Living History or Cultural Obsolescence? by Bryan Rodda

Living History Or Cultural Obsolescence? A Study Of Modern Pipe Organ Restoration Projects In Germany And The Netherlands And Their Impact Upon The Musical Life Of The Churches In Which They Reside And The Wider Community

The College of Wooster Department Of Music Senior Independent Study Thesis

By Bryan Evan Rodda Professor John M. Russell, Advisor

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Independent Study Thesis in Music at The College of Wooster, March the Twenty-Seventh, Two Thousand Six.

To my family, for everything To Désirée, because she counts, too

iii

Acknowledgements: This Independent Study has not occurred in a vacuum; consequently, there are persons whom I desire to thank for their assistance. I therefore gratefully acknowledge the following people for their contributions to this study: I wish first to thank my parents, Bob and Karen Rodda, whose influence on my life continues unabated, for their constant support and love, and occasional editorial support. Also, I thank my sister, Jennifer, for her kernels of I.S. wisdom, having preceded me in this––as in so many other––endeavors. My brother, Kevin, I thank for several much-needed stress-relieving Ping-Pong matches, and for being always a delight. My College of Wooster friends are far to numerous to even begin to mention, and I feel that attempting to do so would simply cheapen the whole by invariably omitting someone who deserves to be mentioned, but I do express my appreciation for all of the unquantifiable enjoyment they add to my everyday existence. I wish also to acknowledge the College’s music faculty. I thank Ms. Ditmer for her unrelenting campaigning in trying to convince me to come to Wooster as a prospective student, and for all the extra hours spent on football fields, in classrooms and on buses. My gratitude extends also to other excellent classroom instructors, Dr. Gallagher, Dr. Wright, and Dr. Dykstra, each of whom furthered my musical education significantly. I also cannot forget Dr. Mowrey, who has served as my academic advisor for the past two-and-a-half years. Also, I offer my thanks to both Pamela Yarnell and Karen Roll Gardner for their top-notch musical instruction on piano and saxophone, respectively. I could not have prepared material for a Senior Recital without their input and constant assistance.

iv My thanks to the other especially influential faculty instructors I have had the pleasure of having while at the College: Dr. Kreuzman for making me into a Philosophy minor and challenging me constantly to think, and both Dr. Stewart and Dr. Edmiston for teaching two of the most enjoyable courses I have ever had the privilege of taking. Also, I now formally thank the Copeland Fund for Independent Study Award Committee for taking an interest in my project and providing funding for my trip to Europe, where I gained much of the knowledge that forms the central part of this research project. My thanks also go to the kind people of Germany and the Netherlands, who suffered the intrusion of two foreigners on their cultural institutions during late December. My special appreciation to Désirée’s relatives who were involved in housing and feeding us over the Christmas holiday: her uncle Helmut as well as her aunt Michaela and her family. Neither thanks nor appreciation, however, are offered for the manhandled treatment of Dés’s luggage at the hands of Northwest Airlines. Further, I must make three more acknowledgements. First, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to mention several people whose influence on my musical development cannot be understated: My first piano teacher, April Gallagher, my school band directors, Tom Long, Dennis Bartleheim, Dan Adams, Doug Bennett, and Kelly (Mollnow) Smith. I am also deeply indebted to both the musical talents and prodigious love for music shown by Jeff and Daphne Dexter, and consider myself specially blessed to have had the opportunity to learn from them both. Next, my sincere appreciation goes to my Independent Study advisor, theory professor, mentor, occasional dinner entertainment, political debater, curmudgeon and friend, Mr. John Russell.

v My very last acknowledgement goes to my alter ego, DĂŠsirĂŠe Weber. DĂŠs, thanks for your immense assistance while in Europe, not only through translation, but also via fruitful discussions comparing the two cultures and societies. This project, completed in the academic year 2005-2006, signifies the last major hurdle for me personally before I will receive my diploma from The College of Wooster, and thus it also signifies the year in which you, too, should have graduated college. My faith in you and your abilities is unwavering, and I know that you are one of a small sub-set of people for whom I believe it is honestly true that you can accomplish whatever it is that you set your formidable abilities toward. Remember, it should not be this hard, and it is not fair, but you have learned lessons that I cannot ever even grasp, and I believe you a deeper and better person for it.

Table of Contents Title Page

Dedication

Acknowledgements

iii

Table of Contents

Index of Plates

vii

Index of Organ Specifications

viii

I. Introduction II. A Brief History of the Organ in Germany and the Netherlands

1 9

III. The Challenges of Historical Restoration

IV. The Organ Case Studies

Part I: East German Reconstructions

Die Frauenkirche

Die Hofkirche

Part II: North German Reconstructions

Die Jacobikirche

Die Marienkirche

Part III: Two Organs in the Netherlands

St. Bavoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kerk

Laurenskerk

V. Analysis and Discussion VI. Conclusion VII. Appendix A: Plates of Churches and Organs VIII. Appendix B: An Independent Study Field Experience IX. Bibliography

91 99 104 122 127

vii

Index of Plates Dresden, Germany I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

Exterior of Die Frauenkirche Exterior of Die Frauenkirche Interior of Die Frauenkirche, showing the high altar and the Kern organ Close up detail on the organ loft and the case of the Kern organ Exterior of Die Hofkirche (Dom) Rear organ gallery in Die Hofkirche Close up detail of the main organ case in Die Hofkirche

Hamburg, Germany VIII. IX.

Tower of St. Jacobikirche, as seen from the tower of St. Nikolai Organ of St. Jacobikirche1

Luebeck, Germany X. XI.

Exterior of Marienkirche at night Organ of Marienkirche2

Haarlem, The Netherlands XII. XIII. XIV.

Exterior of St. Bavo’s Kerk, over top of town buildings Interior and organ of St. Bavo’s Kerk3 Picture looking directly up at the Bavo Kerk organ4

Alkmaar, The Netherlands XV. XVI. XVII.

Exterior of Laurenskerk Interior of the church, showing organ placement and closed shutters5 Detail of the organ with open shutters6

Image by Yale University: << http://www.yale.edu/ism/Yale_Organ_Tour/Tour_images/Hamburg_church _images/pages/090_Hamburg_facade_jpg.htm>> 2 Image by Herst. N. Verlag Schöning & Co + Gebr. Schmidt. <<http://www.schoening-verlag.de>> 3 Peeters & Vente., pg. 169. Image by Photogravure De Schutter Ltd. 4 ibid., pg. 157. Image by Photogravure De Schutter Ltd. 5 Photo from church website: << http://www.grotekerk-alkmaar.nl/>> 6 Peeters & Vente., pg. 134 Photo by Drs J. F. van Os

viii

Index of Organ Specifications The North German Baroque Organ Research Project Gottfried Silbermann, Die Frauenkirche Daniel Kern, Die Frauenkirche Gottfried Silbermann, Die Hofkirche

35-36 49 49-50 62

Arp Schnitger, St. Jacobikirche

71-72

Various Builders, Marienkirche

Christian MĂźller, St. Bavoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kerk

82-83

Frans Caspar Schnitger, Laurenskerk

88-89

-1-

I. Introduction Organs have interested me for many years. I first played an organ as a high school student, taking a handful of lessons from my piano teacher and her husband during the summer. I grew up around organs––at least, insofar as listening to one in church every weekend for more than a decade counts as experience. Having now seriously studied the American Organ Reform Movement and having spent time playing a wider selection of organs, I realize that my initial knowledge never advanced beyond that of the typical church-going layman. I have found that coming to study to the organ as a comparative outsider has allowed me to realize the degree to which the typical person fails to understand fully even the basic premises of the instrument. For example, few people have ever played an organ; fewer still a true pipe organ; and an altogether miniscule number has any true knowledge of what distinguishes a tracker from an electro-pneumatic or a Silbermann from a Cavaillé Coll. My Senior Independent Study involves an investigation of pipe organ restoration projects undertaken in Germany and the Netherlands in the post-World War II era. The restorations of this period were originally spurred by the need to restore whole communities––and usually whole church buildings––in the aftermath of the war. The projects were often informed by the precepts of the Orgelbewegung, a movement to return German organs to “classical” principles of organ building as exemplified by the organs of Arp Schnitger, and which was driven by thinkers––Nobel Prize winner Albert Schweitzer chief among them––and events, such as the 1926 Freiburg Conference, that

-2reconsidered the position of the organ in Germany.1 The Orgelbewegung (literally, Organ Movement) argued that contemporary organs had strayed from the proper principles of organ building, and sought to reestablish the sound and practices of the golden age of Baroque German organs. But the history of organs and organ building in the region far predates the Baroque Era. To understand the course of development of the organ across the region, I will present a chapter on the organ’s history spanning from the late Middle Ages through the Baroque Era. This will provide the basic historical underpinning of my study, and explain why the period of 1650-1750 was synonymous with the musical flourishing of the organ. The history section should therefore explain why 200-year-old instruments are still considered worthy of emulation and reconstruction today.

Historical Uncertainty The difficulties encountered by modern organ historians when trying to get an accurate understanding of historical building practices and historical instruments will be the subject of the next chapter in this study. One project in particular will be profiled here, on account of its meticulous attention to historical detail and its academic and scientific approach to rebuilding avenues of lost knowledge about the metal and wood compositions used by 17th century builders. This project is the North German Baroque Organ Project, which is housed inside the GoART institute in Göteborg, Sweden, which has attempted an authentic reconstruction of the working environment of a 17th century

Schweitzer won the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize for his work developing medical care in Gabon in Africa. However, he was also a concert organist and highly regarded J.S. Bach scholar, having written two pamphlets––one on the music and performance practices of J.S. Bach, and the other on the art of European organ building––in 1905 and 1906, respectively, which contributed to a reinvigoration of Bach scholarship and an increasing interest in earlier music.

-3organ builder. However, for many instruments, information remains fragmentary and difficult to obtain. The passage of time causes deterioration of the once-brand-new pipe organ, of course. Often, however, in the course of normal maintenance on a pipe organ, the organ builder decides to add a new stop or two, or change the pedal compass. These incremental changes can eventually lead to a very different instrument from the original. Further, records of the original instrument are often incomplete or nothing more than a quoted price in old church documents. These uncertainties will also be considered in this chapter. Finally, I will examine the effect of World War II on the preservation of historical organs across the region. This chapter, then, will be geared toward determining the extent of what modern restorers can realistically know about historical organs, and how that can influence their ability to do absolutely faithful reconstructions. The total disregard of historical practice in a restoration should be seen as fundamentally detrimental to the concept of historical restoration, but the central point here will be that any organ project will have some degree of inherent historical uncertainty. This certainly does not imply that historical information, when known, can therefore be ignored, but it also does not mean that reconstructions can be expected to be flawless––even with research, some historical techniques and practices still remain unknown to the modern age.

Selection Criteria for Selected Restoration Projects Before my project can even begin to assess whether or not a restoration project has been successful, a few basic questions must be addressed. First, what, exactly, defines an organ restoration project? Certainly the term “restoration” implies more than just a through cleaning of the instrument, but does it have to mean more than the slight

-4adjustment of a few pipes out of several hundred in an instrument? Arguably, even the replacement of as little as one or two pipes could count as a restoration, however this would leave likely thousands of projects to study, the majority of which would approach tedium in the extreme. Therefore, though many small scale restorations must occur constantly, this Independent Study investigation will focus attention on instruments that have seen significant restorations, where all of the elements of the organ have received a through overhaul. Even with this criterion, however, the list of instruments that could be studied remains unmanageable. Therefore, secondary selection criteria must now be developed. Beyond simply being a restoration project, the organs I will profile must also have at least one other compelling reason for study. Such reasons could include: the historical importance of the instrument, the unique approach taken by the restorer, or the apparent influence the restored instrument has on its congregation and broader society. Lastly, any instrument I will profile must also involve some degree of historical accuracy as an aim of the restoration project. Historical accuracy involves a conscious application to the restoration of the practices and precepts that would have been used to construct the original instrument. This is to insure, insofar as possible, that the resulting post-restoration organ is in accord with the building practices and tonal conception of earlier builders, and seeks as at least part of its aim to return the instrument to its idiomatic musical quality and style.

The Restoration Case Studies After developing answers to what constitutes a successful historically accurate restoration and to why certain restoration projects are chosen over others, this study will

-5follow a case study methodology of the various chosen projects. Each case study will, naturally, cover the basic facts of the instrument, its location, size, original builder and the restorer, and other relevant details. If possible, a full specification of the both the current and the original instrument will be given, along with a discussion section which summarizes the restoration work, covering how the project was developed, who funded and supported the work, the significance of the restoration both to the musical field and to the organâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s community, and what the end results have been. This discussion will be enriched by the first-hand knowledge and experience I gained from the Copland Fund Grant I received that allowed me to visit the profiled instruments during my winter break. As a result of the various restoration project case studies, I plan to learn about contemporary German and Dutch organ culture. The analysis section of this paper following the case studies will attempt to draw out of those studies commonalities or trends that seem important to the overall phenomenon of pipe organ reconstructions. Since more than just the purely musical aspects of my topic interests me, in addition to tackling musically inclined questions, the analysis section of my study will seek to answer this fundamental question of my study: What influence have these pipe organ restoration projects had on not only their musical communities but also on the overall broader social and cultural milieu? Musical expression and musical arts do not occur in a social vacuum, and this is particularly true of pipe organs. Thanks to the organâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strong connection with the religious and social practices of northern German and the Netherlands, these instruments seem to have a cultural importance that extends further than their physical sound. Why else would restoration seem like a logical choice? Major restorations seem slightly

-6illogical, since they often are just as involved as building a brand-new instrument, and just as costly. This seems like a good reason to probe for the mitigating cultural factors that drive the desire to insure successful restorations of the instruments such as those of Silbermann or Schnitger. I want to understand why a church or a society would prefer to restore their existing instrument rather than build entirely new instruments. As I alluded to in the paragraph above, modern techniques and computer-aided design have changed the economics of organ building. The two countries I am studying both have seen increased secularism in their cultures since World War II, which in turn should imply that less money would be available for a large-scale restoration project such as those in this study. Additionally, it would seem that less money would be available for the construction of new instruments, as well. In the United States, these trends––along with a significant increase in the amount of Evangelical churchgoers, who tend to not include organ music in their services––have led to increasing levels of pipe organ substitutes being used in churches. For example, there are American congregations that have turned to high-tech electronic keyboards as substitutes for pipe organs altogether; using computers that have sampled organ sounds and reproduce them via electronic speakers. These devices are generally touted as being organs, sans the pipes. Even though such a high-tech trend has not appeared to have caught on in Europe, I think I must consider if the European market for pipe organs is still viable in the regions I am investigating, for if not, it may signify that the role of the pipe organ in modern life must be thoroughly re-examined.

-7-

Hypotheses It is often useful, when embarking on a study into any set of questions, to have ideas as to how the eventual answers might look. I hypothesize, therefore, that my study of restoration projects in Germany and the Netherlands will show projects motivated in roughly equal parts of musical considerations and historical considerations. By this I mean that for a given project, I expect that the reasons that motivated its undertaking will include both the poor musical state of affairs of the instrument and historic nature of the particular instrument. Some organs might be restored simply because a major builder such as Schnitger built the original, while others might be restored primarily because they were in dreadful condition. I suspect that no project will be fully one or the other, and that I will find projects undertaken at this connection between history and musicality. Following from this, I reason that currently Germany and the Netherlands regard their organs as part musical instrument, part historical artifact. Truthfully, I do not expect this to be a drastically different attitude than has existed among the various congregants throughout the years––even in the pre-Baroque Era, the grandeur of the town’s pipe organ in northern Europe figured heavily in the ranking of the town’s economic and social power, and therefore organs have long been seen as of historical and cultural importance, quite aside from their musical capabilities. But in those times, the value of the instrument was at least as much its musical abilities. The best pipe organs could draw the best organists to the city to join with the town musicians in an energetic musical culture. Pipe organs are wonderful musical instruments, surely, but it seems to me probable that they have lost some of their cultural resonance, and are no longer as important before public’s eyes. I wonder, then, if this project will show that pipe organs

-8in Germany and the Netherlands today may be on the path to becoming historical artifacts first, and musical instruments second––valuable if you were to discuss life two centuries, or even 80 years ago, but now seen as old and curiously out-of-fashion. In many ways, I hope my study finds this prediction to be far too dire––that perhaps it is only the American organ world, with which I am more familiar––that seems to assume modernization mixed with a blind allegiance to a feeling of progress as the correct attitude toward pipe organs. I think the answers to that these questions are germane for far more than the narrow field of organ building.

-9-

II. A Brief History of the Organ in Germany and The Netherlands As modern-day restorers look back into the history of German and Dutch organs to discern different styles and practices in need of emulation and restoration, it is of primary importance to understand how the organ has historically developed across the region. It is probably a fair statement to say that the region in question, northern Germany and the Netherlands, has furthered the overall development of the organ more than any other European region. This chapter will chronicle the region’s history as it relates to the pipe organ, beginning at the end of the Middle Ages and ending with the Baroque era. This watershed period follows the organ from a one manual instrument to the zenith of organ building in the late Baroque Era. The overall cultural and economic position of the organ in society was also probably never higher than during this period.

Early Developments: The Late Middle Ages to the Protestant Reformation From the late medieval period through the Protestant Reformation, the organ developed in size, style, and quality. These changes in the organ often coincided with its increasing importance in the cultural life of cities and towns across the German provinces and the Netherlands. In this period in history, connections between city governance and religious life ran deep; and it is therefore not surprising that as municipal government improved––especially in northern German towns that had joined an economic alliance called the Hanseatic League––the town’s church and organ also benefited.

- 10 It was the Protestant Reformation that added further impetus to the design and functionality of the organ. As breaking off Protestant denominations dealt with how to handle musical expression in worship, some denominations, Lutheranism particularly, placed the organ at the very heart of liturgical worship. The institution of congregational singing, developed in this time, provided a practical reason to solve a technical problem with the 15th and 16th century organ––increasing novelty without increasing musicality. From that practical need was born the Werkprinzip style of organ construction. This style dominates in the work across the region during the Baroque Era, and was the style perfected by Arp Schnitger. In many ways, the Werkprinzip instrument solves the challenge of how to arrange effectively the various parts of an organ into a musical whole, and as such it became the gold standard for builders of later eras, arguably until the late 19th century. It is still of contemporary importance, however, because of conscious efforts during the 20th century by organ builders and organists to relearn the lessons that this style of organ building had to teach. These thinkers, both in Germany and America, used Schnitger’s St. Jacobikirche organ as an emblematic model for all that was desirable in organ building.2

As the subject matter for my Junior Independent Study, I should note that the American Organ Reform Movement in many ways was less honest than their German counterparts at actually following the model of Schnitger in their “reform” instruments, especially in the early, pre-WW II reform era. For example, American reformers were unlikely to install Rückpositiv divisions, though that division had a clear musical function to Schnitger. Also, early American reformers did not construct mechanical action instruments, preferring electro-pneumatic action for its “practicality” instead. Walter Holtkamp does deserve credit, though, as the first American builder who took seriously the work being done by German scholars such as Albert Schweitzer. He had a reading knowledge of German, and he was familiar with Schweitzer’s two famous pamphlets on J.S. Bach and on practices in organ building.

