Other than these, all the rest perhaps can't really give a true identity to the residents there.

I have a rather well documented family history going back to 1650. Migrating from the the Rhine Palatine to England in 1709, the initial oath of allegiance for entry went like this:

Oath #1: For entry to Great Britain:

Do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and keep true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Anne.

Do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated by the Pope or any authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever, and I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

Then for entry to Canada, the oath went like this:

I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper that there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitions and idolatrous, and I do solemnly and in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof and by plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English Protestants without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation and without dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever or without thinking. I am or can be acquitted before God or man or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.

Protestants, by definition, oppose what?

[FelixLowe]

Here is a two-verse presentation of The Church's One Foundation by Diane Bish, who plays the Canterbury Cathedral organ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXiL4TVGAy4.

[FelixLowe]

I have a rather well documented family history going back to 1650. Migrating from the the Rhine Palatine to England in 1709, the initial oath of allegiance for entry went like this:

Oath #1: For entry to Great Britain:

Do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and keep true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Anne.

Do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated by the Pope or any authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever, and I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

Then for entry to Canada, the oath went like this:

I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper that there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitions and idolatrous, and I do solemnly and in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof and by plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English Protestants without evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation and without dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever or without thinking. I am or can be acquitted before God or man or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.

Protestants, by definition, oppose what?

Thanks for these statements, Clarion. I hadn't seen these before. Interesting stuff! No wonder. The man told me he felt much better after resigning from Lutheran Church membership. He says he doesn't go to church at the moment on sundays. But the thing is, is the English church's Holy Presence doctrine very much different from the German church's rephrased transubstantiation belief? what else do you know about the Church of England being different from the German church? I don't think the German church emphasises the worship of Virgin Mary. But as you know, Bach and the like, still wrote some Ave Maria stuff, such as the Ave Maria Tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuDp-JiDYA8. I think there were some oratorios about Mary also. But to me Ave Maria, if not done to overshadow Jesus, is not a lethal crime. But more importantly given what you have affixed, if Britain had indeed been so strict (I don't know about Canada, which is so faraway), why would she have allowed the Lutherans to set up churches in Hong Kong in the first place? Now, Hong Kong is quite different from most other "crown colonies" of Britain in that the whole place was built up by the Brits from start to finish from initially a set of barren rocks with a few villages on them and some fishermen. Why did she allow so many different churches to operate here? Of course, one may argue that there were Germans doing business here and, therefore, they needed a place of worship. This may be true, but those to build schools to serve the local residents should predominantly, if not purely, be those three British churches -- only those as I said, the Anglicans, the Methodists and the Presbysterians, should have been allowed in to this end -- the Presbysterians, in particular, because the Scots think they contributed most efforts in building up Hong Kong. My idea is that ideally, people should solely have been taught to speak and write English (but allowed to pick a second language: French, German, etc -- any of the popular languages learnt by the British realm people), and all church services be conducted using the local vernacular, English. If the education policy had been carried out effectively, a few generations later the local populations would have been completely anglicised linguistically as easy as ABC. Singapore is a good example to illustrate this, although the accent there is horrible. Sometimes, I even suspected if the British who had ruled them there spoke a different kind of English. But of course, to talk about these things today is bit late. We are aware that Hong Kong people are a more disappointing case language-wise, when compared with some others who had been under British rule.

I remember that around 1702 and onwards, the Germans and the English were joining forces to try to save Austria from Roman Catholic control. But the Lutherans are still foreign by any standard in British territories. Yet, the Lutherans in Hong Kong are sizeable: their range of schools includes kindergartens to secondary schools. So how come they were allowed in? Do you think you have an answer for that? I mean, they should register as international schools and MUST teach German.

Now, you asked what else the Protestants oppose today. I think they oppose or don't believe in the biblical Millennial stuff. Basically, you don't get to hear much preaching on Revelation and stuff in church. I used to think that they might be too embarrassed to reveal anything or they don't know how to present it. But Protestantism by doctrine, wrote one American theologian, do not subscribe to the view that the Millennial kingdom commences when Christ returns to rule. I guess this is one major obstacle to the believers.

