If its alowed, I would like to have a rant and a moan about organ recitals.

I recently recived a booklet detailing Bath Abbeys organ recital series and out of over 20 recitals both lunchtime and evening I could find a single one that I wanted to go to.
Now I know that finding an organ recital where you like everyp piece isnt easy but here is why I didnt like any of the recitals on offer and what I dont like about recitals generally.

1. Most of them included Reubke - I wonder what piece by Reubke there playing? Erm I dont know lol, but In my opinion its over played.

2 . 3 words - Bach, Bach, BACH. Yes stop complaining that its not an organ recital because theres no bach in it. What the matter with all French works?

3. The following composers are not being played at all as part of the series - Sweelinck, Handel, Guilmant (i think) Hindemith - such lovely composers.

4. The following composers are being played at Bath and are often played in most organ recitals in England - Bach, Howells, Reubke, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Vierne, widor - its the same old composers.

5. Video screens in my opinion distract the viewer from listening to the music and in my opinion again are sometimes used to show off by saying ' look how fast my hands and feet are moving'

6. Lastly - i think its not about how 'flash' or 'showy' the piece is its about how well you can play it. You dont need a technically demanding and flashy piece to make people go 'WOW'

For me, organ recitals are an opportunity for an hour's private contemplation. I have seldom encountered a situation where I can so peacefully sit and think about things, with no distractions, in a nice setting, with nice background music!

Maybe I have the wrong attitude...

Excatly - I believe that there is more emphasis on the performance, the player and the organ used. This does not make for easy listening in my opinion.

Whilst I agree broadly with your themes, I would point out that:


If it's a generalist recital, one would think it _should_ include some JSB; after all, he IS the Daddy !!


Sweelinck - perhaps requires a particular type of organ PLUS not overly interesting for the layman
Handel - hardly an organ composer!
Guilmant - I agree!!!
Hindemith - come on, he only wrote 3 Sonatas (and some minor pieces) - hardly a massive oeuvre from which to choose from. If a large body of recitalists all chose Sonata 1, you'd moan it was more overexposed that the Reubke!


So you have the most prolific/best organ composer, the best regarded English organ composer, two of the key names in Romantic organ music, Mendelssohn (LOL) and the two biggest names of the French organ school. Is it any surprise?


I disagree strongly here. You can always close your eyes or choose _not_ to look at the screen!!


Quite right, but you need _interesting_ repertoire.

I always think the Liverpool Cathedral crew get it right in terms of organ recitals I like to hear. Check out their website and see if you agree with me that their choice of repertoire is 'different' enough to be refreshing...

OK, here goes (though I might add that I'm NOT giving one in Bath this year, so I'm thankful I'm not included in your list of recitals not to go and hear!).

1. Absolutely agree, and having just moved from the midlands I had the same problem with people always wanting to play the Elgar sonata on our organ (usually no better than mediocre).

2. Sorry, disagree, I think there should be some Bach in a programme, doesn't have always to be one of the biggies though.

3. Sweelinck and Hindemith need specific types of organ to make them work properly. The Hindemith in particular all need a good neo-Baroque instrument. Handel, well possibly. There isn't a lot of solo organ music by Handel, in fact I think the last time I played there I played a transcription of one of the overtures. Guilmant isn't everyones cup of tea. As it happens, I play I and V, and bits of VIII. The others are very mediocre, as are a lot of the little pieces.

4. Hang on here, in point 1 you wanted more French, and now you're saying not Vierne or Widor?

5. Again, disagree. Organ recitals are strange experiences if you can't see the performer. The screens are there to give the non organist public some idea of what goes on at the console. See the Cameron Carpenter videos on YouTube (particularly Stars and STripes) and the performnace is MORE breathtaking because you can see what he is doing.

6. No, you don't need it to be technically difficult, but if it isn't, non organists/musicians will be less impressed. I went to a recital in Cambridge a couple of years ago of all of the Orgelbuchlein which was oozing with stunning musicianship, though no pyrotchnics. I'm not sure much of the rest of the audience appreciated how good it was.

1. - Read Robert Houssants article on the Reubke in the present organists review. Very informative. Over played? no not really, it is one of the cornerstones of our repertoire, and it is a terrible shame he only left two organ pieces and died at such a young age. The potential for someone who could write the 94th Psalm in his early twenties is impossible to comprehend.

2. In the eyes of the casual listener, take out Bach and what is left in our organ repertoire? Not an awful lot. Too many people, Bach IS the organ, and unless a program is specifically themed, should really feature some Bach. You don't have to play a big Prelude and Fugue. There are small ones, as well as the mass of chorale work.

3. - Of your list, the only composer i would expect to see in the list is Guillmant. See Guillmants post for my views as to why

4. Name some major works not by these composers that can be heard by a non-specialist musician? Messiaen is an aquired taste, and Buxtehude aside there is very little 'mainstream' organ music that can be played (possibly the stanford fantasia, some karg-elert etc but not much) - you can't base a program on Messiaen and the like for general audiences! Likewise, the Litanies by Alain is wonderful, but how many people want to sit through the whole Trois Pieces in one sitting? It's beautiful to myself but limited.

There are of course some works that should recieve greater exposure such as the Cocker Tuba Tune etc. I think everyone is now sick of the Elgar


5. Your choice wether to watch it or not

6. Yes, but its what people like.

Are you sure this post isn't born out of jealousy of not being able to play these pieces? Your big problem seems to be with works that are technically challenging... would you prefer that the best players played 'easier' music so that you could play the same and attain the same? Cause bad news... even if that happened, they would still rise to the top through articulation phrasing etc.


edit :: i have just looked on their website http://www.bathabbey.org/recitals.htm , and have noticed that reubke is only listed once

Sorry, I may have not been very clear in point 1. I think the Reubke is a fantastic piece (and yes the article is very good in OR). However, I don't think it should appear twice in the same series, and I think perfomers should be able to judge the nature of the recital. If it were an organists convention, or a serious paying money recital (evenings, in two halves etc), eg the kind of event that is going to be predominantly organists, then yes, by all means put it in. But I know the series in Bath and it is very much first time buyers and tourists in the audience. They appreciate a variety of good music and a number of shorter pieces or movements. The Reubke is half an hour, that doesn't leave time for a lot else. I thought twice about playing the Bach T, A and F there, coming in at nearly 15 minutes, but I mixed in some modern (tonal!) French dance music and a couple of transcriptions. Something for everyone!

I play regularly in a series where the organiser vetoes the programme if he needs to. Some people complain, but I think the organiser has every right to do so. One poorly put togther recital affects whether people come back for another one.

I'm inclined to agree, and I usually find myself studying the architecture and ceiling of the recital hall or church.

A bit of a sweeping statement. "most of them included Reubke" er... are you sure? I could imagine the sonata appearing once, or perhaps twice, but "most of them"?

I think you need to lighten up a bit. Most lunchtime recitals cost either very little, or nothing at all. I think mwl1 has the right attitude. It's horses for courses really, and in the case of Bath Abbey, I would have thought Peter King would not ask anyone to play who really wasn't worth hearing. Peter himself, though, IS worth hearing!

Reubke's popular this year as it's the 150th anniversary of his death.

I do that as well! Love it! Perhaps I have the wrong attitude as well, but I don't care!