- 11 -

Influence of the Hanseatic League on Organ Development Prior to the 14th century, organs were rarely larger than a few stops on one manual, with the whole instrument often able to be placed upon a table and played. To understand why organs developed dramatically into the magnificent instruments housed in churches across Europe, one must begin with simple economics. As the Middle Ages waned, the New Grove noted, a macroeconomic change was underway in Europe, fueled by increased international trading and more densely populated cities. The shift in demographics led to a consequent shift in economics favoring more open markets, which signified the retreat of medieval feudalism and the very beginnings of modern Western capitalism. The New Grove article added that this macroeconomic change had an affect on the musical world, especially with the beginnings of a commercial music publishing industry, which opened musical markets by connecting musicians via printed scores and encouraging trade and travel.3 One economic force that drove increased economic activity in the late Middle Ages was a loose federation called the Hanseatic League. This alliance of primarily Dutch and German cities, with LĂźbeck, Germany at its helm, was the primary commercial organization in the region for several centuries. It was devoted to regulating trade and commerce between its members and their geographic neighbors, and these common interests joined nearly 200 maritime and inland towns in the region of northern Europe at its peak.4 The earliest town associations that joined the league were formed around 1250, and the Hanseatic League held a clear command on trading routes in the

3 4

Joslin, Paul. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Germany.â&#x20AC;? The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Vol. 9, pg. 712 Dollinger, Philippe. The German Hansa., pg xvii

- 12 region by 1400.5 The next 150 years marked the height of Hansa power and culture. Membership in the league was beneficial, as many Hansa towns were among the richest of their day.6 However, the league began to fragment in the 16th century, save for a temporary resurgence around 1550. Dollinger states that this resurgence proved, “partial and short-lived…it did not arrest the forces of disintegration.” He adds, “The Thirty Years War7 struck its final death blow: when peace was eventually restored, the hanseatic community was no longer able to reconstitute itself.”8 Even though the league had fallen apart before the high Baroque era, Hansa towns provided the resources that built the musical institutions that supported a flourishing musical culture. The riches of the leagues’ towns met the basic needs of the citizenry, allowing for quick cultural development. Oligarchic councils comprised of the towns’ leading merchants ran the individual hanseatic towns. Fortunately, these councils often found it in their interest to support musical activity.9 “Hanse cities developed an economic prosperity and blooming culture…and generated an unusually rich period of musical performance and instrument building.”10 In the Netherlands, the 15th century even saw the beginnings of systematic musical education for youth; a precursor to the collega musica important in the time of Sweelinck.11 But it was clearly the organ that became the instrument supreme during the 1400s and 1500s:

ibid. pp. 45-50 “The Organ as a Symbol of European Vision.” The North German Baroque Organ Research Project in Göteborg, www.goart.gu.se/gioa/w-17.htm. pg. 2 7 This bitter religious war was fought across the German-speaking lands from 1618-1648. 8 Dollinger, pg. 330 9 Snyder, Kerala J. “Organs as Historical and Aesthetic Mirrors.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000., pg. 10 10 “The Organ as a Symbol of European Vision.” pg. 2 11 Peeters, Flor & Vente, Maarten Albert. The Organ and Its Music in The Netherlands, 1500-1800., pg. 49 6

- 13 “The organ became a central symbol for the city’s new prosperity…it attracted foreign craftsworkers and scientists at a rarely surpassed level. In every case, the organs represented the zenith of architecture, music, mechanics, mathematics, art, handcraft, and techniques of their time…for musicians, the organ was the most prominent and visible instrument to be found.”12

Fed by the economic strength of burgeoning trade economies, then, the organ became a prominent symbol of a city’s wealth; an emblem worthy of bragging. Organists were the best-paid and most respected town musicians, and were often also engaged to entertain the foreign merchants and other guests of the town’s business community.13 These concerts, while providing entertainment, were also a method by which the cities could express their power through the size and quality of the organ––and organist––in the town’s church. In the largest cities, rivalries often developed between parish churches over the size and quality of their respective organs. This explains why, for example, each of Hamburg’s four major churches––already possessing a three-manual instrument before the start of the 16th century––added a fourth manual to their organs by the turn of the 17th.14

The Organ in the 1500s Unfortunately, virtually none of the organs built prior to the 16th century have survived to the present day. However, Arnolt Schlick’s Spiegel der Orgelmacher, published in 1511, depicts the instrument that would very likely have been prominent at the time. In the treatise, Schlick describes an instrument with approximately 15 stops, of

“The Organ as a Symbol of European Vision.” pp. 2-3 Snyder, “Organs as Historical and Aesthetic Mirrors.” pg. 10 14 ibid. See also: Jaacks, Gisela. “Ducal Courts and Hanseatic Cities: Political and Historical Perspectives.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time, pp. 37-39 13

- 14 which, he says, are “not too many of the same type.”15 Schlick’s organ, when taken as representative of the organs of his period, shows that by the early 1500s organs often included: two keyboard manual divisions and a pedal division; pipework including metal flute and reed pipes; and different scalings and shapes of metal pipes. Stopped or wooden pipes, however, were still either unknown or quite uncommon, as they do not receive mention in Schlick’s writing.16 Contrasting tone colors of pipe sounds appeared to be more important than large, dense registrations; that is, music of the time was probably rendered with different stop collections chosen for subtle differences in color. The separation of pipe ranks onto different manuals and a pedal illustrates that the fundamentals of the Werkprinzip17 organ, so profoundly influential even in the present day, were known as early as the beginning of the 16th century. In fact, Dutch builders in the first half of the 16th century were beginning to exaggerate the differences between separate manuals, developing a Hauptwerk consisting of the principal flutes and reeds and an Oberwerk of flutes, mutations, and, after the time of Schlick, gedackts.18 The layout of these pipes within the organ case was also standardized, with the Hauptwerk occupying the center of the case and the Oberwerk (which literally translates as “above work”) located above the Hauptwerk. This

Schlick, as quoted by Owen, Barbara & Williams, Peter. “Organ.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians 2nd Ed., Vol. 18, pg. 593 16 Owen, Barbara, Williams, Peter, & Bicknell, Steven. “Organ.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. 18, pg. 594 17 The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians’ article on the organ notes that Werkprinzip is a modern term, having originated with the German Orgelbewegung reformers in the 1920s. Builders of the original time period did not seem to have any special name to refer to their style of building; however, Werkprinzip is a widely understood term in the present day organ world that it will be used anachronistically to refer to historical instruments in the course of this paper. 18 A stopped rank of organ pipes. Stopping a pipe by closing off its top causes the air inside to double up on itself as it vibrates. Thus, stopped pipes sound an octave lower than their unstopped counterparts at the same length: thus, a 4’ stopped pipe sounds like an 8’ unstopped pipe. Schlick does not mention any stopped pipes in his writing.

- 15 distinction in function as well as location “was to influence, even create, the special potential in the next century (17th) of the north German Werkprinzip organ, in which each department (Werk) had a different structure.”19 It also signified the increasing development of national styles in organ building, since prior to the early part of the 16th century, Flemish, German, northern French, and Spanish organs all shared more in conception than they differed.20

The Protestant Reformation and the Werkprinzip Organ While the Hanseatic League provided an economic support for the expansion of organ building as a craft that builders throughout the 1500s took advantage of, there was a watershed social movement afoot in the early half of the 16th century that was to have just as profound an effect on both the physical stature and the cultural relevance of the pipe organ. Martin Luther famously sparked the Protestant Reformation when he tacked the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church; his beliefs about church music and congregational singing were similarly theologically rebellious for his time. Prior to the Reformation, polyphonic music was the dominant musical style in German-speaking lands, in large part because that style was acceptable for sacred use by the Catholic Church. Luther did his part to turn this Catholic convention on its head, starting with a strong theological conviction that the liturgy––which had been conducted by the Catholics in the non-vernacular language of Latin––deserved to be translated to the languages of the people. Further, he felt the liturgy should be incorporated with what he

19 20

Owen, et. al. “Organ.” The New Grove, Vol. 18, pg. 595 ibid., pg. 595

- 16 termed “the power of music.”21 To this end, Luther translated the Bible into German and wrote sacred chorale tunes, a few of which, such as Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (A Mighty Fortress is our God), remain standards in Protestant hymn repertoire. Luther’s ideal of congregational singing did not really come to pass in his lifetime, however. His personal musical style remained polyphonic in nature; it was only with the Fünffzig geistliche Lieder und Psalmen (Fifty sacred songs and psalms) of Lucas Osiander, published in 1586, that chorale melodies were set atop simple homophonic harmonies, which aided in the congregation’s successful rendition of the tune.22 Other early chorale settings included the Cantiones Sacrae Chorales (1587) by Hieronymus Praetorius and Cantica Sacra and Melodeyen Gesangbuch by Franz Eler.23 Luther’s conviction that music should play a large role in the sacred activities of the church did, however, lead to the understanding among Lutherans that: “…What it means to ‘hear the word of God’ allowed for the possibility of delight in hearing, without which the organ never would have assumed such a position of honor within the church, nor could the choral tradition have continued to develop as it did. The musicians of the church, especially organists, came to be seen as having a role not unlike that of the preacher, and music played upon the organ was scrutinized in a similar way, both for rhetorical procedures and evangelistic content.”24

Therefore, what Luther did accomplish was planting the seed of congregational singing that in turn required new, broader, more versatile and fuller organs in Lutheran churches.

The Organ in the Baroque Era (ca. 1600-1750) The advent of the 1600s has to signify the beginning of a golden age for the organ––over the next 150 years legendary figures were active in every aspect of organ

Joslin, pp. 712-713 ibid., pg. 713 23 Porter, William. “Hamburg Organists in Lutheran Worship.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time, pg. 61 24 ibid., pg. 63 22

- 17 life, and every facet of the organ was under development. During this period, the Werkprinzip style was dominant, and it is well illustrated by the organs constructed by the two best-known builders of the era, Arp Schnitger and Gottfried Silbermann. Also, as the organ was by this time firmly established as the instrument to accompany all aspects of church life, composers began to increase their writing for the organ. In the section below, a few of these composers who set the foundation for J.S. Bach’s work will be discussed.

Physical Development of the Organ in the Baroque Era By the early 17th century the size and quality of the organ was significantly changing. Thanks to the Reformation and Luther’s advocacy of congregational singing, the organ became the church instrument par excellence. Many large, multi-manual instruments (those with at least more than 20 stops) were being successfully built across the region and in accordance with the Werkprinzip style. By the time of Praetorius, such organs were already common enough to merit mention in his canonical historical text, Syntagma Musicum (1618). In this text, Praetorius describes organ pipes of various–– perhaps even fanciful––makes: flutes of all varieties (so much so that The New Grove suggests that builders had more pipe ranks at their disposal than could effectively utilize); and organs that are “geared toward musical variety.”25 The general aspects of a large early 16th century organ, according to Praetorius, were: a contrast between, and physical separation of, a full principal chorus of open flutes and reeds on the Hauptwerk and the thinner scaled flutes of the other divisions; an expanded pedal division; a goal for clarity in the acoustics of parish churches; and a standardized practice in voicing the instruments 25

Owen, et. al. “Organ.” The New Grove, Vol. 18, pp. 597-99

- 18 whereby the organist could be assured a balance between divisions so long as the same number of stops were drawn on each division.26 Another attraction of these Werkprinzip instruments was their adaptability. With separate chests for different organ divisions, churches could modify the organ’s resources by adding another chest or expanding one of the several existing chests––a more economical method than buying a whole new instrument to alter the sound. As Owen puts it: “Many famous organs of this type (Werkprinzip) in northern Europe are in fact composite instruments (quite apart from modern rebuilds), accumulations of Werke constantly altered in compass, specification, tuning and no doubt voicing by builder after builder.”27

Curiously, what was then an advantage of versatility now has implications for historical study: the style encouraged constant revisions, and therefore few if any instruments exhibiting the Werkprinzip style exist unmodified in the present day. One division of the organ that became more common and more important in north Germany in particular was the Rückpositiv, a division situated behind the organ bench. This division, “was indeed the manual that supplied the true balanced chorus to the Great…”28 Owen goes on to note that now, in the time of Praetorius, the plethora of organ stops and colors that builders had developed throughout the 15th century was forming into an instrument that employed these stops in a logical, unified way.29 The Werkprinzip organ was becoming standardized in both stop lists and in technical design. Several examples of organ features that saw increasing standardization include: extending 32’ and 16’ reeds all the way down to C; contrasting wider scale pipes such as a Nasat against thinner scale pipes such as Quinte on the same organ division; employing higher

ibid., pg. 600 ibid., pg. 601 28 ibid., pg. 600 29 ibid., pg. 600 27

- 19 tin content in pipework, especially principals, and general agreement about the functions of the different organ divisions––especially with the Rückpositiv––serving as a solo manual.30 The increasing standardization of organ building style in northern Germany paralleled the increasing importance of the organ across the region. As noted above, the organ was by now playing a central role in the life of the church; and consequently, a central role in musical life in general. Later in this section, I will mention some of these leading organists/composers of the Baroque period who were able to take advantage of the organs that churches could finance. First, though, a bit of background information is necessary on the two leading builders of the Baroque era, Arp Schnitger and Gottfried Silbermann. Both builders exhibit the structural developments enumerated above to some degree––they both certainly at least had the opportunity to be active well after the organ had become the established instrument for Protestant worship. Each builder was dominant in their own geographical region: Silbermann in Saxony, one of the easternmost German provinces, and Schnitger in the north.

Baroque Master, Gottfried Silbermann Gottfried Silbermann lived from 1683 to 1753, living virtually the same years and in almost the same location as J.S. Bach (1685-1750). Silbermann studied organ building under the tutelage of his older brother, Andreas, who was active in the Alsace region

ibid., pg. 600-601

- 20 between Germany and France.31 After nine years (1701-1710) working with his brother in Alsace, Gottfried returned to Saxony, where he settled in Freiburg, not far from Dresden.32 He quickly established himself as a major builder with a three-manual, 44stop instrument for the Freiburg Dom, completed in 1714.33 In total he completed 46 organs, including three in Dresden, where he was recognized as the official court organist.34 His largest instrument was also his last, in the Hofkirche in Dresden, which also happens to be one of the instruments profiled later in this study. In stark contrast with Schnitger, below, Silbermann’s organ dispositions followed a fairly simple template, adjusted for the size of the instrument. The New Grove says, “His specifications fall into five categories: positives and small organs based on Prinzipal 4’ or 2’; single-manual organs based on Prinzipal 8’ in the manual; two-manual organs without a manual 16’, two-manual organs with a manual 16’, [and] three-manual organs.”35 His visual design was always logical, with encased organ divisions always visible in the design. In his larger instruments, Silbermann typically used an Oberwerk, situated atop the Hauptwerk, as the second manual division, and then added a third manual Brustwerk on his largest instruments.36

Gress, Frank-Harald. “Silbermann: Organs, Saxony: Gottfried Silbermann.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed., Vol. 22 pg. 383 32 ibid., pg. 384 33 ibid., pg. 384 34 “Gottfried Silbermann: Master Builder of the German Baroque.” Available at: www.baroquemusic.org/ silbeng.html, pg. 2 35 Gress, pg. 384 36 ibid., pg. 384. For a clear representation of his casework, see the plates of the Hofkirche and also the Frauenkirche, as even though the Frauenkirche is not a Silbermann, the new instrument retained Silbermann’s case size, location, and internal layout. Also, the order of divisions given here is in keeping with the large, three-manual Hofkirche instrument, which has a Hauptwerk, Oberwerk, and Brustwerk with the pedal.

- 21 More than his specifications, Silbermann’s organs are distinguished for their superior voicing and sound. The Silbermann Museum notes, “From the silvery flutes to the strong and reedy 16’ Posaune in the pedal, Silbermann’s sounds were unique, and indeed were constantly praised by organists in their testimonies of his instruments. Frequent reference is made to a play on his name, as organists praised his ‘Silberklang’ or ‘Silvery Sounds.”37 Silbermann carefully “sited” his instruments, adjusting the tuning and voicing of his organs depending on the acoustical properties and placement of the organ within the church.38 This careful attention to organ location is a key element in the overall effectiveness of a new pipe organ, and is a common element between Silbermann and other master builders such as Schnitger. The New Grove neatly sums up Silbermann’s influence and lasting significance in this way: “Gottfried Silbermann is regarded as one of the central figures in the history of organ building. Even at the beginning of his career, his masterly realization of his concept of the organ, an individual synthesis of the French tradition of Alsace and the Saxon tradition, placed him in the forefront of the leading makers of his time. His achievements were seen as models, and to this day they continue to set standards and inspire organ builders.”39

Baroque Master, Arp Schnitger Arp Schnitger, who was also renowned for his organ building during his own time, culminated the northern Werkprinzip building style. He was born in 1648 in Schmalenfleth, near Oldenburg, North Germany, and died in 1719. After an apprenticeship with his woodcarving father and his organ-building cousin Berendt Huss, he completed his first organ in 1678 for the Oederquart/Niederelbe community.40 Four

“Gottfried Silbermann: Master Organ Builder of the German Baroque.” pg. 2 ibid., pg. 2 39 Gress, pg. 385 40 Reinburg, Peggy Kelly. Arp Schnitger, Organ Builder: Catalyst for the Centuries., pg. 25 38

- 22 years later he established himself in Hamburg by completing his first instrument there.41 Along with Groningen and Bremen, Hamburg was to be one of the foci of Schnitger’s building. During the late 1680s his influence and fame spread. During this time he undertook two significant projects in Hamburg that solidified this reputation and notoriety. The first was his 67-stop organ at St. Nikolaikirche, completed in 1687 and the largest new organ he ever constructed, which was closely followed by the project of restoring and expanding the now world-famous instrument at Jacobikirche in Hamburg in 1690-1693.42 From his personal experience with the Nikolaikirche instrument, Dietrich Buxtehude, the leading organist and composer of the region, met with Schnitger and tried unsuccessfully to convince his church’s leaders to commission Schnitger to work on the instrument at the Marienkirche in Lübeck.43 Schnitger’s firm was larger and more active than Silbermann’s––his outfit constructed over 170 organs, with several four manual instruments,44 26 three-manual instruments, and over 20 two-manual instruments with fully independent pedal divisions.45 By contrast, Silbermann completed only four three-manual instruments, including both the Hofkirche and Frauenkirche organs. Schnitger’s organs in the great churches of the Hanseatic League cities, such as Jacobikirche in Hamburg, were the largest of his era, and his building style dominated the northern regions to such a degree that, “…with his brilliant mixtures and fundamental-rich reeds he succeeded in creating an organ style that not only successfully met the need to accompany congregational

Reinburg, pg. 26-27 Quite unfortunately, the Nikolaikirche organ was lost in an 1842 fire in the church. 43 Reinburg, pg. 30 44 Including both the Nikolaikirche mentioned above and the Jacobikirche instrument profiled in this study. 45 Edwards, Lynn. “Schnitger, Arp.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Vol. 23, pg. 563 42

- 23 singing, but inspired a flourishing school of North German organ composers.”46 In a very real way, then, Schnitger’s building influenced and facilitated the increasing quality of music that was being composed for the organ. Musically, of course, Schnitger was also the standard bearer of North German and Dutch organs. The New Grove notes that Schnitger’s organs, “are valued for their elegant speech, the fine harmonic proportion between fundamental and overtones, the quality of the reed stops, the ability of principals and reeds to blend together and the wide variety of flute stops.”47 In comparison to Silbermann, Schnitger generally used less tin content in his pipework, giving a thicker, denser tone versus the “silvery” reputation of Silbermann. Also, the Silbermann Museum argues that, “the general treatment of tone mass in a Silbermann organ was more powerful and smooth than that of Schnitger’s organs.”48 This should not be too surprising, as Schnitger’s instruments rely more heavily than Silbermann’s on the Werkprinzip idea of fully independent organ divisions and strong pedal divisions to facilitate the performance of the complex polyphonic music common among Northern composers. Finally, it should be noted that Schnitger was not only just a recognized master builder of the Baroque Era: he may also be the singly most influential organ builder of the 20th century, as his Jacobikirche, Hamburg instrument served as the model for both the German Orgelbewegung and its American counterpart, the Organ Reform Movement.49 This continuing influence underscores his historical importance as an organ

ibid., pg. 563 ibid., pg. 563 48 “Gottfried Silbermann: Master Organ-Builder of the German Baroque.” pg. 2 49 Edwards, pg. 563 47

- 24 builder, and provides both an historical and musical reason to preserve and restore his extant organs.