[FelixLowe]

Just now, I have reviewed almost half of the demo songs of D5000/D6000 again. I can't help but praise the refined stops of these series. If you are thinking of buying a digital organ, get a D5000/D6000 demo disc for preview from Content, and you would be surprised by the quality. They are not just "other digital organs that sound like the pipe organs". I would even say that unless your pipe organs are well-maintained, you could hardly get the kind of quality that these series can give. I myself am amazed even though I have not already owned a Content yet. I think these series have not been superceded in quality just yet in the digital organ market. You can ask Content for a free disc: http://www.contentorgels.nl/contactus.aspx?langid=2.

[FelixLowe]

Now, you asked what else the Protestants oppose today. I think they oppose or don't believe in the biblical Millennial stuff. Basically, you don't get to hear much preaching on Revelation and stuff in church. I used to think that they might be too embarrassed to reveal anything or they don't know how to present it. But Protestantism by doctrine, wrote one American theologian, do not subscribe to the view that the Millennial kingdom commences when Christ returns to rule. I guess this is one major obstacle to the believers.

And because that American theologian (I think he should be pretty authoritative from a seminary in Dallas) has written that in general ALL Protestantism does not subscribe to that view, it might be pretty much an official view taken by the organised Protestant churches. I personally have not heard any organised state Protestant churches discuss Christ's second coming at great length from the pulpit. The Jehova Witnesses knocked on our doors a few years ago. But when the two women came in to talk, they SPECIFICALLY told me that that Jesus who promised in the Gospel to return had not returned.

[Clarion]

I remember that around 1702 and onwards, the Germans and the English were joining forces to try to save Austria from Roman Catholic control. But the Lutherans are still foreign by any standard in British territories. Yet, the Lutherans in Hong Kong are sizeable: their range of schools includes kindergartens to secondary schools. So how come they were allowed in? Do you think you have an answer for that? I mean, they should register as international schools and MUST teach German.

Felix, You are right about the 1700s. The previous significant event in British history, was the beheading of King Charles I, who at the instigation of his traitorous Romanist wife, invited Romanist Spain and France to invade and take possession of Ireland; and then move on to Great Britain. And thus we celebrate the 1650 beheading of Charles I as a Romanist traitor!!

That was followed by the institution of the Protestant, Dutch, William (of Orange) and Mary to the Monarchy.

Then along comes HRM Queen Anne! One of the truly great monarchs of Great Britain. Not only did she save Austria from the grips of Romanism; but also Ireland, and especially the North American Colonies.

In 1708-09, She sent a Royal invitation to the southern German Palatines, to emigrate to England; and perhaps from there to North American to counter the French Roman Catholic influence in North America. Queen Anne trusted trusted the Palatine Germans above all others to meet Britain's needs, since the Palatines hated the French Roman Catholics above all others. The French Roman Catholics, having repeatedly invaded the Palatine, burning some 2000 towns and villages in the process, didn't have a whole bunch of supporters.

Our people (Lutherans), didn't immediately make it to North America. Instead they were offered land and an annual pension to settle in Southern Ireland, in an effort to offset the un-patriotic Romanist in Ireland.

With the visit to the Colony by John Wesley in 1750, they all became ardent Methodists; and in 1764, built the very first Methodist Church in North America in NY in 1764.

Now, you asked what else the Protestants oppose today. I think they oppose or don't believe in the biblical Millennial stuff. Basically, you don't get to hear much preaching on Revelation and stuff in church. I used to think that they might be too embarrassed to reveal anything or they don't know how to present it. But Protestantism by doctrine, wrote one American theologian, do not subscribe to the view that the Millennial kingdom commences when Christ returns to rule. I guess this is one major obstacle to the believers.

Millennial views have to be at the very bottom of the list of considerations for North American Christians. Sadly, 99% of them wouldn't even know what you are talking about.

[FelixLowe]

Felix, You are right about the 1700s. The previous significant event in British history, was the beheading of King Charles I, who at the instigation of his traitorous Romanist wife, invited Romanist Spain and France to invade and take possession of Ireland; and then move on to Great Britain. And thus we celebrate the 1650 beheading of Charles I as a Romanist traitor!!

That was followed by the institution of the Protestant, Dutch, William (of Orange) and Mary to the Monarchy.

Then along comes HRM Queen Anne! One of the truly great monarchs of Great Britain. Not only did she save Austria from the grips of Romanism; but also Ireland, and especially the North American Colonies.

