• Welcome to the Pipe Organ Forum! This is a part of the open community Magle International Music Forums focused on pipe organs (also known as "church organs"), organists, organ music and related topics.

    This forum is intended to be a friendly place where technically advanced organists and beginners (or even non-organists) can feel comfortable having discussions and asking questions. We learn by reading and asking questions, and it is hoped that the beginners (or non-organists) will feel free to ask even the simplest questions, and that the more advanced organists will patiently answer these questions. On the other hand, we encourage complex, technical discussions of technique, music, organ-building, etc. The opinions and observations of a diverse group of people from around the world should prove to be interesting and stimulating to all of us.

    As pipe organ discussions can sometimes become lively, it should be pointed out that this is an open forum. Statements made here are the opinion of the poster, and not necessarily that of the forum itself, its administrator, or its moderators.

    In order to post a new topic - or reply to existing ones - you may join and become a member by clicking on Register New User. It's completely free and only requires a working email address (in order to confirm your registration - it will never be given away!). We strive to make this a friendly and informative forum for anyone interested in pipe organs and organ music.

    (Note: If you wish to link to and promote your own website please read this thread first.)

    Many kind regards
    smile.gif

    Frederik Magle
    Administrator

    Krummhorn
    Co-Administrator

Tracker action vs Pneumatic action

Caddis

New member
Hi there,I come from South Africa.I would be intrigued know what your opinions are about the pros and cons/advantages/disadvantages between two types of organs.Is there a real difference in the timing of stops/playing notes,some organists I've spoken to are of the opinion that pnuematic organs have a slower reaction than the tracker type.
 

mirjam

New member
Hi Caddis! Well, my personal experience with playing a pneumatic organ is, that the sound comes with a slight delay. It's quite confusing, because part of the musical experience is listening to your playing. But if you do that, you'll play slower and slower! So one really has to switch off the ear and only play on what the "inner ear" wants to hear. Still, if I try playing fast toccatas, I'm completely lost....
shake.gif

By the way, I'm from Holland, so maybe we can write afrikaans!!
wink.gif
(Just joking)
 

Cyril Walker

New member
Hi, I'm new to this forum but I have played tracker organs for many years(old and heavy). I find them much better for articulation, particularly in fast soft music such as early English music for manuals. Less important in French Toccatas!
 

mirjam

New member
Hi Cyril! The pneumatic organ that I sometimes play has a magnificent sound. But personally I find that the articulation can be a little unprecise for the untrained player, because one can't control 100% the magic moment of precisely when the ventile has to open - because there is no direct mechanic connection. But maybe I should try some english music, as you suggest!
 

Cyril Walker

New member
Hi mirjam, I now play a 15 speaking stop 100yrs old tracker organ. It is very precise and a fair sound for a villege organ. Early English organ music was for manuals only and the instruments were lightly voiced. I have been to France, Paris and have heard and played some of the well known instruments there. The famous "Cavaille-Col" instruments used a version of the "Barker lever pneumatic which was good, but not as direct as tracker. The acoustics of the Parisien churches is so resonant as to tend to blur the sound. This is the effect I beleive the Widor, Vierne etc aimed for.
 

Frederik Magle

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
Regulator
The Barker pneumatic lever was a requisite for both the french and german "mammuth" romantic organs. These (for the time) very large instruments would have been practically unplayable if not for Barker's invention.

Personally I think the whole issue boils down to the size and, especially, character of the organ. A small or medium sized "classical" or "baroque" organ would definately be best with tracker action for playing baroque and classical works of Bach, Buxtehude, Mendelssohn (I do not consider Mendelssohns organ works "romantic") etc. and also a lot contemporary music.

However, a large french symphonic organ would need the Barker machine, so would a german romantic instrument, and an "English" type romantic cathedral/concert organ is only possible with electric, electro-pneumatic or pneumatic action (with it's high pressure coices), so it's not as we have a choice most of the time
smile.gif


Persoanlly I prefer tracker action, but of course only when possible.
 

McVities

New member
I tend to agree, Tracker action is more suited to earlier works (and Mendelssohn!!) although you really need to take care not to "spit", especially on smaller organs. A lot of people over-do articulation in Baroque music, playing very staccato, which is harsh on the ears. I try to think of the notes I play as bow strokes on a baroque stringed intrument, and the gaps between as the gaps when the bow changes direction. I also think that Tracker action encourages good technique, as you need to use the weight of your arm to make the notes bite. Pneumatic action however is a lot easier if you are used to playing electronic instruments, at least in my experience. The last pneumatic I played was made by Binns and had quite a quick speech. Intriguing
 

Caddis

New member
Hi there,thancks for the responces and viewpoints.Although I'm a dedicated tracker fan,I'll listen to a good pneumatic organ anyday,however some pneumatic organs in my view are not as lively as tracker organs.I favour the tubular pneumatic action over barker/elctropneumatic type.Hi mirjam,may be we can write in Frisian(only joking)
 

Thomas

New member
Hello to the Forum !