Composers in the Baroque Era As the New Grove mentioned about Schnitger, his organs “inspired a flourishing school of North German organ composers.” Broadening this slightly, it is fair to say that the entire Northern region, including both German and Dutch lands, was at the center of a flurry of composer activity that was to have a dominant influence on the Baroque Era as a whole. Almost every major composer of the period was also an organist–-and, therefore, a church musician. That role often provided the impetus for composition, as churches required their organists to provide both organ music and a wide variety of vocal and chamber ensemble music to accompany the various services or festivals of the church.50 The following with be a brief tracing of the leading composers and their impact during this period. In the Netherlands, Jan Peterson Sweelinck was the leading organist for the entire northern Germany and Netherlands region at the beginning of the 17th century. Immensely talented, he became organist at Amsterdam’s Odue Kerk at the young age of 12, and he was widely regarded as a player, composer, and teacher. “Even his contemporaries knew of his superior ability as a composer and a teacher,” Dunning reports.51 Like most church organists, his compositions were made to fulfill the requirements of his church position. However, the New Grove notes that while Sweelinck’s career was typical of an organist in the Netherlands during the 17th century,

Dunning, Albert et al. “Low Countries.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. pg. 236 51 ibid., pg. 236

- 25 organ music did not continue to develop well after his time, as the Calvinist church’s prohibition on the playing of the organ––along with most other forms of musical expression––during worship stymied the further development of musical culture from the church.52 However, Sweelinck influence as a teacher extended across the German region. He taught Samuel Scheidt, who was to lead the central German school of organ composition until the time of J. S. Bach. Scheidt’s Tabulatura nova (1624) was a highly influential collection of chorale variations, secular songs and dances, chorale fantasies and fugues; all written in a modern notation that gave each voice its own staff of music.53 In the north, two leading composers emerged in Germany after Sweelinck: Johann Pachelbel and Dieterich Buxtehude. Between the two of them, the New Grove reports: “…17th century German organ music reached its peak in the works of Buxtehude and Johann Pachelbel, with their wealth of forms and techniques, their independent and virtuoso treatment of the pedal, and the exploitation of the uniquely wide range of stops in the organs of north German organ builders such as Gottfried Frizsche, Friedrich Stellwagen, Jonas Weigel and, in particular, the internationally renowned Arp Schnitger.”54

It is significant that the New Grove notes the interplay between organ builder and organist, since part of the appeal of the newly composed music was its “exploitation” of the organs that were the leading builders were constructing across the region. As an organist and composer, Buxtehude in particular was influential. Organist and composer at Marienkirche in Lübeck, Germany for almost forty years, he was known during his lifetime throughout much of Germany and Northern Europe as a virtuoso

ibid., pg. 237. Joslin, pg 714 54 ibid., pg 720 53

- 26 performer and conductor of a concert series called the Abendmusiken. It was knowledge of these Abendmusiken concerts that drove the twenty-year-old J. S. Bach to travel to Lübeck in 1705 to hear (and perhaps even participate) in the “extraordinary” Abendmusiken produced that year, but Bach undoubtedly overstayed his four-week leave from his post at Arnstadt, and most likely played and studied the many praeludia Buxtehude had written.55 Hutchins surmises the overall affect Buxtehude’s music must have had on the young genius: “There is no doubt that Bach was thoroughly fascinated by what he heard in Lübeck, by the fruitful imagination and impetuous personality of Buxtehude. The imaginative writing of Buxtehude’s larger organ pieces served to free Bach’s creative energies; Buxtehude’s chromatic harmonies were further developed by Bach in his mature works…The mature Bach could never have developed without the inspiration of Buxtehude.”56

With Johann Sebastian Bach, of course, the Baroque Era is culminated. His work in virtually every genre he wrote in stands as the apex of Baroque composition: organ chorales, preludes, fugues, and other works, motets, cantatas and instrument works among others. As noted in the brief biography above, Silbermann and Bach were contemporaries and friends. With their deaths in the 1750s, the last figures that represented the height of Baroque organ building and perhaps the height of the entire history of organ composition, passed away. The remainder of this study will examine some modern attempts to study and restore knowledge about this most fruitful of eras for pipe organs.

55 56

Snyder, Kerala J. Dieterich Buxtehude. pg. 104 Hutchins, Farley. Dietrich Buxtehude: The Man, His Music, His Era. pg. 36

- 27 -

III. The Challenges of Historically Accurate Restoration As the history section noted, pipe organs from northern Germany and The Netherlands have served as models for the various national schools of organ building all around Europe. Few builders would have been unfamiliar with the instruments and builders who were active across the northern region. Indeed, with the Werkprinzip era of the 1600s, the apex of Baroque building was reached, and many subsequent perspectives on the principles of organ building were colored by this period. Even with the many differences in his instruments––swell divisions, wider-scale pipes, and more––Cavaillé Coll structured his organs into separate and independent manual divisions with clear functions and purposes. Further, when the 20th century American Organ Reform Movement was hunting for standard-bearing builders and instruments, it looked to the instruments of Schnitger and Silbermann as models. This historical dependence explains, at least in part, why modern restorers have combed the northern region researching how and why organs used to be constructed the way they were. Yet, even with the clear historical lineage, both academic and technical challenges abound to the would-be modern pipe organ restorer. Each instrument will present its own particular challenges, of course, but it seems that little attention in the field of organ restoration has been devoted to understanding and cataloguing the common difficulties that every restorer would face. For example, the raw materials used in modern organ construction are not the same as the raw materials used in the middle of the 18th century, but how different, and the extent by which any differences might affect the sound of the

- 28 instrument is a significant question that few people have posed, even though such questions would naturally arise in every restoration project. One academic endeavor that sought answers to just these questions, however, is the North German Baroque Organ Research Project housed at Göteborg University in Sweden. I will present the work done by this project and discuss its relevance to modern organ restoration. Another difficulty that deserves attention is the historical uncertainty that surrounds many pipe organs. Examples will be cited of pipe organs whose original disposition is not well known, or whose church records are unclear. There are a myriad of factors that could lead to uncertainty––church records are often incomplete, stops are added or removed without being noted, tuning systems are altered without documentation, or later builders––who only leave signs of their presence through the alterations they make to the pipes. This lack of record keeping is logical when placed in context, because to the church the organ of the time was a practical instrument and not necessarily an historical object to preserve throughout its life. Exceptions to this rule are rare, but could include the Hofkirche Silbermann profiled in the case studies chapter. But that instrument had two special advantages over a typical organ of the time: one, it was Silbermann’s last instrument, and two, the church could afford an in-house organ building staff that performed necessary upkeep throughout most of the instrument’s life. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that World War II, in particular, claimed irrevocably whole instruments and troves of knowledge that later scholars could have studied. Among just the eight organs which I am profiling, more than half suffered damage ranging from complete destruction to the loss of the wooden organ case during

- 29 the war. Coverage of the this addition to the historical uncertainty facing modern pipe organ restorers will be examined at various points throughout this paper, especially during the case studies about instruments that were damaged in World War II.

The North German Baroque Organ Research Project These challenges only serve to make The North German Baroque Organ Research Project, housed at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden, all the more fascinating. This particular collaborative project was undertaken by the Göteborg Organ Art Center (GOArt) at the university. GOArt connects organists and organ builders with historians, artisans, carpenters, metalworkers, and 21st century computer modeling and analysis to try to produce as full a picture of historical methods and practices as possible. The North German Baroque Organ Project was a 10-year study that endeavored, for the first time in the modern era, to try to make an entirely new pipe organ that was built wholly in accord with historical materials and methods. The GOArt Center is thus a first of its kind: a place dedicated to a serious modern academic look at the art of pipe organ construction during the 17th century. Since the GOArt “Baroque organ” project was the most through investigation of the challenges of recreating Baroque organs, and represents the cutting edge of scientific and historical knowledge about Baroque organs, its project will be discussed at length. The North German Baroque Organ project had a simple purpose: to build an entirely new pipe organ exactly how it would have been built 300 years ago. In this way it is not a restoration project per se; since it employed new materials to create a new instrument, instead of restoring older pipework or instruments. However, its research is equally illuminating for the pipe organ restorer. In the official report about the project,

- 30 the researchers note, “The vision was clear: to experience for the first time in modern times how the famous Baroque organists’ music actually sounded in their time.”57 The researcher’s expectations were to study extant pipe organs from the historical period to develop a working model from which to construct their own, new instrument. However, it soon became clear that this was an overly simplistic hope. None of the many Baroqueera pipe organs in Germany and The Netherlands has survived intact in its original condition to the present day––and even those not scarred by war have been constantly added to, subtracted from, or rebuilt by different pipe organ builders because of the natural accumulation of wear and tear from over tens of decades of continuous use.58 For example, the famous Arp Schnitger instrument in Hamburg’s St. Jacobikirche, profiled later in this paper, is in actuality not just a Schnitger instrument. The church had an organ that predated Schnitger’s work by many years: In fact, the church has records of a “Meister Rudolf” who is listed as organist during the 14th century, though no details of what Meister Rudolf had in terms of an instrument are known. Still, a detailed history of the organ can be put together starting in the post-Reformation era, and traced for almost 100 years before Michael Praetorius profiled the Jacobikirche instrument in his famous “Syntagma musicum” in 1619. Schnitger did not rebuild and expand the instrument until eighty years after that publication. Schnitger did his work in the early 1690s, keeping much of the existing pipework from this earlier time, while rebuilding and adding to all areas of the organ.59 After Schnitger’s work, other builders performed maintenance on the organ during the 19th century, during the course of which Johann Jakob Lehnert added

“The Organ as a Symbol of European Vision.” pg. 3 ibid., pg 3 59 Kelber, Rudolf. “Arp-Schnitger Organ, St. Jacobi Hamburg. History of the Organ.” St. Jacobi. Trans. Trefor Smith., pp. 2-3 58

- 31 two stops to the instrument.60 Of course, the 20th century wars made the condition much worse, causing the original Schnitger façade ranks to be melted down for metal, and losing the entire organ case in the air raids on Hamburg in June of 1944. I use this example to demonstrate the difficult that confronted the North German Baroque Organ project leaders. Every instrument across the region had suffered irreparable losses since its original construction; the idea of one or two instruments serving as real-life intact models for a new instrument’s construction was shown to be naïve. The research team wrote, “…We thought we only needed to build a Baroque organ and begin to make music! In time, it became clear to us that too many essential factors existed with which we had only limited acquaintance and which would greatly affect both the sound and the playing of the instrument…it became more and more clear that comprehensive research was needed, time, resources, knowledge, and perhaps a whole new working model.”61

The Building of the New Organ for the Oergryte Nya kyrka With this new understanding about the complexity of the problem, the North German Baroque Organ project began a multi-year project that set out to answer, scientifically and academically, the troublesome questions facing pipe organ restorers. As I noted above, these include: How much effect do the metals and woods and other raw materials have on the sound of the eventual instrument? What gives the extant pipework from the instruments of master builders like Schnitger its special aural qualities that are celebrated around the organ world? And, even something so basic as how, exactly, were pipes forged by builders 300 years ago?

60 61

Kelber, pg. 3 “The Organ as a Symbol of European Vision.” pg. 3

- 32 Japanese organ builder Munetaka Yokota served as leader of the research and manufacturing of the new pipe organ.62 The project corroborated with the Chalmers University of Technology in GĂśteborg to investigate scientific and technical matters when it came to the sound and acoustics of the instrument. The first technical challenge faced by Yokota and his crew was determining how to cast properly the organ pipes. No previous project, nor even any of the restoration projects discussed in the case studies chapter of this report, had tried to use historical methods to cast the organ pipes. GOArt notes, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Studies of historical organ pipes showed that the pipes were cast on sand. That created a huge challenge because the last northern European organs with pipes cast on sand were made during the first half of the 18th century, and in modern times, no one has presented systematic research about this technique.â&#x20AC;?63 The researchers found that casting on sand required careful attention to more than just the metal: the type and amount of sand plus certain casting temperatures proved essential.64 The results of their metal-casting experiments were surprising. They discovered that casting metal on sand caused the metal to cool quickly to a particular temperature that then remains fairly constant as the metal hardens. This caused pipes forged on sand to be harder than their modern counterparts. They also studied the composition of the metals found in old, extant organ pipes. In them they discovered trace elements of bismuth, antimony, copper, silver, and arsenic. In experiments, they found that the trace

ibid., pg. 4 ibid., pg. 5 64 ibid., pg. 5 63

- 33 elements could significantly affect the hardness and cooling rate of the metal.65 But their discoveries went further: The current modern standard method––using machines that plane down large sheets of cast metal to the desired thickness––actually changed the microstructure of the metal in comparison to the casting on sand method.66 The researchers determined that the modern method of planing down the metal with machines was actually an inferior method for handling the metal. As they explain: “From that [modern] perspective, the pipe sheets can be cast without precision, and it does not matter if the sheets are too thick. In the old workshops, there was no such equipment available. Therefore, organ builders had to learn how to cast the pipe metal as close to the desired thickness as possible so that it was not necessary to use the hand tools more than absolutely necessary. The material was respected…workers skilled in traditional handcrafts have always operated with a great respect for the quality of traditional material.”67

This comment seems to beg the question as to why the raw materials of an organ tend to be treated differently than the raw materials of other keyboard instruments. During the Organ Reform Movement in America, Joseph Blanton raised just this point when he said: “It is an interesting fact that musicians and other take the mechanical action of modern pianos for granted even though an electric action with which the pianist could regulate the force with which the hammers strike the strings could be worked out. If this were done, musicianship would suffer just as it does in the case of organs with electric action and, of course, there simply is no need for it.”68

Blanton’s point is that the musical culture is not willing to accept a compromise on their concert grand piano, yet is willing to accept compromises on their organs, non-tracker actions among them. Also included would be the treatment of pipe organ metal, if the research of the GOArt project were to be taken seriously.

ibid., pg 12-13 ibid., pg. 5 67 ibid., pg. 5 66

Blanton, Joseph. The Revival of the Organ Case. Albany: Venture Press. 1965.

- 34 It was not just the pipe metal that became a challenge in creating an authentic early 1700s pipe organ, however. The researchers had made an arrangement with the Örgryte Nya kyrka in Göteborg to build the instrument in that church, but when the research team examined the building, they determined, “that the acoustics in the church did not suffice to fulfill the minimum quality of acoustics desired for the project.”69 Eventually, the research team and the church used the organ project as further impetus to restore the entire interior of the church to its original condition when it was constructed in 1890. The team noted that with the significant work done on the church, their original organ building project vision had, “grown longer wings.”70 In a normal reconstruction––or even a normal new organ construction––an obstacle such as the acoustical condition of the church would probably have required some degree of compromise because of budgetary concerns. For example, the church might remove the carpet––one aspect of the actual work that was done to the Örgryte Nya kyrka––but not be able to finance construction of a new organ gallery or a full restoration of the interior woodwork along with the cost of the organ. This is yet another example of how the North German Baroque Organ project is unique, and exceedingly rare. The completed organ in the church, finished in August of 2000, has almost 4,000 sand-cast pipes with nearly pure tin façade pipes prominently placed in the front of the organ’s case. The organ is divided into 5 divisions: Werck, Rück, Positiv, Ober Positiv, Brust Positiv, and Pedal, playable from four manuals and a pedal. Each part of the instrument was based on research done on extant Schnitger instruments throughout north Germany and The Netherlands. Different instruments served as prototypes for different

69 70

“The Organ as a Symbol of European Vision.” pg 6 ibid., pg 7

- 35 sections of the organ, in line with the particularly well-preserved parts of the instruments they studied. The primary prototypes for the various parts of the instrument were as follows, and that is followed by the instrument’s full disposition:

The specification of the North German Organ: Prototype instruments used in the design:71 Organ case/façade:

Overall design based on the Lübeck Dom Oberwerk modeled on St. Jacobi Hamburg; Pedal modeled on St. Cosmae in Stade

Wind system:

Grote Kerk, Zwolle72

Pipework:

St. Jacobi, Hamburg73

Keydesk;

Lübeck Dom74

The North German Baroque Organ Research project Örgryte Nya kyrka, Göteborg, Sweden (2000-Present)

4 manuals, 54 ranks75 Werck (CDEFGA-c´´´) Principal Quintaden Octav Spitzfloit Octav Super Octav Rauschpfeiff VI-VIII Mixtur 16’ Trommet 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 2’ II

Rück Positiv (CDE-c´´´) Principal Quintadena Gedact Octav Blockfloit Octav Quer Floit Sieffloit Sexquialt VI-VIII Scharff 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 2’ 1 1/2 II

Ober Positiv 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 2’ VI III 8’ 8’ 8’

(CDEFGA-c´´´) Principal Hollfloit Rohrfloit Octav Spitzfloit Nassat Octav Gemshorn Scharff Cimbel Trommet Vox humana Zincke (from f)

ibid., pp 11-20 The organ here has a completely preserved bellows system, with 12 wedge bellows providing the wind. 73 Possesses the largest quantity of extant Schnitger pipework in any one instrument. 74 However, the Lübeck instrument only had three manuals. The project’s instrument has four. 75 Specification as given by GOArt at http://goart.gu.se/cgi-bin/hpslev1/goart.taf 72

- 36 -

Brust Positiv 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ II IV-VI

8’ 8’

(CDEFGA-c´´´) Principal Octav Hollfloit Waltfloit Sexquialter Scharff Dulcian Trechter Regal

Manual couplers: Wind: Tracker action Tremulants: Tuning: Key layout:

Pedal 16’ 16’ 8’ 4’ III VI-VIII

32’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 4’ 2’

(CD-d´) Principal Subbass Octav Octav Rauschpfeiffe Mixtur Posaunen (from F) Posaunen Dulcian Trommet Trommet Cornet

Brust Positiv-Werck Ober Positiv-Werck Sperrventile on all divisions, and a Hauptsperrventiel Interchangeable wind- manual or electronic Werck, Rück Positiv, Pedal ¼ syntonic comma meantone Eb/D# and G#/Ab split on all manuals Rück Positiv includes split Bb/A# Pedal: eb/d# and g#/ab split