In 1708-09, She sent a Royal invitation to the southern German Palatines, to emigrate to England; and perhaps from there to North American to counter the French Roman Catholic influence in North America. Queen Anne trusted trusted the Palatine Germans above all others to meet Britain's needs, since the Palatines hated the French Roman Catholics above all others. The French Roman Catholics, having repeatedly invaded the Palatine, burning some 2000 towns and villages in the process, didn't have a whole bunch of supporters.

Our people (Lutherans), didn't immediately make it to North America. Instead they were offered land and an annual pension to settle in Southern Ireland, in an effort to offset the un-patriotic Romanist in Ireland.

With the visit to the Colony by John Wesley in 1750, they all became ardent Methodists; and in 1764, built the very first Methodist Church in North America in NY in 1764.



Millennial views have to be at the very bottom of the list of considerations for North American Christians. Sadly, 99% of them wouldn't even know what you are talking about.

Interesting stuff! But Austria has decided to remain Roman Catholic in the end, even to this day.

And about the Millenial views: Yes, they are "highly secretive"; they are stuff belonging to foreign and military affairs. They are not the weekly Sunday school talk of congregations. They are probably an area of discussion in the anti-terrorism circles. They don't reach the ordinary Christians, unless they study really hard for themselves and can read international affairs. The United States' Christians might be more enthusiastic, but they seldom openly describe those relations in biblical terms: 1948, 1967, US President Ronald Reagan and 1987, and all that. But they've created an image of good relations with Israel for themselves. I would say the Americans are more aware of and in tune with Millennial thinking. This music video on On Jordan's Bank the Baptist's Cry, rocked to the tune of Puer Nobis Nascitur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzSKpkr-lP4, contains bits and pieces of that "highly secretive stuff".

[FelixLowe]

But with the Marcussen organs, because there is normally a range of high-pitch mutation stops through to the Fageolet 1', registration for full organs could tempt organists into drawing too many of them with the mixture stops, resulting in jarring effects. Improper registration could result in a chaotic mass of sound such as is heard in this presentation of Jerusalem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-_DA1c1EhQ. I believe this registration is over-the-top, and the organist should ease one or more compound or mixture stops. This is mainly because the Marcussen mixtures are quite bright and narrower in scale by themselves. So the organist must be more careful.

[FelixLowe]

But did you know that the Rieger in Hong Kong is not the average Rieger? Just two days ago, I listened to Diane Bish play several organs in Austria. Although she did not name the builders, one of the organs in the Town Hall is very Riegerish, as is the Rieger organ at Oxford Trinity. They all have what I would describe as the porcelain clang to the chiff in the chorus. Many Riegers sound like some clay pot lids or porcelain lids hitting the pots. But I can't identity which stop(s) produces that clang. However, the largest organ in Hong Kong, at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, does not have that problem. I have listened to it played many times, and wonder if the instrument in Hong Kong is a real Rieger because I have not identified the same intrusive chiff when it is played. It is definitely South German, but seems not like a Rieger at all. But to me that clang is not desirable. To me the average Rieger is only so so, even that one played by Diane Bish in Austria recently. But the one in Hong Kong, boasting 93 speaking stops, seems perfectly fine and is able to produce some most refined tones. Its sounds are reminiscent of the more genuine Austrian Baroque instrument. But they say it is a Rieger. I kind of suspected it. Maybe there had been personnel change in the building department or something when it was made; maybe those who worked there were fired. Mind you, our Rieger was delivered quite late -- I think it was during 1989 that it was made. So, certainly there might have been some personnel change between 1978, when the Oxford Trinity instrument was made and when the Hong Kong instrument was made. Hear this presentation of Charles-Camille Saint-Saëns's (1835-1921) Danse Macabre from the Rieger in Hong Kong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ1-FgWS6TU.

And you can hear some old historic Austrian organs here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/r...k=001&disc=001, in an album called Historic Organs of Austria compiled by Gustav Leonhardt. The real Austrian organ, as you can tell, is yet different from the Arp Schnitger organs which emphasises the quaint and modesty. But the Baroque Austrian instrument emphasises the glory of royalty. The Austrian Baroque sounds an air of solemnity, with the bright mixtures in particular glorifying the Hapsburg dynasty. All in all, the sounds comprise influences from France and Italy, very richly elegant and reminiscient of the carvings and pictorially decorated golden interior of palaces and museums. Their mixtures also contain thirds, but sound brighter than the Arp Schnitger's. The sounds also conjure up the golden colour of the Bavarian beer and also the Lion sign of a certain beer brand.