I think you have to mention an important point here: A mechanic tracker action is much more reliable! Two main facts:
*The tracker action construction does not require so many pallets like a pneumatic system.
*The pneumatic system is much more affected by the climate (temperature, humidity ...)

But in fact a precisely - with utmost care (very time consuming!) - regulated pneumatic system should not have a too disturbing delay and the develloping tone has its charm - no doubt! We restored many pneumatic systems (f.e. Pneumatische Kegellade) and even built in new ones as extensions of existing historic organs like here in Burglauer (Schlimmbach II/21):
http://www.hey-orgelbau.com/frame5.html
But in my opinion, too, the tracker action is more reliable, precise and you are able to articulate the tone by having the possibility to feel the "opening point" of the pallet. Besides this there are huge differences in the construction of mechanic tracker actions between each organ building company...

Many greetings
 

Fero

New member
Hi! I´m a organist - beginner
smile.gif
I played only on five organs. First was digital one in music school. I played only one on mechanical organ. It was very good experience. But mostly I have played on pneumatic organs. It is on organ-builder, what quality instrument has. If the church has a good accoustic, you can play on pneumatic quite well. Every pneumatic organ has dellay. It depends on organ, because every organ has different dellay, and the mostly is different dellay beetwen manuals of one organ! If you want to play fast toccattas, you should to learn hear "clicking" in machine. Use only quiet stops and play slowly at the first. Then you can accelerate a tempo, but you allways must to hear "working" in organ. Then you can play quite well on pneumatic organs. Pneumatic organs ussually have more breakdowns and if they aren´t repared and tuned, it is very bad experience, when you can´t turn on, or turn of a stop. You must "know" organ
blush.gif
. I really played Toccatta and Fuga BWV565 on it in tempo
blush.gif
.
I´m sorry, my English is horrible
frown.gif
 

Doug Campbell

New member
In the US, pneumatic action organs have reached a very high point, with very virtually NO delay. Wether it's a pitman type chest, an electric "pull-down" slider chest or the Austin Universal Chest action, they are all quite quick. It should be noted that in the US, the average organ is usually much bigger than European instruments. Another major difference is the size and shape of the churches (and their acoustics). Our churches tend to have less responsive acoustics that European churches with the result that American organs usually have a substantially higher wind pressure to "drive" the sound around the room. This higher pressure makes mechanical action instruments more problematic to build and play.

Another common feature in American pneumatic instruments is that the "keydesk" (we call it the console) is usualy NOT connected to the organ case, since it doesn't need to be. Many instruments have "floating consoles" that can be rolled around within the space for optimum placement for their specific use. One position to conduct a worship service, then move it for a recital. This, of course, would not be possible with a tracker. Although many organists will tell you that they can "feel" the pallets opening on a tracker, in truth, unless you are only playing on a single stop (or two) that "feeling" is lost. With an electropneumatic instrument, no matter how many stops are engaged, the touch on the keyboards remains constant. This allows for organs of many, many ranks to be easily contolled. As for reliability, I'm currently involved in some maintenance work on Austin Opus 690 which was built in 1916 and is still on original leather!
 

giovannimusica

Commodore de Cavaille-Coll
Wow, a bunch of good posts within 24 hours and on mechanical vs. pneumatic action to boot! Cool
grin.gif


In my humble opinion a well built and maintained Barker lever, tracker or pneumatic or electric action is good and well. Yes, there are different repertoires for different instruments but a good organist can make Bach sound heavenly on a Cavaille-Coll or Messiaen sound delectable on a Beckerath or Tournemire sublime on a Tannenberg.

Giovanni
tiphat.gif
 

Gareth

Commodore of Water Music
Hey, I just saw the word South Africa, well now I can say that this forum has 2 members from South Africa...where do you come from in S.A?
 

acc

Member
Persoanlly I prefer tracker action, but of course only when possible.

It may actually be possible more often than you think. I've recently had the opportunity to play on the new Grenzing organ of Brussels Cathedral (specification here). I don't particularly like this organ as far as its sound is concerned, but just for the fun of it, I coupled everything to the Great, disengaging the optional electrical Swell/Great coupler, and busted away in Widor's Toccata: despite the purely mechanical action on 63 stops and four manuals coupled together (mechanically as well), the lightness and playability of the instrument was amazing!