Discussion With the completion of this instrument, the North German Baroque Organ Research Project successfully accomplished its central aim: To construct, for the first time in modern times, a pipe organ in accord with and in the manner of the master builder Arp Schnitger and organ-building practice of the early 18th century. Of the dedicatory concerts given during August of 2000, the researchers say: “All those invited heard the instrument together with vocal and instrumental ensembles in the music galleries, everyone sang with the full organ and heard the sound of all the 54 stops in different Baroque masters’ compositions. What was certainly the conclusion of a ten-year project was simultaneously the beginning of something new: music making. And that was actually the aim of the vision!”76

ibid., pg 8

- 37 -

The impressive aspect of this research is the depth of the research they were able to conduct. On almost every aspect of the instrument the researchers carefully considered how they could be absolutely historically accurate. In areas such as forging the pipework, this led to entire research projects in their own right to determine just how pipes would have been cast. The knowledge gained about organs of the early 18th century is invaluable to future research and restoration across the region, especially since it is available to whoever seeks it. Additionally, the research team knew throughout the project that their research was going to be a new standard in the research into historical organ building practice, which insured the accurate documentation of their actions throughout the project. Their research project had such tangible ends––a brand-new fully operational organ––that other scholars and organists will certainly be drawn to come to Göteborg and experience the instrument firsthand. This could just continue and deepen the interest in early organs, with other modern projects modeling their work off of the German Organ project. If this occurs, it will not be a surprise to the Göteborg researchers themselves, as they noted, “The internationally unique organ could serve as a prototype and an inspiration for future international organ and cultural heritage projects. The organ demonstrates new paths for care and protection of historical organs throughout Europe.”77 I could not agree more in this case, and I expect that the Göteborg Organ Art Center will continue to be a focus for international organ research in the years to come.

ibid., pg. 5

- 38 -

GOArt Showing the Challenges of Historical Restoration Even though the German Organ is not a restoration––remember, it used all new material, and did not restore the existing parts of an earlier instrument––it illustrates clearly some of the challenges that face modern pipe organ restorers. For example, the GOArt project took ten years, which is a copious amount of time for most organ projects, especially if the instrument is still in regular usage. The only other example that seems comparable is the Jacobikirche in Hamburg––a church that knew at the outset of its endeavor that it wanted a meticulous restoration of the Schnitger instrument. That project, beginning to end, took about eight years––but the physical construction was only over a two-year period, so the organ was still playable for six of those eight years. Few other churches can devote that much time waiting on the meticulous research, design, and construction to go forward. Secondly, the GOArt project was backed financially by the university, which assisted in its success in at least two ways: one, by being friendly toward academic research, and willing to support its researchers through the entire tenyear process; and two, by simply insuring the funding was adequate for the project. As I had mentioned, in the non-academic world, the Örgryte Nya kyrka would most likely have not been able to secure the resources necessary to undergo an acoustical renovation to the entire church interior––at other restorations some compromises would be much more likely. Time and again, then, the Göteborg project had a special ability to be uncompromising. This is still very encouraging, for surely there are inexpensive truths uncovered by the researchers that can be implemented by any interested historical restorer. However, it seems unlikely that casting organ pipes on sand will make a

- 39 significant comeback, as it is virtually an extinct procedure and there are too few people with the necessary expertise to reinstitute it on a large scale. Thus, while GOArt is stunning academic research that should continue to foster interest in the field of historical construction and restoration, its influence may still be moderated by the organ culture of its era.

- 40 -

IV. The Organ Case Studies The aim of this section of my Independent Study is to profile directly several instruments that have all seen significant restoration work since the end of World War II. Their fates were different during the war; however, only one instrument was completely lost in the war, and the new instrument replacing it was modeled in part off of the original instrument. There are several reasons that contribute to why the following instruments were chosen from among the large number of restoration projects throughout the region. One selection was obvious: the Frauenkirche in Dresden is a signature historical project, the organ non-withstanding. Two other selections are the leading examples of extant instruments of the master builders of the Baroque Era: die Hofkirche in Dresden for Silbermann, and Jacobikirche in Hamburg for Schnitger. Several others, including most of the organs from the Netherlands, were selected because information over the instruments actually existedâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;â&#x20AC;&#x201C;many if not most reconstruction projects that have occurred have not been extensively written about academically; or, if they have, they were written about in German or Dutch. Each instrument and its church has its own story, which I will try to elucidate. Whatever information may exist about the instrumentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s earliest history will be presented, along with a summary of its history prior to the World Wars. The amount of damage sustained by the instrument during the war will be relayed, along with its implications for the subsequent rebuild. Next, a section on the history of the pipe organ after the wars will be undertaken, including the actual discussion of the restoration project, ending with an analysis of the current specifications of the instrument. Finally, as I was able to visit

- 41 and personally experience many of these organs, I will comment on the organ and its role in the present-day life and culture of its church and broader community; it being a central question of this Independent Study to determine how viable these reconstructed instruments are as a musical instrument aside from an historical artifact, this analysis should be beneficial.

Part I: East German Reconstructions The two organs I selected to study from the region of Germany that was once in East Germany both are found in Dresden, a cultural center for all of Germany. In many ways the selection of the instruments of die Frauenkirche and die Hofkirche were selections of convenienceâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;â&#x20AC;&#x201C;but quite fortuitous convenience. Thanks to their close proximity to each other, I was able to visit both organs with the Copland funding I received. But beyond convenience, these two instruments are both quite logical choices for my investigation into organ reconstructions. Each project presented a different challenge in preserving or reconstructing an organ, and each answer illustrated how the different starting points led to different conclusions on the necessary degree of historical accuracy. Further, these two churches are an interesting mix between a church (Hofkirche) that was rebuilt under the East German regime and a church (Frauenkirche) that acquired deep symbolic and cultural meaning as a ruin and had to wait until after the reunification of Germany to experience a full resuscitation from the rubble. Dresden is probably the paradigmatic East German city for reconstruction in general, as several historical buildings are currently experiencing their own restorations. From my personal observations of the city, I was struck by the degree to which scars of

- 42 World War II were still visible. For example, just two blocks from the fully remade Frauenkirche stood a building that was truthfully nothing more than a skeleton of external walls. Invariably, even those buildings, such as die Hofkirche, that had managed to somewhat survive the firebombing of the city exhibited darkened, smoke-laced stone. More than any of the sites I visited, Dresden gave a palpable sense of an anachronistic history––the scars of World War II still present right along modern life.

The Marvel: Die Frauenkirche, Dresden Die Frauenkirche (Church of Our Lady) in Dresden, Germany, represents a special case among all the instruments contained in this study. The original instrument is one of two Gottfried Silbermann pipe organs on my list, the other residing literally two street blocks away in Dresden’s Catholic Dom (Cathedral).78 The Silbermann original in the Frauenkirche is the only instrument I have profiled that was entirely lost in World War II. Why then, has this church and this instrument earned a place in a study on reconstructed pipe organs when none of the new instrument is original to the Silbermann instrument? It is because, of any single location in Germany, Dresden most epitomizes the German spirit of reconstruction and of restoring a past that was virtually wiped out in 24 hours. The 24 hours in question were those of February 13-14,1945, when an Allied firebombing raid destroyed at least about fifteen square kilometers of urban area, including the entire inner city, and which represented about 60% of the most heavily built

Also known as the Hofkirche, which means “Court Church.” This was the church of the Dresden ruling class, who lived and held their government in buildings neighboring this church.

- 43 up area of Dresden at the time.79 The Frauenkirche and its organ were included in this destruction. The raid has sparked a moral debate ever since it occurred and the razing of Dresden became something of a rallying cry to different people during the post-war era. For example, the DDR-governing Soviet communists used the firebombing, in which at least 30,000-40,000 German citizens were killed,80 as an example of the brutality and moral inferiority of the west; yet anti-war activists the world over used the raid of Dresden as an example of the horrors of war. To post-war Dresden residents, though, the Frauenkirche was the loss that lingered. “For nearly 60 years, the Frauenkirche…was to Dresden what Dresden was to the world––a powerful symbol of the horrors of war, second only to Hiroshima.”81 It has only been rebuilt and its interior carefully restored to match its original condition after the reunification of Germany. Before discussing this grand rebuilding effort, though, the original church and the original Silbermann instrument take center stage. Die Frauenkirche was built during the 18th century, as a centerpiece of Dresden’s development into a cultural capital for Europe under Augustus the Strong, an 18th-century Elector of Saxony and King of Poland. He desired to create a city of unparalleled grace and beauty for European nobles to come and visit, and in addition to the Frauenkirche, his rule was responsible for the Zwinger, a massive open courtyard and garden “enclosed in a vast oval of arcaded stone,” and the massive stone balcony running alongside the

Hewitt, Kenneth. “Place Annihilation: Area Bombing and the Fate of Urban Places.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, pp. 264-265 80 Estimates of the death toll in Dresden vary widely, with some estimates up to half a million people. However, current scholars see death toll figures of 200,000-500,000 as wildly inflated, especially since the highest figures came from Soviet historians, who were believed to be portraying the Allied powers in the worst possible light. Regardless, German authorities recorded over 20,000 burials in Dresden, and it is likely that many more died that those who were officially buried. Current credible estimates range from 25,000-60,000 people, mostly women and children. 81 Rodriguez, Gregory. “Rebirth rising from a rain of fire.” Los Angeles Times, 25 Dec. 2005, pg. M5

- 44 bank of the Elbe.82 These marvels all contributed to the nickname of “Florence on the Elbe,” which was in common usage well before World War II.

The Original Silbermann Instrument Completed in 1743, the Frauenkirche was a gem. Silbermann actually completed his work on the organ before the final finishing of the building, so the organ dates from 1736, which at the time made the Frauenkirche organ his third instrument in Dresden.83 Two Englishmen, who had traveled to Dresden to play the Frauenkirche instrument during the early 1900s, generally praised the organ in The Musical Times. One of them, Matthews, notes that, “In 1885 their84 most characteristic features were absolutely unaltered. One might hear and play Bach under the same conditions as when Bach himself visited the city and gave a recital in the Frauenkirche.”85 He says that while the instrument is, of course, not suited for “our modern organ music,” it did possess a reliable mechanism, and was kept in tune and generally well maintained. He gave the most detailed description that I can find of the instrument during the late 19th century: “This organ was a three-manual of forty-three speaking stops, as follows: Great, 14; Echo, 11; Choir 10; Pedal 8;86 yet owing to the light wind-pressure, and the system of blowing by connecting six planks to stand on with separate feeders, students, by merely stepping from one plank to another whilst the others were slowly settling down, could blow for each other’s practice for a long time without fatigue…There were, of course, no composition pedals, but one or two knobs labeled ‘Sperr ventil’ cut off the wind from groups of stops such as the mixtures or reeds without withdrawing the stops themselves.”87

Somerville, Christopher. “The Raising of Dresden.” The Daily Telegraph, 22 Oct. 2005, Travel section, pg. 1 83 “Die Orgeln Gottfried Silbermanns.” The Gottfried Silbermann Museum, available at: http://baroquemusic.org/silblist.html. The others were in the Sophienkirche and the Dom Hofkapelle (destroyed in 1945). The main instrument in the Hofkirche was not built until 1755. 84 He discusses both the Frauenkirche and the Hofkirche instrument. 85 Matthews, John. “The Silbermann Organs at Dresden.” The Musical Times, Vol. 63, No. 955, pg 643 86 See full specification later in this section. 87 Matthews, pg 643

- 45 And of musical characteristics, “The reeds would not find any admirers to-day, though they were not so crazy as those in Silbermann’s organ in the Church of St. Sophia opposite the Opera House. The gambas and flutes were good, the diapasons free and bold in tone, the twelfth-sounding ranks in the mixtures perhaps…unduly prominent––but Silbermann, like our own Henry Willis, had certainly learnt the art of building up the tone into an artistic whole, expressing his own individuality.”88, 89

Though his account was published in 1925, J.M. Duncan’s account of the Frauenkirche instrument reveals a more recent experience with the instrument than Matthews’. Duncan reports that the organ was modernized in 1911, with “insignificant additions” of a “few soft, modern stops.”90 He claims the modernized organ is now magnificent, and “may deservedly be given a place alongside the finest English organs, such as Hill’s at Beverley and Harrison’s at York.”91 This comparison, while helpful for noting the high regard the Englishman gave to the Silbermann work, is really not very instructive from a modern analytical perspective, as today such a comparison would be rightly seen as a sort of apples-to-oranges comparison. However, it should be apparent that the original Silbermann instrument was known to, and had the respect of, English organists, who considered it a special novelty to be playing an instrument upon which Bach had played.

Momentum for Reconstruction Thus it seems fair to say that the condition of the approximately 45-stop Silbermann before the firebombing of February 1945 was good. As noted above, none of this original instrument survived the fire and collapse of the church. One might ask, then,

Matthews’ piece was published in 1922. Attitudes were just beginning to become more favorable toward older organs during this time; it is probable that Silbermann’s reeds would find more admirers in 2006 than they did in 1922. 89 Matthews, pg 643 90 Duncan, J.M. “Church and Organ Music: A Glance at Some Silbermann Organs.” The Musical Times, Vol. 66, No. 986, pg 343 91 Duncan, pg 343

- 46 how can a pipe organ erased from existence count as being “restored,” since in fact the new instrument in the Frauenkirche contains no original material? The answer involves the uniqueness of this church and its peculiar place in the process of reconstruction in broader Germany after World War II. As part of East Germany, the Frauenkirche remained in ruins until the fall of the Berlin wall and reunification of Germany in 1990. As a sign of its reconciliatory value, then-West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl spoke in front of the church ruins on his first official trip into East Germany.92 It was shortly after reunification that momentum for a rebuild of the Frauenkirche took hold. Ludwig Güttler, a well-known trumpet player from East Germany, is credited with beginning the “Call from Dresden,” which eventually was responsible for $121 million dollars in private donations. The largest single private donor, Dresdener Bank, gave $82 million that it raised by selling donor certificates to its customers. Güttler himself performed dozens of benefits concerts, as well.93 In sum total, the complete rebuilding of the Frauenkirche cost $218 million dollars.

The New Instrument by Daniel Kern The church’s organ commission selected Strasbourg builder Daniel Kern to create the new instrument for the church. Kern was interested in the project; however, the Frauenkirche organ commission had expressed a desire to see the instrument returned to the original specification, in keeping with the return of the whole church to its original

Rodriguez, pg. 2 Landler, Mark. “A Symbol of War’s Horrors is Reborn in Dresden as Testament to Hope and Healing.” The New York Times, 30 Oct. 2005, International Section, pg. 1 93

- 47 form. Kern tended to not be as strict of a reconstructionist in his projects.94 Speaking about the project on his company’s website, Kern wrote, “When we were asked in the autumn of 2002 by the Frauenkirche for a preliminary cost estimate for a new organ, the idea was for a new work approximating the original Gottfried Silbermann…However, [he argued] the new work should not become a Silbermann copy, but should use Silbermann as a model.”95 He noted, as I explained above, that the instrument in use in 1945 before the destruction was not purely a Silbermann, since other builders had done work on the organ. The key desks were not original; many new stops had also been added. Also, unlike the reconstruction work on the nearby Hofkirche instrument, none of the organ to be constructed was going to contain original material. Thus, Kern felt more free to use Silbermann as an inspiration, but not as an absolute guide.96 Kern says that his musical inspiration for the project came during a visit to Dresden in 2003. The church exterior was still mostly hidden behind tons of scaffolding, much of which had signs draped down to advertise for local merchants or to highlight important upcoming dates with the project. One of the signs proclaimed a theme of the project, “Frieden schaffen, Brücken bauen” (Creating peace, building bridges). Kern says that he knew then that his mission was to create an organ that could be a “musical, cultural, and peaceful bridge” for the people of Dresden.97 He characterizes the resulting work as reflecting the work of both Gottfried Silbermann and Andreas Silbermann––Gottfried’s elder brother, who had a well-known 94

Kuznik, Joel H. “Dresden’s Frauenkirche: Once a Silbermann, Now a Kern.” The Diapason. Vol. 97, No. 1155 (Feb. 2006) pg. 20 95 Kern, Daniel. “A few words from Daniel Kern on the Design of the New Pipe Organ: The New Organ in the Frauenkirche in Dresden.” Available in German at: http://www.kernpipeorgan.com/ Dresden/Dresden%20articles.htm. 96 ibid, pg. 1 97 ibid, pg. 1

- 48 organ building shop in the Alsace region of France, which includes present-day Strasbourg––and the organ culture of Paris and Cavaillé Coll. He wanted to produce a work where the three could be heard together.98 In practice, this musical concept makes the Frauenkirche instrument akin to two instruments in one. Kern has made a four-manual instrument, with three manuals closely aligned with the tonal construction of both of the Silbermanns,99 while the fourth manual––the Récit Expressif––in a swell division in the style of the 19th century Récit Expressifs of Cavaillé Coll. The fourth manual also expands the overall size of the instrument, from 43 ranks in the Silbermann original to 65 in the modern incantation.100 Also, Kern replicated the original organ case as outlined by Georg Bähr, Dresden city architect and designer of the church in the 1720s.101 Kern’s pipework is 87.5% tin in the principles and reeds of the three “historical” manuals based on Silbermann, but lower in the general flute work. The Cavaillé Coll principals and reeds received 75% tin, with 33% tin in the Bourdon and flutes. Kern has tuned the organ to 442 Hz at 18° Celsius, higher than the Silbermann original, which would have been much closer to 415-420 Hz. In another difference, though virtually standard on any organ constructed in the last 250 years, Kern’s organ is in equal temperament, whereas Silbermann used meantone temperament in the original instrument.102

ibid., pg. 1. See also: Kuznik, pg. 20 This can be seen by comparing the two stop lists, which are given later in this section. 100 Kuznik, pg. 20 101 Smartly, Bähr’s full plans for the Frauenkirche were not lost with the loss of the physical church. This helped immensely, of course, when reconstructing the church, which was literally done stone for stone. The present day pockmarked exterior reflects the handful of original stones that were still usable in the new building. 102 Kuznik, pg. 20 99

- 49 -

The Specifications of the Instruments

Gottfried Silbermann Die Frauenkirche, Dresden (1736-1945)

3 manuals, 43 ranks103 Hauptwerk 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 1 3/5’ V IV III 16’ 8’

Principal Octav Principal Violdigamba Rohr Flöte Octava Spitz Flöte Qvinta Octava Tertia (from c´) Cornet Mixtur Cymbel Fagott Trompette

Oberwerk 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 1 3/5’ IV 8’

Qvinta dena Principal Qvinta dena Gedackts Octava Flöte (Rohrflöte) Nasat Octava Sechst Qvint altra Mixtur Vox humana

Brustwerk 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 2’ 1 1/3’ 1’ III 8’

Gedackts Principal Rohr Flöte Nasat Octava Gemshorn Qvinta Sufflett Mixtur Chalmeaux (from g)

Pedal 32’ 16’ 8’ 4’ VI 16’ 8’ 4’

Groß Untersatz Principal Bass Octaven Bass Octaven Bass Mixtur Posaune Trompeten bass Clarin pass

Manual couplers: Brustwerk-Hauptwerk Oberwerk-Hauptwerk Pedal coupler: Hauptwerk-Pedal Tracker action Tremulants: All manuals, not pedal Meantone temperament: a´=410-415 Hz

Daniel Kern Die Frauenkirche, Dresden (2005-present)

4 manuals, 63 ranks104 Hauptwerk 16’ Principal 16’ Bourdon105

103 104

Oberwerk 16’ Quintade 8’ Principal

Specification as given in Kuznik’s article in The Diapason, pg. 21 ibid., pg. 21

Brustwerk 8’ Gedackt 4’ Principal

- 50 8’ Octave 8’ Viola di Gamba 8’ Rohrflöte 4’ Octave 4’ Spitzflöte 2 2/3’ Quinte 2’ Octave 1 3/5’ Terz V Cornet (from c´) V Mixtur IV Zimbel 16’ Fagott 8’ Trompete 4’ Clarine Pedal 32’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 4’ VI 32’ 16’ 8’ 4’

Untersatz Principal Subbass Octavebass Bassflöte Octavebass Mixtur Fagott Posaune Trompetenbass Clarienbass

8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ I IV 8’ 8’

Quintade Salicional Gedackt Octave Rohrflöte Nasat Octave Sesquialtera Mixtur Trompete Chalumeau

4’ 2 2/3’ 2’ 2’ 1 3/5’ 1 1/3’ 1’ III 8’

Rohrflöte Nasat Octav Gemshorn Terz Quinte Sifflet Mixtur Vox Humana

Récit expressif 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 1’ III-VI V 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’

Bourdon Flûte harmonique Viole de Gambe Voix Celeste Bourdon Principal Flûte octaviante Octavin Piccolo Plein Jeu Cornet (from g´) Basson Trompette harmonique Basson-Hautbois Voix Humaine Clarion harmonique

Manual couplers:

Oberwerk-Hauptwerk, Brustwerk-Hauptwerk Récit-Hauptwerk, Oberwerk-Hauptwerk 16’ Récit-Hauptwerk 16’, Récit-Oberwerk, Brustwerk-Oberwrk Pedal couplers: Hauptwerk-Pedal, Oberwerk-Pedal, Récit-Pedal, Brustwerk-Pedal, Récit-Pedal 4’ Tracker action, Electric stop action Crescendo: Full Organ and Récit Tremulants: Oberwerk, Brustwerk, Récit Equal temperament: a´=442 Hz Transposer: On Brustwerk, a´=415 Hz

105

Stops listed in italics are those that Kern added to the original Silbermann model.