As I have written before, the digital equivalent of the Austrian Baroque organ is the Ahlborn organ. Here is one sample of a three-manual Ahlborn playing Mendelssohn's praeludium and fugue : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vul6BdRImrc. Here is another Ahlborn sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktHvJ...eature=related, playing L.N.De Grigny Rècit. There is also a clip on Mozart Papageno Air played on the Ahlborn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHEO-...eature=related. These are certainly reminescent of the Hapsburg stuff.

And that's why I said the Ahlborn had a lot of potential before. It represents a real tradition, which is the digital version of today's Riegers, but not the older Riegers. It is a tradition which other digital organ suppliers have not explored.

[FelixLowe]

But did you know that the Rieger in Hong Kong is not the average Rieger? Just two days ago, I listened to Diane Bish play several organs in Austria. Although she did not name the builders, one of the organs in the Town Hall is very Riegerish, as is the Rieger organ at Oxford Trinity. They all have what I would describe as the porcelain clang to the chiff in the chorus. Many Riegers sound like some clay pot lids or porcelain lids hitting the pots. But I can't identity which stop(s) produces that clang. However, the largest organ in Hong Kong, at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, does not have that problem. I have listened to it played many times, and wonder if the instrument in Hong Kong is a real Rieger because I have not identified the same intrusive chiff when it is played. It is definitely South German, but seems not like a Rieger at all. But to me that clang is not desirable. To me the average Rieger is only so so, even that one played by Diane Bish in Austria recently. But the one in Hong Kong, boasting 93 speaking stops, seems perfectly fine and is able to produce some most refined tones. Its sounds are reminiscent of the more genuine Austrian Baroque instrument. But they say it is a Rieger. I kind of suspected it. Maybe there had been personnel change in the building department or something when it was made; maybe those who worked there were fired. Mind you, our Rieger was delivered quite late -- I think it was during 1989 that it was made. So, certainly there might have been some personnel change between 1978, when the Oxford Trinity instrument was made and when the Hong Kong instrument was made. Hear this presentation of Charles-Camille Saint-Saëns's (1835-1921) Danse Macabre from the Rieger in Hong Kong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ1-FgWS6TU.

And you can hear some old historic Austrian organs here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/r...k=001&disc=001, in an album called Historic Organs of Austria compiled by Gustav Leonhardt. The real Austrian organ, as you can tell, is yet different from the Arp Schnitger organs which emphasises the quaint and modesty. But the Baroque Austrian instrument emphasises the glory of royalty. The Austrian Baroque sounds an air of solemnity, with the bright mixtures in particular glorifying the Hapsburg dynasty. All in all, the sounds comprise influences from France and Italy, very richly elegant and reminiscient of the carvings and pictorially decorated golden interior of palaces and museums. Their mixtures also contain thirds, but sound brighter than the Arp Schnitger's. The sounds also conjure up the golden colour of the Bavarian beer and also the Lion sign of a certain beer brand.

As I have written before, the digital equivalent of the Austrian Baroque organ is the Ahlborn organ. Here is one sample of a three-manual Ahlborn playing Mendelssohn's praeludium and fugue : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vul6BdRImrc. Here is another Ahlborn sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktHvJ...eature=related, playing L.N.De Grigny Rècit. There is also a clip on Mozart Papageno Air played on the Ahlborn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHEO-...eature=related. These are certainly reminescent of the Hapsburg stuff.

And that's why I said the Ahlborn had a lot of potential before. It represents a real tradition, which is the digital version of today's Riegers, but not the older Riegers. It is a tradition which other digital organ suppliers have not explored.

About the management of Rieger, I found this bit of information from Wikipedia:

"Wendelin Eberle (born 8 July 1963) began his apprenticeship in organ building with Rieger in 1978. He worked on the technical aspects of organ design, as well as in voicing and tuning, and became manager of the Rieger design office. He took over as works manager of Rieger in 1992, and became president and owner of Rieger-Orgelbau GmbH on 1 October 2003, in a similar sequence to that of Josef von Glatter-Götz eighty years earlier."