So yes, there is a limit to what a tracker action can offer, but surely this limit is farther now than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

(Of course, you might point out that we'll have to wait another 50 or 100 years to see how actions like the one in Brussels stand the test of time.)
 

Thomas Dressler

New member
I kind of hesitated to respond to this one because I don't want to seem as if I'm imposing my opinion. But since by now my preferences are probably no secret, I just want to mention a few things, with the understanding that differences of opinion are good and they make for interesting discussions!

I generally prefer tracker action, and I do have to disagree about feeling pallets open. As a performer who has played lots of tracker action organs, I'd say that the character of the pluck changes as you add more and more stops, but a sensitive player who has really spent a lot of time with trackers can feel the pluck no matter how many stops are on (that is if it's a well built tracker.) Indeed, the changing character of the pluck is one of the appealing things about tracker action--there is a different kind of touch for different stop combinations.

This is not to say that pneumatic actions are bad. I won't comment on that except to say that I've played on some that I don't mind, and I do hold a good tracker action in my mind as the ideal.

I believe it might give the wrong impression to make generalizations about American churches which imply that trackers don't work here. I'd point out that I think one of the most successful builders of organs for American churches has been the E&GG Hook, and Hook and Hastings company. These instruments are sometimes stunning in their ability to sound good in often dry acoustics. And they are for the most part, with a few exceptions, purely tracker instruments. Substantially higher wind pressure and/or floating consoles are not necessarily needed. Presently I conduct a choir from a tracker organ console that's been in the same spot for 109 years.

I certainly understand being enthusiastic about one kind of instrument or another, as well all tend to do this. However, I would not imply that one particular solution to designing instruments for American churches is the only one.
 

giovannimusica

Commodore de Cavaille-Coll
Hi Tom,

An excellent posting on the Tracker vs. Pneumatic debate - As always, you make eminent sense.
smile.gif


Giovanni
tiphat.gif
 

acc

Member
Tom, you're of course right in saying that a tracker action allows for certain subtelties in touch that another action cannot give you. For example, there is no question in my mind that a tracker action should be the standard for the performance of the baroque repertoire.

I do have questions though about one kind of non-tracker instrument, namely the German romantic tradition of cone chest instruments. When you build cone chests, rather than slider chests, your whole concept of tonal design and voicing will of course be completely different, and this is in my opinion an essential ingredient in an authentic performance of late romantic German composers such as Max Reger or Sigfrid Karg-Elert.

As you can see, I'm not questioning the tracker action per se in this context, but the question is: can current techniques build a playable tracker action on a 70+ stop cone chest design?
 

Thomas Dressler

New member
I don't have any direct experience with cone chests, and this whole area is one of the fuzzier spots in my mind.

While I like trackers the best, this is influenced by the kind of repertoire I usually play. I would not go so far as to say that trackers are the best solution in every circumstance. There are also large instruments such as Doug was referring to that just would not work well with tracker action. The point I was trying to make is that I feel you cannot generalize that trackers are not suited for American churches.

I'd say that there are certain kinds of instruments that just should not be trackers, partly because of size and wind pressure, and also because of the need for registration aids. (You can make pneumatic stop action and pistons on trackers, but my experience with them has not been the best.)

In most cases, when considering performing an organ piece, it is very useful to consider the kind of instrument the composer had in mind and adapt where necessary.

If you have had direct experience with cone chest organs, it would be very interesting if you would write about your experience!
 

acc

Member
I don't have any personal playing experience with cone chests.

What I do know is that such a chest has one groove per stop (instead of one groove per note). Therefore, you've got a certain amount of blending between different notes of one stop, rather than between different stops for the same note. One consequence is that by putting lots and lots of 8' stops of different intensities into each division, the (relative) lack of per-note-blending allows to achieve a crescendo through progressive addition of these stops. Division II will be significantly less intense than manual I, and division III still less than II (compare this to a Cavaillé-Coll, where division III (récit) is usually quite strong, and crescendo is obtained via the swell box precisely thanks to this strength).

In particular, replacing pallets by cones is not a goal in it self, but merely a technical necessity resulting from the different kind of grooves.

These cones do, however, have an influence on the attack of the sound (and on the touch, if it's a tracker action, since there will be much less pluck). Afficionados usually consider this influence to be positive on overblowing stops, strings, and free reeds, which are precisely very typical for this kind of instruments.

If you can get hold of Ludger Lohmann's CD at Schramberg (Ritter's four sonatas) or of Gerd Zacher's CD at Essen-Werden (Reger opp.73 and 127), you'll get a pretty good idea of what I'm saying.

Needless to say, don't try to play Bach on these instruments!
devil.gif
 
Top