- 51 -

Discussion As evidenced by the stop lists above, Kern generally followed Silbermann’s lead when constructing the Hauptwerk, Oberwerk, Brustwerk, adding only seven stops to the 43 of Silbermann. On the Hauptwerk, the addition of a 16’ Bourdon and 4’ Clarine reed indicate a French influence, and are probably included to give the Hauptwerk more depth and better balance against the Récit expressif. The three additions to the Pedal division augment this smallest of divisions on the Silbermann original, and also reflects a change in thinking in regards to pedal divisions in general. Silbermann’s pedal is geared toward supporting the three manuals and playing a cantus firmus with the pedal reeds, but not toward virtuosic display. Probably, his pedal division would not have been able to outweigh or dominate the rest of the instrument, and it would not have been expected to do so. As noted in the history chapter, organs in Silbermann’s time and region were focused primarily on tone colors and variety of pipe colors; this contrasts with the larger, more independent pedal division developing in Schnitger’s work in the north. Kern has added depth to the pedal division, which meshes with the overall larger size of the instrument. The 32’ Fagott reed makes the pedal the best-endowed division on the instrument in terms of reeds, as well. The one entirely new division that Kern added, the Récit expressif, is the Cavaillé Coll inspired swell division on the organ. This division incorporates the legendary design principles of Cavaillé Coll’s organs into the new instrument. Silbermann himself might have supported such a blend of organ-building styles, as he apprenticed with his brother in the Alsace region between Germany and France, and, as Owen notes in the New Grove, Silbermann’s typical instrument, “was not a mass of clumsy auxiliary stops but a

- 52 unique blend of Saxon (region of Germany that is home to Dresden) and Alsatian-French elements, full of well-thought-out balance between the three manuals…”106 Kern’s effort tries to imitate this blend, forging, as The Diapason put it, an instrument that is two things in one: both Silbermann and Cavaillé Coll; both Baroque and Romantic.107 Kern seems to believe––and he is quite possibly correct––that Silbermann would have been very interested in incorporating Cavaillé Coll’s developments into his own instruments, had they been cotemporaneous. Lastly, a word about pitch and temperament on the new instrument is deserved. Silbermann’s organ was probably originally tuned somewhere between 410-415 Hz for its “chamber pitch.” In Silbermann’s time, there were two accepted pitch standards: Kammer Ton, or chamber pitch, for instrumentalists and organs, and Chor Ton, or choir pitch, for vocalists. Kammer Ton was typically between a semitone to a minor third below Chor Ton. The Kern instrument allows for playing at the old chamber pitch for accompanying historical repertoire through the inclusion of a mechanical transposer on the Brustwerk division, bringing that division’s pitch near the pitch of Silbermann’s original, at 415 Hz.108

The Current Status of the New Church and Instrument The Kern organ was installed in May 2005 and officially rededicated along with the church in a weekend-long ceremony October 29-November 1, 2005, around the Feast

106

Owen, et. al. “Organ.” The New Grove, pg. 614. The instrument referenced is Silbermann’s in the Freiberg Cathedral, completed very early in Silbermann’s career (1714). 107 Kuznik, pg. 21 108 ibid., pg. 20

- 53 of All Saints.109 Around 100,000 people were present for the rededication.110 In addition to the concerts that were performed at the dedication, the church hosted six Christmas services, and throughout 2006 the complete organ works of J.S. Bach will be performed at a series of sixteen special concerts spaced throughout the year. Further, the organ is also featured in weekly Orgelandachten (prayer/devotional services with organ music). At these lunch hour services, organ music is alternated with readings and a brief sermon. This past December, I was able to visit the Frauenkirche to see and hear the rededicated church firsthand. I attended a Thursday afternoon Orgelandacht. My personal impressions of the church, its reconstruction, organ, and cultural impact follow: Die Frauenkirche is not unlike a brand new car––one can almost smell the “new church” smell, if such a thing could possibly exist. The interior is simply stunning–– marble painted in pastels and gilded in gold leaf depicting angels and Biblical scenes soaring upward. The church is not laid out cathedral style; rather, everything circles around the centralized dome, with several galleries circumnavigating the church as you look up. The interior is bright, light and airy, and complex, with scores of murals and paintings gracing pastel-colored marble––in other words, quite atypical of the stereotypical austere church interior. The organ is situated in the front of the church, with the bottom of the instrument 30-40 feet above the high altar and the top of the case pressed right against the bottom of the first gallery. The case is built against the exterior wall and is heavily covered in moldings, gildings and artwork. Unlike the Jacobikirche instrument of Schnitger,

109

Though no source explicitly commented on the timing of the rededication, All Saint’s Day (Nov. 1) is the Lutheran holiday dedicated to remembrance of the dead and the lost; there would not be a more fitting time in the church year to rededicate the reconstructed Frauenkirche. 110 Somerville, pg. 2

- 54 Silbermann and Kern’s organs do not employ Rückpositiv divisions, so no chest of pipes stands behind the player. However, because of the height of the instrument, the player is not seen from ground level while seated at the bench. The layout of the pipes is as Silbermann originally designed it: Brustwerk immediately above the player, with the pedal low and on either side of the case, and the Hauptwerk prominently displayed in the façade of the case. The Oberwerk sits above and on the sides of the Hauptwerk, and Kern’s additional Récit expressif is positioned inside the case, behind the Hauptwerk.111 I attended an Orgelandacht at the church while I was in Dresden. Unfortunately, the pieces that were performed were not printed in the program, but the two distinct styles of Baroque and Romantic were well represented in the chosen repertory. For the midweek noontime service, the line to enter the Frauenkirche stretched out from the church and around its square. Virtually every seat on the ground floor of the church was filled; I would estimate the attendance at around 500-600 people. Interestingly, I realized that the vast majority of the crowd was German tourists, and not international tourists like myself. There was a clear level of anticipation in the audience, and it did feel like I was in the middle of what was a pilgrimage for many people around me. I wrote at the time that it felt as if the Germans around me had no better idea of what to expect than I did, that for them, too, this being in die Frauenkirche was a brand new experience. This atmosphere was clearly different from all the other churches that I visited. The first piece that afternoon was in the mold of a prelude and fugue, and very likely was Bach, however I did not recognize it and it was not announced. What the piece did illustrate was the different divisions of the organ complementing one another.

111

Kuznik, pg. 20

- 55 The manual and pedal divisions were working with each other, and not at cross-purposes; in my notes I compared hearing this instrument to the Flentrop I had heard and played at Oberlin.112 In an indication of the careful balance of the instrument, the polyphonic lines in the fugue section were clear even though the chamber––since it is basically one large dome––has a reverberation time of several seconds. The second interlude with the organ sounded improvisational, and heavily employed the Récit expressif division’s swell chamber and string stops. In a common concept of registration, the soft strings on the swell were used as harmonic support for a very bright, reedy solo reed on a different division. Overall, even at its loudest moments, the organ’s sound did not overpower the space, but it did accomplish the goal of filling the room. Even though the organ and organist are located in view, the organ sound does not feel immediate, probably owing to the height of the placement and the height of the dome. What it misses in immediacy, however, the organ makes up in its blend and quality of tone. Kern deserves credit for a meticulous approach to the voicing. As expected, the Hauptwerk, Brustwerk, Oberwerk and pedal stacked upon one another with the ease that Silbermann himself would have exacted, while the Récit swell division also added to the overall sound quality without being a jarring disjunction from the “historical” divisions. In truth, of course, this is at least in part because the Récit is also historical––based on the organs of Cavaillé Coll.

Concluding Remarks Die Frauenkirche is a gem, through and through. Excitement pervades the church; its aura is that of a living testament to a different time and place. Its marvelous 112

See appendix B for my comments about this instrument.

- 56 interior with soaring marble columns meticulously repainted as it once was in light airy pastels and its golden sandstone exterior pockmarked with the darkened, smoke-laced original stones all culminates in a sort of unofficial national monument and memorial. As one writer noted, the controversial firebombing of Dresden remains one of the few events of World War II that the Germans can use to illustrate their own suffering at the hands of war,113 and the rebuilding of the signature church of Dresden perhaps marks a turning point in the on-going progress of Germans dealing with the implications of that war and of the more recent reconciliation. Yet die Frauenkirche is not simply a memorial or monument to the tragic events of World War II. It is also a modern Lutheran church that holds weekly Sunday services, prayer services and, most importantly for my topic, Orgelandachten. As I noted above, 2006 will see the complete organ works of J.S. Bach performed on the Kern instrument, and every second Sunday will feature Geistliche Sonntagsmusiken (religiously themed Sunday afternoon musical concerts). These concerts will present cantatas of J.S. Bach, Telemann, SchĂźtz, and others; as well as organ music and improvisation and other chamber ensemble works.114 All told, then, the new Kern instrument should be busy virtually every day of 2006, and, thanks to the intense interest in the churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reconstruction, likely for many years to come. Of all the instruments I visited, the Kern in the Frauenkirche was the clearest example of an instrument living a viable musical life. Musical activity at the church is at a peak thanks to the recent rededication, but it was clear that no sharp drop off in activity could be expected in the years to come. Also, die Frauenkirche is

113 114

Rodriguez, pg. 2 According to an official church brochure. See www.frauenkirche.de for full event listings.

- 57 interested in educating its many visitors about its history and the history of its organ, which can only be seen as another positive element of the whole reconstruction process that has occurred in this Baroque marvel.

Silbermann’s Last Organ: Die Hofkirche, Dresden Just about a block-and-a-half away from die Frauenkirche stands Dresden’s Hofkirche (Court Church), also known as the Cathadrale or Dom (both terms for cathedral). While the Frauenkirche is a Lutheran church, the Hofkirche is Dresden’s primary Catholic church. The identifier as a “court” church means it had an affiliation with the ruling nobility of the Saxon region during the time when Germany was comprised of an assortment of city-states and territories. Thus, its musical life was tied to the musical requirements of the ruling court, and included elements such as the inresidence court organists and instrumentalists.115 The organ in die Hofkirche, completed in 1755, was the last one Gottfried Silbermann ever constructed. It was the largest work that Silbermann ever built, at 3 manuals and 47-stops.116 Silbermann had about 45 organs––and an impeccable reputation––to his credit before undertaking the Dresden Hofkirche commission. This reputation had also earned him the honorary title of honorary court and state organ builder to the King of Poland and Duke of Saxony at Dresden,117 and thus the commission of the Hofkirche instrument was quite logical. Silbermann died in 1753, after work had begun on the Dresden instrument but well before the final installation, and

115

Hahn, Andreas. “The Organ’s history from 1755-2002.” Liner notes of CD: Hansjürgen Scholze spielt dit restaurierte Silbermann-Orgel der Kathedrale zu Dresden., pg. 31 116 “Gottfried Silbermann: Master Organ-Builder of the German Baroque.” pg. 6 117 ibid., pg. 1

- 58 therefore his shop apprentices would have completed the installation and voicing of his last instrument.118

The History of the Hofkirche Organ Partially thanks to ample resources afforded the church of the Dresden, the Silbermann in the Hofkirche has always been well maintained. The court had the luxury of an appointed court organ builder, who was charged with the continual maintenance of the organ, including weekly tunings.119 This constant work led to periodic “overhauls” where all the pipework was cleaned and minor repairs made. The first such overhaul occurred only eight years after its completion, in 1763; subsequent such undertakings under various court organ builders occurred in 1771, 1787, and 1800.120 The construction of a belfry in 1810 led to yet another full cleaning in which all of the pipework was removed from the instrument because of the volume of dust the construction had created. This caused the pipes to be re-voiced after the cleaning, which is just another example of the ways in which even in a well-preserved instrument it is nearly impossible for an organ to be unaffected over the course of several generations of use. In fact, the history of the Silbermann in the Hofkirche is a paradigm example of how years of incremental change affects the overall constitution of an instrument. After about 100 years of “overhauls” at an overall rate of about one per decade, the latter part of the 19th century saw the court organists considering other ways to “modernize” the organ. First among the concerns was the pitch of the instrument. In 1878, Carl Eduard

118

ibid., pg. 6 Hahn, pg. 31 120 ibid., pg. 32 119

- 59 Jehmlich,121court organ builder at the time, set the organ pitch at 418.1 Hz, which probably was to halt a slow increase in overall pitch level.122 However, the most significant changes to the overall instrument were to occur in the first part of the 20th century. In 1933, electronic blowers were added, replacing the old set of six manually operated bellows. Four years later even more substantial changes were made. First, low C# pipes were added for all three manuals and the pedal; this was clearly reflective of a desire to play more recent music, as Silbermann customarily left out the lowest C# key on every manual.123 Not surprisingly, the addition of low C-sharps coincided with the adjustment of the instrument to equal temperament and the “modern” pitch standard of 440 Hz.124 Also, the pedal board was modified to a more modern compass, with the upper range being extended from c’ to f’. Lastly, Silbermann’s original tremulants were removed.125

Removal and First Rebuilding In terms of the organ’s modern history, however, hardly anything could be more consequential than the contract for work signed on December 21, 1943. Unlike in the Frauenkirche just a few hundred feet away, the Silbermann in the Hofkirche was slated for removal from the church because of the danger of bombings. The Conservator of the

121

Carl Eduard was the second of five Jehmlich family members to be involved in the maintenance of the Hofkirche Silbermann. His father, Johann Gotthold Jehmlich, served from 1836-1861, when Carl took over. The Jehmlich organ-building firm still is in business in Saxony, as evidenced by their reconstruction work on the Hofkirche organ. 122 Hahn, pg. 34. Silbermann’s original here, like at the Frauenkirche, would have been tuned at “chamber pitch,” which at the time was likely between 410-415 Hz. 123 This seeming oddity was actually a logical economic consideration: Silbermann utilized a meantone tuning system, which was only playable in certain keys because thirds were too out-of-tune in the others to be tolerable. A low C# key in a meantone system would not therefore be very useful. 124 In equal temperament, none of the thirds are pure, but none of them are unplayable either. Low Csharps would therefore be functional notes. 125 Hahn, pg. 34-35

- 60 Land in Saxony, who ordered the removal, said of the instrument, “The Silbermann organ in the Catholic Hofkirche in Dresden is of cultural importance and should be removed due to danger of bombings.”126 The removal included all the pipes and the keydesk, but not the organ case, bellows, or framework. The work was carried out in February of 1944, almost precisely one year before the tragic bombings of Dresden did occur, on February 13-14, 1945. Hahn provides a succinct yet powerful explanation of the church’s fate during the bombings: “During the bombing of Dresden on 13 February 1945 the church was considerably damaged by incendiary and explosive bombs. The middle nave vault and part of the outer walls collapsed.127 The church’s interior was completely burnt out, including all those parts of the organ that had been left behind. The former congregation of 12,000 (up to 1944) shrunk to a number of only 300. Of three formerly preserved Silbermann organs in Dresden,128 the evacuated components of the Hofkirche organ turned out to be the only parts which had escaped destruction.”129

Quite unlike at the Frauenkirche, however, the Hofkirche’s destruction never seems to have become a national testament the to bombings, and reconstruction of the church occurred shortly after the war without much fanfare. From 1963-1971 restoration work was done on the surviving parts of the original Silbermann. During the restoration, some of the 1930s changes were kept; others were disposed of. For example, a=440 Hz and equal temperament were retained while all of the low C-sharps that were added in 1933 were removed and the pedal compass was lowered from f’ to d’, both changes that

126

As quoted in Hahn, pg. 35 Die Hofkirche is constructed out of stronger stone than die Frauenkirche, and so most of the outer wall survived. The Frauenkirche suffered a complete collapse because the sandstone used in its walls could not handle the intense heat––the temperatures of the inferno that night would have caused the sandstone to crack and even explode. 128 Die Hofkirche, die Frauenkirche, and another two-manual instrument at die Sophienkirche, built in 1720. 129 Hahn, pg. 36 127

- 61 reflected a desire to return the instrument closer to Silbermann’s original design. 130 The organ was re-installed in the church in its original location in 1971.

