Depraved Statistics Lovers Look At Pipe Organs

A lot of parodies of US culture was based on the fanaticism of baseball fans.  We all know about RBI's, and the sorts of averages that the expert announcer spouts during play-by-play commentating.  That sort of treatment of the sport has now spread to every other sport as well in the US, and across the world in US-friendly foreign countries.  It wasn't always thus, you know; this sort of approach to hyping up excitement is post-1960's.

Now, a certain entertainment group has acquired what they call 'The Largest Pipe Organ In The World,' based on the number of pipes ("tubes" as they term it) of the instrument:

https://www.boardwalkhall.com/arena-info/pipe-organs

which link you can follow up yourself, and find out how many football fields it would fill if the air in the pipes were spread out one inch high.  The photos I saw had stops positioned so high that the organist could not turn them on (or off) in the middle of a piece. 

Big organs became popular in the 19th century, when composers began writing pieces that could compete in volume with a symphony orchestra.  One composer who wrote quite a wonderful piece for organ, piano and orchestra is Camille Saint-Saens: Symphony no. 3.

That's probably the exception; there's a part for organ in the Richard Strauss fanfare associated with "2001: A Space Odyssey", but as an amateur, I know no other works that feature organ and orchestra other than religious works. 

At the end of a decade, or a century, TV stations and networks often compile a list of the 100 most wonderful movies, or songs, or books, or actors.  Well, just compiling a set of things is harmless, and it's an exciting activity that gains the network some viewership. Poor fellows, they probably need the cash.  But, organs?  Why?  This ranking thing is in very poor taste. 

Also, the beauty of the sound of an organ is not proportional to the number of pipes it has.  Organists--- the people who play the organs--- are,  I think, secretly impressed by the size of organs, and can't resist an opportunity to play a really big organ.  But those of us who listen to the darn things are often quite uninterested in the volume of the sound it makes. 

Archie

An Earbug: A Brahms Sextet

For some reason, I listened one day to a Sextet by Brahms.

Sextets are strange animals.  A quartet is a well-defined, well-established musical form, written for the instrument ensemble called a string quartet: 2 violins, a viola, a cello.  Both the genius and the failing of a string quartet is the fact that the four instruments sound so similar.  It's tonally homogenious.  The string quartet is the godfather of all small ensembles, but I suspect the genre is dying from its own popularity. 

Someone got the idea of writing for a string quintet; they just added a viola.  The two violins were called first violin and second violin, and the violas were first viola and second viola.  There are a very few great string quintets, including Boccherini's famous quintet, of whose minuet is famous. 

Brahms decided to write a set of string sextets; these had, in addition to the two violins and two violas, two cellos (or celli).  The one I like the most, and probably the first one I listened to, is the one in B Flat.  Here is a link to one on YouTube:

• https://youtu.be/Yig9hDelRsE

This recording is, I think, the very one I first listened to.  I had been a member of a 'mailing list', a sort of music discussion group, and one of the guys said he was trying to get rid of his vinyl records in favor of CDs, and offered his discs for free.  Of course I jumped at the chance, and one of the items I got was a boxed set of the Brahms sextets. 

The lovely thing about this piece was how it sounds like a discussion among friends.  This is a characteristic of most of the best string ensemble pieces.

OK, I don't have much more to say about this piece.  You might want to listen to a different recording of the same piece, and see if you like it better.

Aims and Objectives

When I first started this blog, I had some fairly clear objectives; they were to support the weekly radio program I used to deliver on WXPI.  The radio station has now become a Web-only station, because we---or they, really, since I don't contribute to them any more--- found it impossible to maintain the transmitter.  Now, I can put anything I want here, since there isn't a radio show to drive it along.  But the problem, for me, at least, with complete creative freedom, is that I can't think of what to create!

The problem I'm facing is common.  If you ask someone to write a tune, any sort of tune they like, or to write a story, with complete freedom, that often leads to a sort of paralysis.  Instead, if you set out certain rules that have to be satisfied, such as that the piece has to be in the key of D minor, and be about 32 bars long with no repeats, or that the story must feature a cat, who gets left behind when the family goes on vacation, it is so much easier to get started on the project. 

At the moment, this blog is completely rudderless, and as a result, you don't see very frequent posts.  I decided that I'm going to establish a theme for a few months; when I run out of posts that follow that theme, I'll set up another theme.  The theme for the next several posts will be: pieces and tunes that are stuck in my head!  After all, the implicit objective that underlies this blog is to make classical music accessible to those who vaguely like music, but don't know enough about it for them to get into it on their own.  If I describe these 'ear-bugs' that keep popping into my head, maybe they'll pop into yours, too!

Okay, the first installment will be tomorrow!

Archie

P.S. : By the way, if you didn't already know this: the image of a goofy- looking guy in period get up on the blog banner is me.  I took a well- known portrait of J. S. Bach, and 'photoshopped' my own face in there.  The photo was from about 15 years ago, so I don't look that good anymore. 

Archie

Musical Talent

I have begun writing to a friend of my childhood, who is now a professor of medicine in Wales!  I told him--- after having waited a decent interval--- about my string quartet, and he readily agreed to listen to the piece, and remarked that I was talented. 

I have to admit that I have a bit of talent, which means I really can't take full credit for anything I create; those who labor to perfect a piece of music, like Beethoven did, deserve far, far more praise than someone who tosses off a piece offhand-ly, like Mozart.  But that doesn't sound right; Mozart has written some of my very favorite pieces. 

Here is a complete list of the pieces I have written:

1. Chorale-prelude on 'Jesu Meine Freude'.
2. Fantasia on 'Starlight Serenade'
3. Mystery Waltz
4. A Polka. (Not really, but that's what I called it!)
5. String Quartet in C major. 

All of these are derivative, by which I mean that they're based on an existing piece, except 4, and 5.  It is hard for me to write something completely original; something that's worth listening to, anyway!  So much for talent.  Bach, for instance: imagine creating a piece of music, like a fugue, that's not only wonderful to listen to, but has all the inner structure that fugues are expected to have!!

So, I really don't have much to say on the topic of talent, except that we have to measure how much praise we give someone for creating something by first discounting what can be attributed to pure talent.  This recalls the parable of the talents, and the summary of that parable: From those to whom much is given, much is expected. 

Archie