If there has indeed been a continuous tradition and management within Rieger, then I would ask if the Hong Kong instrument involved pipes which were made by subcontracting of pipe making to a third party. I guess it is possible. This is because I have heard several Riegers already -- they are pretty much the same. Now, I also heard the Rieger at the Academy of Performing Arts in Hong Kong, a smaller instrument. I also did not notice any clangs I described during the only concert I attended there (from what I can remember). So, I wonder if these two Riegers are Riegers of entirety. Or, could they have adopted some different pipe making methods during the decade between 1978 to 1989?

[FelixLowe]

When I examined the 50-stop Allen Arp Schnitger organ, I noticed there is something strange about its Hauptwerk. Guess what it is. If you pay for a 50-stop Schnitger, you must be paying quite a bit and perhaps would expect a Mixture IV at least if not a Mixture VIII, and a Cymbel III perhaps. But, look at the stoplist here:

http://www.allenorgan.com/www/produc...50stopas1.html

HAUPTWERK
• 16 Principal
• 8 Principal
• 8 Spitzflöht
• 8 Salicional (OB)
• 8 Voix Celeste (OB)
• 4 Octava
• 4 Spitzflöht
• 2 Superoctav
• Rauschpfeife II
• 8 Trommet
• Chimes
• Tremulant

[FelixLowe]

Have a listen to this recording of BUXWV 139 on the Marcussen installed at the Mormon Center in Jerusalem, Israel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgNYkU6fpJQ.

[wljmrbill]

Very nice sounding installation: but the Mormons usually do not spare expense when it comes to their music. Well played also.

[FelixLowe]

Also, highly recommended to have a listen to is the performance on this organ of the J.P. Sweelinck: Ballo del granduca: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovEJm...eature=related. The organ has amazing transparent and light voices, and the organist's registrations are gentle but full of clarity. The organist's smart use of high-pitch mutation stops have served to sweeten up the piece and alleviate the melancholy that characterises the times in which the piece was written -- often the result of struggle to acheive Reformation. The organist has, therefore, managed to paint a picture of glorious victory through meticulously colouring the various passages for contrast with the hearty choice of stops. The approach is to bring out the delicate character using the colouring reeds like the Vox Humana which is popular in North German and Dutch instruments. The organ itself is very well-tuned and very authentically Dutch Baroque.


Hendrik Nijhoff organ in the Grote St. Janskerk:

COMPOSITION
Hoofdwerk:
Prestant 16
Octaaf 8
Holpijp 8
Octaaf 4
Fluit 4
Quint 3
Octaaf 2
Mixtuur 4-5 st.
Scherp 4 st.
Cornet 5 st.
Trompet 16
Trompet 8

Rugwerk:
Prestant 8
Gedekt 8
Prestant 4
Octaaf 2
Mixtuur 4-5 st.
Sesquialter 2 st. B/D
Dulciaan 8
Tremulant

Bovenwerk:
Baarpijp 8
Quintadeen 8
Roerfluit 4
Nazard 3
Woudfluit 2
Tertiaan 1 3/5
Flageolet 1
Vox Humana 8
Tremulant

Pedaal:
Bourdon 16
Prestant 8
Bourdon 8
Roerquint 6
Octaaf 4
Mixtuur 5 st.
Bazuin 16
Trompet 8
Klaroen 4

[FelixLowe]

Very nice sounding installation: but the Mormons usually do not spare expense when it comes to their music. Well played also.

Certainly a nice sounding installation for sure, like a good Rieger or Kleuker, but not sounding like an authentic Marcussen and Sons' instrument. But it is of very neutral concert hall-type South German Baroque scaling and intonation -- the kind that you can find exported from Westphalia. It is much like both the Kleuker at CUHK, particularly the Subbass 16', and the Hong Kong Cultural Centre Rieger. What I guess must have happened is that because the place was to be used to receive tourists or pilgrims from America, they may have forwarded instructions to Marcussen that they not make an instrument that sounds too distinctly North European. So, I guess they have told Marcussen to make the wider-scale stops than would have been the case. The Americans favour the wider scale stops, I think, from many of their university installations I've heard on Youtube.

But in the previous notice I posted, in it is a real Connoisseur Dutch instrument -- a real classic.