The Full Reconstruction However, thirty years later the instrument was submitted to the organ workshops of Kristian Wegscheider and Jehmlich Orgelbau. This two-year-long restoration project had two major aims: restoring the original “low” chamber pitch of the instrument, and reconstructing six wedge-bellows as in the original wind system.131 The Wegscheider firm performed all the work on the pipes, including re-finishing and re-voicing of the various stops, and the Jehmlich firm made the new bellows system and restored the proper key- and drawstop action.132 The bellows of the reconstructed instrument can now be operated by three different methods: the original human-powered blower method, which was used until the installation of the electronic blower in 1933; with the use of an electronic blower; and with a motor-controlled lever system that imitates a human blower by alternately pulling down some blowers as others reset.133 The restoration was completed in 2002. The modern specification still matches that of Silbermann, and though it has been well worked over in its 250 years of existence, the pipework remains largely preserved. The most significant loss, and only wholly newly constructed stop is the Unda maris 8’, which was lost while in storage during World War II.134 Thus the specification to follow is that of Silbermann:

130

ibid., pg. 36-37 ibid., pg. 37 132 ibid., pg. 37 133 ibid., pg. 38-39 134 ibid., pg. 36 131

- 62 -

Gottfried Silbermann Die Hofkirche, Dresden (1755-Present) Reconstructed 2001-2002 by Jehmlich Orgelbau Dresden

3 Manuals, 47 Stops135 Hauptwerk (II) 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 1 3/5’ IV 1 1/3’ V 16’ 8’

Principal Bordun Principal Viol di Gamba Rohrflöt Octava Spitzflöt Quinta Octava Tertia Mixtur Zimbel Cornet Fagott Trompet

Pedal 32’ Untersatz 16’ Principalbass 8’ Octavbass 4’ Octavbass´ VI Mixtur 16’ Posaunenbass 8’ Trompetenbass 4’ Clarinbass

Oberwerk (III) 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 1 3/5’ 1’ IV V 8’

Quintadehn Principal Unda maris Gedackt Quintadehn Octava Rohrflöt Nassat Octava Tertia Flaschflöt Mixtur Echo Vox humana

Brustwerk (I) 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 1 3/5’ 1 1/2’ 1’ III 8’

Gedackt Principal Rohrflöt Nassat Octava Sesquialtera Quinta Sufflöt Mixtur Chalumeau

Manual couplers: III/II, I/II Pedal coupler: II/Pedal Manual compass: C,D-d´´´ Pedal compass: C,D-d Pitch: a=415 Hz Tremulant: On Oberwerk

Discussion Quite unlike at die Frauenkirche, this Silbermann at die Hofkirche can honestly still be considered a Silbermann instrument. In the chapter of this paper that dealt with the challenges facing historical restoration, I noted that one challenge is that no

135

Specification as given on the Jehmlich Orgelbau website: www.jehmlich-orgelbau.de/deutsch/frameeng.htm

- 63 instrument of more than a few hundred years of age, no matter how well preserved, will have passed down to the modern era unaltered by later builders motivated either by needing to fix worn or broken parts of the instrument or by hoping to “modernize” the instrument, or motivated by a mixture of both. This Silbermann is a paradigmatic example. Hahn’s history of the instrument makes special mention of the fact that, “when we observe this organ’s history from its completion in 1755 up to its reconstruction which finished in 2002, we find a constant striving towards care and preservation of the instrument on the part of all generations.”136 As noted above, regular minor repairs were being made to accommodate for the natural wear and deterioration of the pipework and action. But, even with people mindful of the historical nature of Silbermann’s last instrument, changing attitudes toward the organ in general caused deviations on the Hofkirche organ from Silbermann’s original plan. For example, the following changes were made that were reflective of their time: the low C-sharp keys were added in conjunction with the shift to “modern” equal termperament tuning; the original wedgebellows were done away with in favor of electric blowers; and the tremulant on the Oberwerk was removed. The recent reconstruction by Jehmlich Orgelbau has righted these historical inaccuracies, but even the firm admitted that only limited information was known about the size and scale of the original bellows that were lost in World War II and that the reconstruction of a tremulant on the Oberwerk had to be done “conjecturally.”137

136 137

Hahn, pg. 31 ibid., pg. 38-40

- 64 -

The Current Status of the Hofkirche Organ I had the opportunity to visit die Hofkirche while in Dresden. The restored instrument sits in its original location in the gallery at the back of the church, and speaks out over the main nave. On the days I was in Dresden there were no concerts or performances at the church. However, during my visit I observed a worker constructing stage platforms at the front of the church in anticipation of Christmas services. These holiday services together with the regular Sunday morning services constitute the standard weekly usage of the Hofkirche instrument. I noted advertisement for a New Yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eve organ concert, as well, but was unable to find a full calendar of musical events for the church. In a conversation with a church guide, however, I was able to determine that the organ is constantly in use for concerts and services. The upcoming New Yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eve concert was simply one example, according to her, of concerts that do occur on special occasions throughout the year. Further, several recordings of the organ were available at the church. I purchased one recording that highlighted music by Bach and a transcribed Mozart piano sonata. The recording of the famous Toccata und Fuge in d-Moll, BWV 565 illustrated the strength of the voicing in the reeds during the opening flourishes. The organ is certainly capable of making its presence known, and the sound carries very well into the main chamber of the church. The sound is much more powerful than the listener expects from looking at the organ, because the casework is very understated and as such gives the impression that the organ is not that large. But the 16â&#x20AC;&#x2122; reeds on the Hauptwerk and pedal have a strident power, which provides stronger support in the bass than I had expected. When played out into the main nave of the church, the church has quite a long

- 65 reverberation time––easily better than three seconds. The organists’ technique must be kept accurate and slightly detached to accommodate this. The resonance also forces the organist to observe the breaks between sections of a piece (between the toccata and the fugue, for example) or between dramatic chords, which is quite appropriate and idiomatic to the music. The pipework on the Silbermann has a narrower scale than Schnitger’s pipework at Jacobikirche, and this is noticeable in the somewhat thinner sound from the upper registers on the Silbermann. On a positive note, though, the thinner scale causes the pipes to be less piercing and to blend into the organ ensemble better, and this characteristic of Silbermann’s work is what gave him his reputation for “silvery sounds.” In total, the Hofkirche church is aware that their organ is a cultural and musical gem. For better than two hundred years, the church has made an active effort to keep Silbermann’s last instrument in top condition, and the results of their work is the largely extant instrument found in the church today. Organists still flock to play and hear the organ; and concerts that showcase the organ’s abilities are still commonplace. The current organist, Hansjürgen Scholze, has recorded CDs on the instrument in addition to his weekly duties. The church appears to have been able to maintain a high level of interest in the organ’s music, which in turn elevates Silbermann’s instrument to a level of cultural and musical relevance that is encouraging.

Part II: North German Restorations From the above discussion in the history chapter, the reader will recall that Hamburg was a member of the Hanseatic League––a membership which the city retains to this day. In fact, the city’s proper name is, “The Free and Hanseatic City of

- 66 Hamburg.” By the time, though, that Schnitger worked on the Jacobikirche organ, the Hanseatic League had all but fallen apart; after the peace negotiations following the Thirty Years War (ca. 1648), only Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen were still Hansa towns.138 Yet the many years of prosperity under Hansa rule had allowed for strong cultural and musical development in Hamburg, which continued to support the musical arts after the fall of the league. Hamburg’s organs and organ builders benefited from two other circumstances, as well. One was that in 1603 Hamburg officially wrote into its constitution that orthodox Lutheranism was to be the only legal religion in the city.139 With Lutheranism came Luther’s ideas about the expanded role of the organ in rendering of the church liturgy and hymnody, which provided a musical and theological rationale for expanding and developing the tonal resources of the town’s instruments. Hamburg was already a large city––its population is estimated at 74,000 in the late 1690s in one account140––and it became a center for Lutheran music. Porter says: “This institutionalization in Lutheranism of these views ushered in what can only be described as a ‘golden age’ of music for the Lutheran churches. The combination of a stable and fertile liturgical practice and an established musical curriculum in the Latin schools, supported by a well-articulated theological perspective, allowed principal centers of Lutheran orthodoxy to develop a tradition of liturgical music on a very high professional level, involving singers, instrumentalists, and––above all––organists. By the second half of the sixteenth century, Hamburg had become on such center.”141

However, the second influence on Hamburg’s organs was far from musical: the town churches were rivals. Each “city church” received a certain number of delegates to the town’s ruling council. However, representation was divvied up in accord with social

138

Jaacks, pg. 31 ibid., pg 34 140 ibid., pg 37 141 Porter, pg 60-61 139

- 67 status and not in keeping with the populations of the churches. With congregations largely designated by class––St. Jacobi and St. Michael’s were the poorer parishes––and congregation population irrelevant to the number of city-governing delegates each church received, organs became a strong status symbol for the congregations.142 In both Hamburg and Lübeck, the wealthy merchants formed an oligarchy that supported the town’s artistic endeavors, particularly the Abendmusiken in Lübeck and the Hamburg opera.143 But even the less wealthy churches, such as Jacobikirche, devoted immense resources to the building of organs that would make even the richer congregations jealous. As I noted in the history chapter, this socio-political rivalry between churches in Hamburg led to one other fascinating statistic: at the turn of the 17th century, Hamburg boasted four four-manual pipe organs, with which, “No other city in northern Europe could compare.”144

The Orgelbewegung Model: St. Jacobi Hamburg One of those four churches boasting such large instruments was St. Jacobi. St. Jacobi is one of the five Hauptkirchen, or principal churches, of Hamburg.145 The church’s origins date back to 1255, but the present building was not constructed until about 100 years later.146 Its organ was first constructed as early as the 14th century, but

142

Jaacks, pg 38 The Abendmusiken were an annual concert series for the Advent season held at Marienkirche in Lübeck. Buxtehude is credited with developing the tradition and its reputation; in 1705, one year in which the socalled “extraordinary” Abendmusiken occurred, J.S. Bach traveled to Lübeck to experience the northern master organist at work. It should also be noted that Hamburg is still well known internationally as a center for opera. 144 Snyder, “Organs as Historical and Aesthetic Mirrors.” pg 10 145 The other city churches are St. Michael’s, St. Nikolai, St. Petri, and St. Catherine’s. 146 Information from a Church pamphlet, picked up while at the church. 143

- 68 no reliable documentation of an instrument of any size exists until the 16th century.147 That first instrument was built in 1512-1516 by Jacob Iversand and Harmen Stüven. Several builders later modified, expanded and otherwise changed the instrument before the early 1600s, when Praetorius profiled it in his Syntagma musicum (1619).148 At this point it was already a three-manual instrument. It was later altered during the 17th century by a father-son pair of organ builders: Gottfried Fritzsche in 1635 and later Christoph Fritzsche in 1655. The former added subsemitones in the Rückpositiv to allow for concerted playing with instrumentalists in the newest musical styles of the day.149 In the late 1680s the fate of the already 150-plus-year-old instrument was again being considered. In spite of the congregation’s standing as probably the overall poorest of the several city churches in Hamburg, the congregation pulled together enough resources to entrust a significant rebuild and expansion of the instrument to Schnitger. Money may still have been short; the ornate woodcarvings that would typically adorn the organ case were never completed.150 Inter-church politics may also have played a role–– just in 1687 Schnitger had completed what would end up being the largest instrument he ever built at St. Nikolai, which was considered one of the wealthy congregations of the city. At 60 ranks, the rebuild at Jacobikirche would have been comparable to the 67-stop instrument in St. Nikolai.151 Schnitger’s rebuild incorporated 25 of the original stops into the new 60-stop design. Outside of this, however, virtually everything else was new, including, “the

147

Kelber, pg. 1 ibid., pg. 1 149 Davidsson, Hans. “The Organ in Seventeenth-Century Cosmology.” The Organ as a Mirror of Its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. pg. 85 150 Reinburg, pp. 124-125 151 The organ at St. Nikolai was destroyed in a massive fire in Hamburg in 1842. 148

- 69 casing, windchests, bellows, wind conductors, action and about 35 stops, including all 15 reed stops.”152 For all intents and purposes, then, Schnitger had closed one chapter of the instrument’s history and begun a new one. After Schnitger’s rebuilding, the instrument’s history is not very captivating. Far from being a negative, however, this inactivity signifies a lack of alteration and modification that is important for historical accuracy. The church’s own history of the instrument does mention that Johann Paul Geycke provided new keydesks for the instrument in 1774/1775. At about this same time, Johann Jakob Lehnert added two stops to the organ––but, “did not substantially change the character of the instrument.”153

20th Century Conflict and the Jacobi Organ Quite unfortunately, the virtually untouched status of the St. Jacobikirche instrument would not survive either of the World Wars. During World War I, the organ’s principal façade pipes was commandeered by the military effort and melted for their high tin content.154 The church history reads, “…Restoration work between 1926 and 1930 was only able to compensate in part for this tremendous loss.”155 Ironically, it was during this same post-World-War-I period that the organ gained a worldwide reputation in organ circles as an ideal model of the work of Schnitger. For example, Schnitger’s work was hailed at the 1926 Freiburg conference, which re-established classical organ building principles in accord with the Jacobikirche instrument.

152

Kelber, pg. 3 ibid., pg 3 154 Snyder, Kerala. “Exordium: Organs by Compenius (1610) and Schnitger (1693).” The Organ as a Mirror of Its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. pg. 27 155 Kelber, pg. 4 153

- 70 In World War II, St. Jacobi’s leaders managed to store the pipework of the organ safely. The destruction of the Marienkirche in Lübeck and of St. Kathrinen in Hamburg were contributing factors in the decision to store the organ.156 However, the air raids of June 1944 burned out the interior of the church, and with it, all parts of the Schnitger–– including the organ case, bellows, and console––that had not been removed.

Restoration and Reconstruction After the Second World War, the organ was temporarily placed in the south nave, instead of at its original location at the west end of the nave. It returned to its original location in 1961, but the restoration work done on the instrument at that time was unsatisfactory because of a lack of historical understanding. The church history says, “Needless changes were made to the windchests and pipes, the reconstruction of the missing casing and action was based on completely different measurements plus a completely different technical system, and the wrong materials were used.”157 Following about 20 years with the organ in this slipshod restored state, the church leaders held an international symposium in 1983 that was focused on the future restoration of the organ. The meeting began a process that eventually led to a complete restoration performed by Jürgend Ahrend from 1990-1993. In this modern restoration, Ahrend adhered carefully to whatever knowledge there was about the state of the organ in 1693, right when Schnitger had completed his work. Old photographs that had survived the war were used to rebuild an image of the original organ case, for one example. Ahrend also had the task of casting all new prestant pipes

156 157

ibid., pg. 4 ibid., pg. 4

- 71 for the principals to be placed in the organ façade, as the originals were lost in World War I. The modern restoration was costly. At the time of its completion in 1993, it was the most expensive restoration work ever undertaken, totaling about six million German Marks.158 The money was raised almost evenly between the private and public sectors.159 The church notes, “It was only due to the public spirit of the people of Hamburg on the one hand, and the willingness of the state and the Church to take on the responsibility on the other, that it was possible to restore this pre-eminent cultural monument in such exemplary fashion.”160

The Specification of the St. Jacobikirche Organ

Arp Schnitger St. Jacobikirche, Hamburg (1693-Present) Reconstructed 1990-1993 by Jürgend Ahrend

4 Manuals, 60 Stops161 Werck (II)

158

Rückpositiv (I)

Oberpositiv (III)

(CDEFGA-c´´´)

(CDE-c´´´)

(CDEFGA-c´´´)

16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’

8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 2’ II

8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 2’

Principal Quintadehn Octava Spitzflöht Viola da Gamba Octava Rohrflöht Flachflöht

Principal Gedackt Quintadehn Octava Blockflöht Querpfeiff Octava Sexquialtera

Principal Rohrflöht Holtzflöht Spitzflöht Octava Nasat Octava Gemshorn

Kelber, pg. 6. The German Mark is no longer in usage, but six million marks probably would have translated into around 2.5-3.5 million U.S. dollars. Of course, the Frauenkirche project dwarfs this cost–– but I do not now just how much the Kern organ in the Frauenkirche cost. 159 Kelber, pg. 6 160 ibid., pg. 6 161 Specification as given in Snyder, “Exordium: Organs by Compenius and Schnitger.” pg. 28

- 72 II Rauschpfeiff 2’ SuperOctav VI-VIII Mixtur 16’ Trommet

Brustpositiv (IV) (CDEFGA-c´´´) 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ II IV-VI 8’ 8’

Principal Octav Hollflöht Waldflöht Sexquialtera Scharff Dulcian Trechter Regal

VI-VIII Scharff 1 ½ Siffoit 16’ Dulcian 8’ Bahrpfeiffe 8’ Trommet Pedal (CD-´d) 32’ Principal 16’ Octava 16’ Subbaß 8’ Octava 4’ Octava 2’ Nachthorn III Rauschpfeiff VI-VIII Mixtur 32’ Posaune 16’ Posaune 16’ Dulcian 8’ Trommet 4’ Trommet 2’ Cornet

VI III 8’ 8’ 4’

Scharff Cimbel Trommet Vox humana Trommet

Other 2 Cimbelsterne 2 Tremulants Brustpositiv-Wreck Oberpositiv-Wreck Hauptventil; 5 ventils for each division Mechanical action Slider chests a´=495 Hz Temperament: Modified meantone (1/5 syntonic comma)

Discussion Schnitger’s organ presents both similarities and differences to the organs of Silbermann and Kern discussed above. For perhaps the most dramatic difference, observe the handling of the pedal division on the instruments: with Silbermann’s Hofkirche, the pedal division was the smallest, with a principal chorus (32’, 16’, 8’ and 4’) plus a mixture, and three reeds. Overall, the Hofkirche pedal division presents a nice complement to the whole instrument, but could not assume a dominating position. However, on Schnitger’s instrument the pedal division’s increased depth reflects the heavier use of the pedal by the leading organists and composers in the north. Schnitger, for example, includes four stops at the 16’ length (2 principals and 2 reeds), and both a 2’ flute and 2’ reed. Additionally, two mixtures are found in the pedal to Silbermann’s one,

- 73 and Schnitger has provided the player with a massive total of five reed stops––better than one-third of the total reeds on the 5-division organ. This depth in the pedal division was reflected especially in the music of Buxtehude, whose Praeludium works made extensive use of toccata-like improvisatory sections that required a virtuoso pedal technique and the full pedal division found in the organs of the region.

Current Status of the Jacobikirche Instrument St. Jacobi was on my trip itinerary. During my personal visit to the church, I engaged the church docent in a long conversation about all aspects of musical life at the church, and about the organ in particular. The interior of the church is full of contrasts between ornate altars and a fully decorated pulpit, and rather bare and unexciting walls highlighted only with red brick. The organ gallery at the rear of the church supports the rather large organ case for the space, as the organ and its case dominates the entire back wall of the church, as shown in plate IX. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the instrument live in its performance space, as no concerts were scheduled during the brief time I was able to stay in Hamburg. In recordings of the organ, however, the density and fullness of the organ’s tone is immediately apparent. The organ’s ability to flawlessly “stack” sound is also impressive. For example, stops added above the fundamental pitch of the division do not overbalance the fundamentals, but rather complement them. This creates a sound that is fuller and richer than the fundamental alone. It also helps to separate one line from another in the musical texture, which is of considerable importance in the performance of Baroque Era polyphonic music. The overall impression is of a thicker and denser sound with a fuller tone than other organs that I’ve heard.

- 74 My discussion of the instrument and its status with the church docent was fruitful. She explained that the weekly organ concerts held on the instrument are well-attended events. These low-cost concerts feature the organ and usually an organ tour afterward. She noted that virtually every week they have to bring out extra seating because the pews in the main nave of the church will be filled. Adding to the rosy picture of the current usage of the instrument is the church’s affiliation with the city churches of Hamburg, who put on a coordinated concert series. In fact, I was able to pick up a fairly significant brochure just covering what happening, outside of the normal worship services, during December and January at the five city churches. The overall image of musical culture and of interest in the organ was very positive in Hamburg. Another encouraging sign regarding the current status of the famous Schnitger instrument is that the restorer makes regular visits to the instrument to check on its status. The docent told me that Ahrend visits the church at least once a month to make sure everything is in tip-top working condition. Again, the Jacobikirche clearly illustrated that churches in Germany are in fact acutely aware of the historical and cultural significance of the organs housed within their walls.

Side Trip to Buxtehude’s Church: Marienkirche, Lübeck Lübeck was once the dominant shipping and trading city in the late-medieval economic federation called the Hanseatic League. The wealth of the town during this time permitted the construction of Marienkirche––still the third largest church in Germany––over the course of 100 years from roughly 1250-1350. The church once housed two significant organs: the great organ on the west wall at the end of the nave, and a smaller one in a side chapel called the Totentanz organ.

- 75 Marienkirche’s original organs have not survived to the present day. This is why I consider the visit a side trip on my travels, as the organ now in the location of the old great organ is an entirely new construction by Kemper Orgelbau that is not based on the original organ, and is significantly larger than the old instrument’s size. The old main instrument in Marienkirche had its pipework replaced in 1851, leaving only the organ façade as original; but this, too, was lost in World War II.162 The Totentanz organ survived most 19th century alterations, and was even meticulously restored in the late 1930s during the early stages of the Orgelbewegung in Germany. However, it, too, succumbed to the 1944 “Palm Sunday” bombing of Lübeck that burned the interior of the church.163 The interest in the old organs of Marienkirche is still somewhat significant, however, because these instruments were the instruments of both Franz Tunder and, most importantly, Dietrich Buxtehude.

Buxtehude is particularly important as a composer

for his increased use of virtuoso pedal material in his works, and the 15-stop pedal division that he had at his disposal––the largest division on the large Marienkirche instrument, might explain why.164 Also, Buxtehude is studied for his direct influence on J. S. Bach. As mentioned in the history chapter of this study, Bach was known to have visited Buxtehude and to have played this instrument, and it is possible that the visit further encouraged Bach to explore the uses of the pedal in his own compositions. The specification of the old instrument, though no longer extant, is given here because of its historical importance and because of my personal interest in the music of Buxtehude.

162

Snyder, Kerala. “Buxtehude’s Organs: Helsingor, Helsingborg, Lübeck. 2: The Lübeck Organs.” The Musical Times, Vol. 126, No. 1709, pg. 429 163 ibid., pg. 429 164 ibid., pg. 429

- 76 -

The Specification of Marienkirche in Luebeck, ca. 1721

Hering, Scherer, and Stellwagen Marienkirche, Lübeck (1518-1851)

3 Manuals, 54 Stops165 Werk 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ IV IV XV 16’ 8’ 8’ 32’ 24’ 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 2’ 2’ VI 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 2’

165

Principal Quintadena Octava Spitz-Flöte Octava Hohlflöte Nasat Rauschpfeiffe Scharff Mixtura Trompete Trompete Zincke

Pedal Principal Groß-Posaun Sub-Bass Principal Octava Gedact Octava Nachthorn Bauerflöte Mixtura Posaune Dulcian Trompete Krumhorn Cornet

Brustwerk 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 2’ 2’ 1 ½’ II VIII III 8’ 8’

Principal Gedact Octava Hohlflöte Feld-Pfeiffe Gemshorn Sifflet Sesquialtera Mixtura Cimbel Krumhorn Regal

Rück-Positiv 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 2’ II V IV-V 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’

Bordun Principal Blockflöte Hohlflöte Quintadena Octava Spiel-Flöte Sesquialtera Mixtura Scharff Dulcian Baarpfeiffe Trichter-Regal Vox humana

Mechanical action Couplers: Brustwerk/Werk, Rück-Positiv/Werk

Specification as given in Snyder, pg. 429. It is the specification written down by Johann Mattheson in 1721.

- 77 -

Discussion Buxtehude’s instrument was weighted toward the pedal division, and he made extensive use of this pedal in his organ compositions. After the damage to the church in World War II, Kemper Orgelbau of Lübeck was contracted to construct a new instrument. This instrument is nearly twice the size of the one Buxtehude played, with 101 stops, and was finished in 1968. Unfortunately, the significant size difference is not the only non-historical change in the organ. The new organ, while maintaining separate and independent organ divisions, includes two enclosed divisions––the Oberwerk and Kronenwerk––which were not present in the Baroque era. The new instrument is majestic enough and certainly large enough to fill this massive church. Also, of course, the Kemper firm was not attempting to build a strict reconstruction or a historically informed instrument. Kemper’s organ possesses mechanical action and electronic stop action. Overall, though, the enclosed divisions and sheer size of the Kemper show an acceptance of organ literature written after the Baroque Era.

The Current Status of Marienkirche Instrument It is somewhat unfortunate that an organ to return to Marienkirche the sound of the Buxtehude instrument will probably never be built. Buxtehude’s organ has been gone for over 150 years. But, with Kemper’s organ there is an organ of stature in the church, and it was incredibly impressive when I visited the church. The church is imposing; its nave is probably both twice the size and twice the height of Jacobikirche’s. The organ’s placement is in an organ gallery lofted high on the back wall, as can be seen in the pictures in Appendix A. I estimated that the pedal towers were at least 60 feet off of the floor of the church, because it seemed that the 32’ pipes in the façade could be stacked

- 78 twice before reaching the balcony. Kemper has maintained a carefully divided organ case: the five-manual instrument shows clearly the side pedal towers and with the Rückpositiv, Brustwerk, Hauptwerk and Oberwerk aligned in ascending order in the center of the casework. My visit to the church was a particularly special one, and probably my favorite of the entire trip. Simply seeing the scale of the church and its organ made an instant impression upon me. There was an organist practicing in the organ gallery during much of my visit, and that enabled me to hear the Kemper organ in the church space. Further, my visit went until the early evening, which led to a special experience when the light in the church faded and the organ music really did seem to come from the heavens.

Part III: Two Organs in the Netherlands The Netherlands was home to a bevy of organ activity in the 1600s and 1700s. As mentioned in the history section, Sweelinck was the undisputed leading organist at the beginning of the 17th century, and his legacy helped foster a strong school of organists throughout the Baroque Era. Coincident with Sweelinck’s teaching was the rise of the Dutch as an international trading and shipping power. Riches from this golden era for the Netherlands supported the construction of many large church organs across the country, and to this day the country is widely regarded as “an organ paradise; there is no other country in the world which harbours [sic] such a treasure of historic organs.”166

166

“The Christian Müller Organ (1738)” The International Summer Academy for Organists 2006., pg. 1

- 79 Its historical “golden age” belongs to the 17th century, but both of the organs profiled here belong primarily to the 18th. Christian Müller built the great organ in St. Bavo’s Kerk, Haarlem, during 1735-1738, while at Laurenskerk, Frans Caspar Schnitger– –son of Arp––rebuilt and expanded the church’s existing organ during the years 17221725. Of all the organs I examined in this project, these two are the only ones that managed to escape significant damage as a result of human conflict. Because of their fortuitous location in the Netherlands, their host churches and cities were not subject to Allied or German bombing raids during World War II. Each organ therefore remains a sparkling example of the high Baroque Werkprinzip style, which modern restorers have been careful to maintain in their reconstructions. In term of this overall study, then, both of these instruments will serve to support a developing line of reasoning: that quality restoration work can keep old instruments in excellent and historically accurate condition for future generations of musicians to enjoy.

Müller’s Magnificence: St. Bavo’s Kerk, Haarlem The Christian Müller organ in St. Bavo’s Kerk in Haarlem is widely regarded as one of the most gilded and ornate organs in the world. Its magnificent façade, pictured in Appendix A, illustrates this fully decorated Baroque case in its entire splendor. Indeed, of the dozens of town church organs throughout the Netherlands, “the organ in St. Bavo’s church in Haarlem is perhaps the most famous,” and it remains, “the most photographed organ in the world.”167

167

ibid., pp. 1-2

- 80 Unlike many organs in the region whose final form was the result of several incremental construction projects undertaken over dozens of years by different builders, Müller built the whole Bavo Kerk organ at one time, keeping nothing of the old and decrepit instrument that was being replaced. The Haarlem City Fathers declared in 1735 that, “a new organ be built in the Grote Kerk (literally the Great Church, as St. Bavo’s is also known) ‘which should correspond, in some degree, to the size and beauty of the church.’”168 The church is a massive gothic church that has anchored the town square since the 14th century. It is also the official parish church of the town, and St. Bavo is the patron saint of Haarlem. The city fathers moved the organ project along quickly. Müller, whose organ building shop was based in nearby Amsterdam, was contacted about doing the organ on the very same day that an appropriation was agreed upon by the council.169 The Haarlem organ was finished in 1738. Peeters and Vente say that Müller “became world-famous with the Haarlem organ, still one of the mightiest creations of organ-building.”170 The 64-stop, 3-manual and pedal instrument immediately attracted admirers, “The reputation of the organ quickly spread; it became a great object of interest and recitals on the organ were an attraction. Foreign travelers visited Haarlem in order to get to know the organ, Handel and Mozart among them.”171 Mozart played the instrument at age 10––his father wrote that the organ was, “an excellent, beautiful instrument with 68 stops,” and noted that all the pipework was made from metal.172

168

ibid., pg. 1 ibid., pg. 1 170 Peeters & Vente, pg. 156 171 “The Christian Müller Organ (1738),” pg. 1 172 ibid., pg. 2 169

- 81 The Bavo Kerk organ is not simply famous for its impressive gilding and lion sculpture crown, or for its famous historical visitors. Müller’s instrument is also highly regarded for its aural and musical characteristics. The organ’s disposition displays a typical north European Werkprinzip tonal array. The case, which can be seen in Plates XIII and XIV in Appendix A, illustrates the separation of the three manuals and pedal: the Bovenwerk below the main case of the Hoofdwerk, with the Rugwerk behind the player and two pedal towers, one to each side of the organ bench. The registration is what I consider “vertically” arranged. This means the focus is on expanding the division above the fundamental pitch with high principals and with mixtures, and not on thickening the sound with many stops at the same pitch level.

Nineteenth Century Changes and Twentieth Century Restoration The Bavo Kerk instrument survived for about 125 years virtually untouched by other organ builders, but when a need for restoration was seen in the later 1800s, several undesirable changes were made to the original disposition of the organ. Musical taste at the time favored an overall weaker voicing of the reeds to balance them against the open flue pipes, which resulted in quite a shift of character in the instrument since the cutting, colorful nature of the reeds arguably is one of the great strengths of Müller’s original organ.173 As Downes notes, “…the Haarlem organ, as is well known, was so seriously

173

ibid., pg. 2

- 82 modified during the nineteenth century that its original character, it must be owned, is somewhat impaired, wonderful though it still remains.”174 Downes was writing in 1951, eight years before Marcussen & Son carried out modern restoration work during 1959-1961. This restoration was undertaken to address several problems in the instrument at the time: first, its windchests, already twice replaced since the original construction, were leaking so much air that the pedal had become unplayable with the rest of the organ; second, the keyboards and action needed to be replaced, and third, the beauty of the case was in need of restoration.175 Marcussen & Son undertook all three tasks, rebuilding the windchests and manual keydesk; repainting and gilding the façade; and, most importantly to this study, returning the organ to Müller’s original disposition. The reconstructed organ was rededicated at a concert given July 3, 1961 by the two town organists, Albert de Klerk and Piet Kee.176

The Specification of the Bavo Kerk Organ

Christian Müller St. Bavo’s Kerk, Haarlem (1738-Present) Reconstructed 1959-1961 by Marcussen & Son, Aabenraa

3 Manuals, 62 Stops177 Hoofdwerk 16’ 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’

174

Praestant Bourdon Octaaf Roerfluit Viola di Gamba

Bovenwerk 16’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’

Quintadena Praestant Quintadena Baarpijp Octaaf

Rugpositief 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’

Praestant Quintadena Holpijp Octaaf Fluit Douce

Downes, Ralph. “The Organ in the Great Church, Alkmaar. Some Notes and Comparisons.” The Musical Times, Vol. 92, No. 1301, pg. 317 175 “The Christian Müller Organ (1738),” pg. 2 176 ibid., pg. 2 177 Specification as given in “The Christian Müller Organ (1738),” pg. 2

- 83 6’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ II IV-X VI-VII

16’ 8’ 8’ 4’

Roerquint Octaaf Gemshorn Quint-praesant Woudfluit Tertiaan Mixtuur Scherp Trompet Trompet Hautbois Trompet

Pedaal 32’ 16’ 16’ 12’ 8’ 8’ 6’ 4’ 2’ IV VI-X 32’ 16’ 8’ 4’ 2’

Principaal Praestant Subbas Roerquint Octaaf Holfluit Quintpraestant Octaaf Holfluit Ruischpijp Mixtuur Bazuin Bazuin Trompet Trompet Cink

4’ 3’ 2’ 1 1/2’ II IV-VI III 8’ 8’ 8’

Flagfluit Nasard Nachthorn Flageolet Sesquialter Mixtuur Cymbaal Schalmei Dolceaan Vox humana

3’ 2’ II-IV IV VI-VIII

III 16’ 8’ 8’

Speelfluit Super Octaaf Sesquialter Cornet Mixtuur Cymbaal Fagot Trompet Trechterregaal

Manual couplers: Boven/Hoofd, Rug/Hoofd Pedal coupler: Hoofd/P, Boven/P, Rug/P (not original) Manual compass: C-d´´´ Pedal compass: C-f Tremulant: Bovenwerk, Rugpositief

The Current Status of the Bavo Kerk Organ The Müller organ in St. Bavo’s Kerk is an organ well known by the international organ community. The organ hosts the International Improvisation Competition and the International Summer Academy for Professional Organists every two years. Additionally, the church remains the parish church of the city of Haarlem, and, as such, it

- 84 is still active in a centuries-old tradition of presenting Municipal Organ recitals.178 These recitals are given from mid-May through mid-October on Tuesday evenings by the town organist and guest organists from around the country and the world. Further, July and August also see Thursday afternoon concerts in addition to the Tuesday evening events. In keeping with the tradition, however, these concerts are supported by the town, and presented to the public free of charge.179 The great organ in St. Bavo’s Kerk is therefore one of the most active organs in an already active region of organ performance. Obviously, with the international competition and symposium, the organ enjoys an excellent rapport with organists around the world. It is still a quite active and viable instrument that enjoys community support that is second to none. In keeping with a trend across my study, this is a restored instrument whose current usage is indicative of its being a wholly active performance organ. It is able to maintain a dual-role, both as an historical artifact that illustrates Baroque art and architecture and as an active musical instrument that still allows people to experience the sound of an 18th century organ.

Son of Schnitger: Laurenskerk, Alkmaar Alkmaar is about an hour north of Haarlem by train. Ironically, the closeness of the two cities had a role to play in the original construction of the great organ in Alkmaar’s Laurenskerk. The story is told as follows: “Near the town of Alkmaar and the Egmoder Meer stood once a monastery, founded about 1420, to which in a bequest extensive lands between the towns of Alkmaar and Haarlem were made over…In case of dissolution (of the monastery), the lands should go to the town with the parish church nearest the monastery. When the Reformation of the church took place…Haarlem took over the administration of all church estates, without

178 179

“The Christian Müller Organ (1738),” pg. 2 ibid., pg. 2

- 85 compensating in any way the small town of Alkmaar, to which in accordance with the founder’s will the lands of the bequest should have gone.”180

After years of arguments, Alkmaar took Haarlem to court in 1630, where a judgment was eventually given in favor of Alkmaar, and Haarlem “had to pay compensation with compound interest, to the tune of 60,000 guilders.”181 This good fortune caused the members of Alkmaar’s community to decide to construct a monument to God, and a “great organ in the church of St. Laurens” was at the top of their docket.182 Seven years was taken in the construction of the instrument, from 1738-1745, and it was finally completed in 1746. Germer Hagerbeer built this original instrument, which was celebrated for its beauty of sound and case artwork.183 It was a three manual instrument of 31 stops. The ample funding had provided for the completion of the “short” octave that was typically found in the lowest bass octave of the manuals, and instead the organ received a full lower octave in all manual divisions and an extended bass even seven notes lower than normal.184 The organ faced its first significant overhaul in the 1720s, at a curious period in organ building in the Netherlands, because at the time there was no clear dominant Dutch builder in the region that could be entrusted with the work. Müller, only a decade later the builder of St. Bavo’s organ, was not yet at maturity and had not yet appeared on the organ-building scene. A controversy ensued between the church, which desired a Dutch builder, and the new organist, Havingha, who had introduced Frans Caspar Schnitger to

180

Loos, Gertrud. “The Great Organ at the Laurenskerk at Alkmaar.” Liner notes of Die Kunst der Fuge, pg. 1. Parenthetical note is my own, in the interest of clarity. 181 ibid., pg. 1. 60,000 guilders equaled more than 85,600 British pounds in 1960, which was when Loos was writing. 182 ibid., pg. 1 183 Peeters & Vente, pg. 151 184 Loos, pg. 2

- 86 the church’s elders.185 Schnitger’s father, Arp, had a strong reputation in the eastern part of the Netherlands, as he maintained a workshop in Groningen, but neither he nor his son had done much work on the western side of the country. Though Frans Caspar Schnitger was eventually contracted to rebuild the Alkmaar instrument, Peeters and Vente note that the organ did not do much to assist Schnitger’s reputation in the western part of the Netherlands, “One result of the Alkmaar organ-quarrel was possibly that the Schnitger firm found no appreciation afterwards in most of the Netherlands and remained busy chiefly in the north-east part of the country.”186 F.C. Schnitger performed his rebuilding and expansion work in 1722-1725. It is his specification that came to define the “finished” great organ in Alkmaar. Most significant among his additions was an independent, 13-stop pedal division, by this time absolutely demanded by the musical repertoire. The organ broke new ground for organs in the region. For example, Schnitger tuned his instrument in equal temperament, and in so doing made the Alkmaar organ the first organ throughout the Low Countries to be tuned in the “modern” system.187 This also makes it the only organ of those I profiled that did not undergo a change of temperament during its history. Also, Bicknell goes on to note, the organ shows indications that the son was implementing his own style even while following the legacy of his father: “The Alkmaar organ demonstrates a different but completely successful approach…it is in some ways steeped in the family tradition: this must be one of the last organs to have the old north German terzians and zimbels. In other ways it takes a most startling leap towards new fashions…”188

185

Peeters & Vente, pg. 151 ibid., pg. 152 187 Bicknell, Stephen. “Voyages of Discovery: Part 2––Alkmaar.” pg. 2 188 ibid., pg. 4 186

- 87 Bicknell argues that the basic trend or “new fashion” that the organ illustrates is an increasing concern for “special effects” from the instrument, produced in part from similar stops producing sound from very different locations inside the instrument. He says that in the acoustical environment of the church, the significant distance between the Rugwerk and the Bovenwerk––“perhaps fifty feet”––lends to the sound a contrast not so much by volume, but by location. He considers this feature a predecessor to later echo divisions on organs. 189 But however much F.C. Schnitger may have been looking forward with the construction of the Laurenskerk organ, it is just as likely that he was firmly looking to recent history as a guide. His organ still illustrates the strong arrangement by separate, independent organ divisions that are the hallmark of the Werkprinzip style. Additionally, his most significant addition to the organ was a full independent pedal division, which was not forward-looking, but rather an acknowledgement of the pedal division that composers of the time were demanding from their organs. After F.C. Schnitger’s work was completed, the organ saw overhauls in the 19th century that tended to take away some of the original form of the organ, but those “unwelcome additions,” as one commentator put it, have now been removed via careful restoration work done by Dutch builder D. A. Flentrop. Flentrop was a preeminent 20th century organ builder whose style continued the legacy of the northern Europe Werkprinzip style. His work is internationally known, as he exported more than 40 instruments to the United States in addition to his instruments throughout Europe. Several of his American instruments are among the most significant

189

ibid., pg. 4

- 88 and influential in the American Organ Reform Movement, including his 1958 instrument for the Busch-Reisinger Museum at Harvard University, and later instruments at Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, Oberlin College, and Duke University.190 Flentrop was also a careful restorer. At Laurenskerk, Downes says that, “D. A. Flentrop of Zaandam, who…has here given practical proof of the depth of his appreciation of the work of the Schnitger tradition.”191 Flentrop, who even after the restoration has continued to care for the instrument, restored the instrument meticulously to its original condition and specification.192 That specification is now given here:

The Specification of the Great Organ in Laurenskerk

Frans Caspar Schnitger Laurenskerk, Alkmaar (1746-Present) Restored 1982-1986 by D. A. Flentrop, Zaandam

3 Manuals, 56 Stops193 Hoofdwerk (II) 16’ 8’ 6’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 2’ II’ II’ VI’ 16’ 8’ 4’

190

Praestant Praestant Praestantquint Octaav Quinta Octaav Flachfluit Ruyschpyp Tertiaan Mixtuur Trompet Viool di Gamba Trompet

Bovenwerk (III) 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 2’ 2’ II IV III 8’ 8’

Praestant Baarpijp Rohrfluit Quintadena Octaav Fluit dous Spitsfluit Superoctaav Speelfluit Sexquialtera Scherp Cimbel Trompet Hautbois

Rugpositief (I) 8’ 8’ 4’ 4’ 3’ 3’ 2’ 2’ 1 ½’ II V-VI III 8’ 8’

Praestant Quintadena Octaav Fluit Quintfluit Nasaat Superoctaav Waldfluit Quintanus Sexquialtera Mixtur Cimbel Trompet Fagot

For further discussion of the American Organ Reform Movement and of Flentrop’s influence in particular, see John Fesperman’s account entitled Flentrop in America. 191 Downes, pg. 314 192 Loos, pg. 3 193 Specification as given in Bicknell, pp. 7-9

- 89 8’ Vox humana Pedaal 22’ 16’ 12’ 8’ 6’ 4’ 2’ III VIII 16’ 8’ 4’ 2’

Principaal Praestant Rohrquint Octaav Quinta Octaav Nachthorn Ruyschpyp Mixtuur Basuin Trompet Trompet Cornet

8’ Vox humana

Manual couplers: I/II, III/II, III/I Pedal coupler: I/Pedaal, II/Pedaal Manual compass: C-d´´´ Pedal compass: C-d’ Pitch: a=415 Hz, equal temperament Tremulant: Bovenwerk, Rugpositief

The Current Status of the Laurenskerk Instrument The Laurenskerk organ excites almost as much interest as its neighbor to the south in St. Bavo’s Kerk. Often, such as in 2003, the organ is included in the summer international organ festivals that attract talent from around the world. Much of the interest in the organ seems to focus around its progeny as a Schnitger family organ, even though F. C. Schnitger never quite gained the fame of his father. In my visit to Alkmaar, the church itself was well advertised as a cultural, historical and tourist-worthy location. The 15th century church sits on a half square, adjacent to a bustling shopping street. The whole area has a feel of an open-air market, and it was quite lively even on the snowy winter day of my visit. As with most of the churches I visited, Laurenskerk was promoting their New Year’s Eve organ concert heavily, which I took as a positive sign of the church’s role in providing cultural events for the community. However, the churches in the Netherlands were less inviting than their German counterparts. Whereas every one of the German churches I visited had quite active

- 90 touring schedules and open hours over the holidays, both Bavo Kerk and Laurenskerk were not open outside of their worship services and special events. Perhaps Dutch culture simply closes over the holiday season, but it was clearly the Germans who seemed to place a larger emphasis on Christmas, and so I was surprised that the Dutch churches were less accessible. Laurenskerk, therefore, is the church that remains most mysterious to me, as I could not ascertain just how culturally and musically involved the organ is in its community. On the encouraging side is the interplay between the church here and the church in Haarlem during summer organ festivals, but Laurenskerk did not seem to have the same depth in its concert schedule that is evident in Haarlem. Of the several churches I profiled, then, my position on Laurenskerk is mixed, while the others all were surprisingly active.

- 91 -

V. Analysis and Results The study of six different organ restoration projects and the resulting instruments supports an understanding of historical pipe organs in Germany and the Netherlands as being living cultural artifacts. Far from being a contradictory distinction, I take â&#x20AC;&#x153;living cultural artifactâ&#x20AC;? to mean that these instruments are still serving as musical and cultural entities that help connect the modern world to its musical past. Fundamental to this judgment was the knowledge gained from first-hand visits to the various churches and the cities in which those churches reside. The six organs themselves were selected to attempt a tableau of the field of organ restoration in the region. They also were chosen to present a representation of the overall pipe organ restoration activity in the region, because examining the entire list of organs that have seen restorative work would provide enough material to fill several volumes. I think the chosen projects are therefore both diverse and similar, encompassing the spectrum from very strict reconstructions to new organs in place of lost historical instruments. From this study, then, what can be said about pipe organ restorations in Germany and the Netherlands? First, it seems clear that the musical culture supports and values restoration of existing instruments. Though this seems self-evident in my topic, it was not a given that honest restoration would predominate across the region. The attitude that supports restoration is evidenced by the usage of extant material whenever possible, instead of newly fabricated material during restorations. For example, at the Hofkirche, Jacobikirche, Laurenskerk and St. Bavoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kerk, much of the pipework remains the original pipework of the Baroque builders. This is a step above a project that maintains

- 92 the original organ specification but the builder’s attitude is to use new material whenever coming across damage on the extant material. This attitude does not appear to have much sway––as it shouldn’t––among pipe organ restorers, however. For example, in the Hofkirche and Jacobikirche, a clear goal of the project was to incorporate as much of the original pipe material as was possible, lending a more authentic restoration. Not surprisingly, Schnitger himself, when working on the expansion of the Jacobikirche instrument in the 1690s, tried to do just that with the existing pipework. Thus, Schnitger knew that there was musical value in keeping as much original material as possible, and he consistently used existing ranks in his rebuilding projects, and this attitude still prevails among the leading restorers of today. Concomitant with an attitude favorable toward restoration is an evident respect for the musical qualities and historical importance of the aged pipe organ under restoration. At every church there seemed to be at least a modicum of understanding that their organ was their most important musical asset, if not one of the most valuable assets of the entire church. Additionally, there was an understanding that the organ had a cultural and historical value that enhanced its musical value. The church organ building committees seemed to define “restoration” as including all three of these aspects of the pipe organ: that is, the restoration would not be complete without a finished organ that not only represented the highest quality of musicality, but also represented equally well the historical and cultural legacy of the instrument, its builder, and the church. St. Bavo’s Kerk knew that their restoration was going to have to include a restoration of the splendid Baroque wooden case because of its historical and cultural accuracy, notwithstanding its artistic beauty. In fact, Bavo’s Kerk spent more money restoring the case than they did

- 93 restoring the organ’s pipes.194 At the Hofkirche, the church realized that they were the owners of Silbermann’s last and largest instrument, and with such a legacy came an historical responsibility to insure that Silbermann’s last organ remains in pristine condition for future generations to hear and enjoy. With the instruments themselves, it must be noted that even among the instruments I studied that lacked any direct relationships to one another, the organs are more alike in form and content than they are different. This is because, regardless of builder or geographic location, all six of the instruments exhibit a carefully considered tonal organization, which is absolutely central to an organ’s musical effectiveness. This tonal organization is characterized by full choruses of flutes plus reed stops in each division of the organ. This grants the division tonal independence and the freedom to play literature on its own. Then, each division is arranged “vertically,” with stops ranging from the fundamental pitch upward, usually with at least 8’, 4’ and 2’ stops plus a mixture to add brilliance. This vertical arrangement grants the division clarity when contrasted against other divisions of the organ, especially for the performance of polyphonic music. Finally, this same vertical arrangement is often carried out between organ divisions, as well. For example, a large three-manual Silbermann like the Hofkirche instrument possesses, in ascending order, a pedal division based on a 32’ fundamental, a Hauptwerk based on a 16’ principal, an Oberwerk based on an 8’ principal and a Brustwerk based on a 4’ principal. In this arrangement, the various divisions of the organ are quite logically structured relative to each other, naturally implying the ability to register the divisions against each other in music. The different

194

“The Christian Müller Organ (1738),” pg. 2

- 94 fundamental pitches of the divisions contribute to a related but contrasting sound quality between divisions. For example, the chorus reeds and mixtures of the Oberwerk and Brustwerk would mirror the chorus reeds and mixtures present on the Hauptwerk. This was such a standard procedure that an organist at the bench of such an instrument in the Baroque Era knew that drawing the same number and type of stops on each section of the organ would naturally be in balance with each other, if the organ builder voiced the organ correctly. As referenced above, the instrument-wide tonal arrangement is both horizontal–– across the different Werke––and vertical––from the fundamental through the highest mixture within each individual division. When the pipe organ is conceived of in this manner, the commonalities of the several instruments in this study come into starker relief. In fact, one notes that every single one of them is built upon the essential musical premise of separated, independent, balanced divisions specially crafted to augment, contrast, and support one another. I have called this Werkprinzip arrangement a “musical” premise, and my reason for so doing is simply that music written by many of the great composers mentioned in the history section––Sweelinck, Scheidt, Pachelbel, Buxtehude, and J.S. Bach––all wrote with the Werkprinzip conception in mind, even if they did not employ that word.195 Listening to a Buxtehude Praeludium or a Bach Prelude and Fugue forces you to acknowledge the polyphonic imitation and interplay between the melodic lines woven

195

Werkprinzip is a modern term, coined by 20th century reformers. My personal take on why there was no specific term to refer to this style of organ construction is that Werkprinzip organs were the style of building––there was not anything else, and so the term “pipe organ” was sufficient to cover all. In the 20th century, however, there was a need to delineate organs built in the Baroque German Era from others–– French Romantic, English, American Classic, Orchestral––that a term had to be developed to refer to what by that time had become only a subset of all organs.

- 95 throughout the music, and to realize how idiomatic such pieces would be on a pipe organ based on interrelated divisions to facilitate the rendering the different lines. Further, modifying organ registrations, or playing on different manuals, at different sections of the piece could easily provide complementing tone qualities of sound. This wealth of musical contrast and variety coupled with organic and overarching tonal and pitch organization is what gives Werkprinzip organs their especial abilities that Baroque composers understood and exploited in their work. These six organs represent some of the finest examples of the Werkprinzip organ. Careful observation of the specifications illustrates how the fundamental pitches of different divisions are proportional to the overall size and depth of the organ. The same careful eye toward the pictures of the six organs included in Appendix A illustrates this premise visually. The façade pipes of the different divisions, the Prestants, are constructed of the principal rank of the division, and demonstrate the fundamental pitch on which the division is based. Thus, visually as well as aurally, one can observe the 2:1 ratio of Schnitger’s Pedal division to his Hauptwerk in Jacobikirche––32’ in the Pedal versus a 16’ in the Hauptwerk. Similarly, the Brustwerk, Oberwerk and Rückpositiv, based on 8’ fundamentals, are in a 2:1 ratio with the Hauptwerk. This discussion has explained how, in terms of musical characteristics, these six instruments are more alike than they are different. However, are there similar commonalities when discussing why these instruments were restored? I found that there were three primary reasons for undertaking a restoration: one, to return the pipe organ to its status at a certain historical point in its history; two, to

- 96 insure the musical quality of the organ; and three, to restore the organ to its role as a focus of musical culture for its community. First, each restoration had as a stated aim the restoration of the organ to its condition at a certain point in its history. At the Hofkirche the aim was to return to the organ’s condition in 1755 when it was first completed; at the Jacobikirche it was the condition in 1693 after Schnitger’s expansion; at St. Bavo’s Kerk it was a restoration to the original 1738 disposition of Müller. But whatever the particular disposition, year, or builder that was restored, historical accuracy was a key consideration. The projects seemed to share a commitment to being as honest to history as possible. The only significant deviation from this aim was the new Kern instrument in the Frauenkirche and the Kemper organ at Lübeck’s Marienkirche. In both of these locations, however, the original instrument had been entirely destroyed, and so there was nothing to restore. As Kern himself explained, he did not feel constrained to do a strict reconstruction of the original Silbermann because none of that instrument was extant. Instead, Kern took Silbermann’s original as a starting point from which to derive a larger instrument true to Silbermann’s tradition, but also respecting later developments with Cavaillé Coll from the French Romantic building tradition. Secondly, restoration work was done simply to restore the quality of the working parts of the instrument to insure its playability and musical quality for years to come. Often, certain parts of the instrument were in disrepair––or simply missing altogether because of damage from war. This work constitutes the true mechanics of restoration which might include the intricate work of re-tuning and voicing pipes; subtracting or adding to pipe lengths; fabricating new pipework to replace damaged or lost ranks of

- 97 pipes; rebuilding the roller boards or trackers; sanding and nailing together the new organ case. The work also invariably includes a trip through church archives and other historical sources to determine as best as it can be known, what the status of the organ was during the era to which the restoration project is aspiring to restore the instrument. Lastly, the projects seemed to share an understanding that restoring the organ was more than simply a musical endeavor. The Frauenkirche is the most––but certainly not the only––prescient example. The rebuilding of the church is a signature project in the continual rebuilding of East German buildings that were lost in World War II and never rebuilt under Soviet control, and, as such, it signifies another step in the overall reconciliation process between the former East and West. At the church, it was clear that the majority of the visitors were not foreigners, but rather Germans who were making a sort of pilgrimage to a hallowed and storied battlefield, akin perhaps to Americans visiting Gettysburg. Not lost on me, as an observer in the Frauenkirche and elsewhere, however, was the degree to which the restored pipe organs were a central focus of church ministry and visitors’ itineraries. Church brochures gave musical calendars along with the dispositions of their restored organs. Organ-specific tours were given on a weekly basis, usually after the completion of a weekly organ concert. At every location the organ was central to the cultural life and ministry of the church, and the reasons for restoration were just as often given in terms of cultural or historical terms as in musical or church liturgical terms. In sum, then, the six organs studied reflect the dominance of the Werkprinzip conception of organ building across the two countries during the Baroque Era, and even into today. Both of the instruments that were built new after World War II illustrate the

- 98 continuing influence of the Werkprinzip style on modern builders. As noted above, this style grants musical advantages to the realization of the music of the great Baroque organ composers, as Werkprinzip-style instruments are those that inspired their compositions in the first place, and it is an encouraging finding of this study that the Werkprinzip style still holds sway.

- 99 -

VI. Conclusion In the introduction to this paper, I proposed that, as a result of my study, I would find that the restoration of pipe organs across Germany and the Netherlands are motivated “in roughly equal parts of musical considerations and historical considerations.” I feel confident in upholding this position after undertaking a study of organ history in the region and six organs that have seen recent restoration. In selecting the instruments to study in the project, I tried to present a tableau of the organs across the region, being sure to include the most influential builders from the Baroque Era. From this selection, I ended up studying the following pipe organs; Gottfried Silbermann’s last organ in die Hofkirche, Dresden; Silbermann’s destroyed and Kern’s new instrument for die Frauenkirche, Dresden; Arp Schnitger’s rebuild of the organ in the Jacobikirche, Hamburg; Buxtehude’s old organ at Lübeck’s Marienkirche; Christian Müller’s organ for St. Bavo’s Kerk in Haarlem; and Franz Caspar Schnitger’s rebuild of the Laurenskerk organ in Alkmaar. In the restoration of these instruments, the several churches always seemed conscious of both musical and historical considerations. For two organs, though, the reconstructions I studied were the second overhaul of the instrument since World War II, and were undertaken specifically to rectify the historical inaccuracies of the first restoration attempt. In these latter projects, historical considerations were certainly of prime importance. But, as the pipe organ is fundamentally a musical instrument, each project naturally dealt with musical considerations as well. In fact, in the successful projects profiled in this study, the most effective tack was finding a blend of both historical and musical considerations to guide the reconstruction work. Luckily, the two

- 100 easily go hand-in-hand, as research into the historical origins of the instruments can only help add context and depth to the restoration project. The reconstruction projects also illustrated that modern pipe organ builders in the region are still attentive to the past. Baroque organ building, and Werkprinzip organs, are not simply a matter of the past; they are also still very much in the present. Kern’s new organ in the Frauenkirche, presented above, represents a new instrument where a proposal for a strict reconstruction was rejected. But the past was not simply disregarded. The new organ possesses a beautiful organ case with a logical pipe layout, to support the instrument’s separate but independent organ divisions, and three of the four manuals were modeled off of the Silbermann instrument that once held its place. Modern builders still respect the instruments and style of historical builders, and, in many ways, they seem to understand that they are still trying to regain the level of craftsmanship found in some historical instruments. There is an inherent respect for the organs of Schnitger and Silbermann and the Werkprinzip organ building tradition is still at the forefront of modern organ building. However, it cannot be said that modern instruments are the same as the historical instruments that are restored. The chapter dealing with the GoART project helped to make clear just how different a modern instrument is from one constructed during the Baroque Era. In some of their most significant findings, the research team has learned that the pipe metal used 200 years ago was of a different composition than modern metal––which, while consisting of higher purity metal is ironically of a lower quality for an organ pipe. In a new, interesting field of study, the GoART team is tackling the problem of corroding organ pipes across all of Europe in their historical organs.

- 101 The second major question I asked at the beginning of my study was: what is the current status of these reconstructed instruments? Further, once that status was known, what did it say about the musical, cultural, and historical role the pipe organ was playing in modern life in Germany and the Netherlands? After a trip to Europe that allowed me to visit the physical communities in which these pipe organs reside, I can conclude that, by and large, the reconstructed instruments are serving as historical artifacts, surely, but they are also much more than museum pieces. In fact, the reconstructed or new organs are serving as the centerpiece of the church’s entire ministry. This is a surprising result, and not what I had expected to find. Germany and the Netherlands are not known as church-going cultures in the modern era, and, therefore, I expected that the beautifully reconstructed organs were perhaps mostly collecting dust, and of interest only to the occasional organist or researcher. On the contrary, I found churches where the organ appeared just as active today as it must have been during the historical golden age in the Baroque Era. Not a single church was without a significant recital series or other outside-of-worship-service concert. Almost every single one had an organ concert planned for New Year’s Eve, for example. The Frauenkirche was planning on presenting Bach’s complete organ works over the course of a score of recitals during 2006; Bavo’s Kerk and Laurenskerk both consistently host organ festivals and international competitions where a whole week or weekend of concerts can be heard. In these ways, the restored organs reflect the changing role of German and Dutch churches in the modern era: namely, a tendency away from liturgical worship, as fewer parishioners attend weekly religious services, and toward an increase in cultural

- 102 offerings. The modern church, especially those blessed with important and historical organs, have marketed those organs on their church brochures, and have sought to attract audiences to their church through offering musical concerts on their pipe organ. The organ has, ironically, returned to a secular role that it once held under the Hanseatic League, when the townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s church organist and organ were called upon to entertain visiting dignitaries. Surely the organ is still used in worship, but much more advertised by the churches were the visiting organists and their recitals. In another surprise, I slowly realized over the course of my visits that the status of the reconstructed pipe organs is as it was in the Hanseatic League in at least one other way: the pipe organ remains at the center of the overall ministry of the church. In the 1600s and 1700s, the pipe organ was in constant use for both sacred and secular uses, though the primary function of the organ would have been for the regular weekly church services, in keeping with worship of God as the core of the mission of the church. Today, the organ again seems to be ever-present in church activity, even as churches have accepted a larger role as a broader cultural, as opposed to strictly religious, institution. In fact, I think reconstructed organs have helped churches bridge the gap between shrinking religious influence and the larger, secularized public. The reconstructed organ brings with it historical and cultural gravity that becomes an added attraction to draw in a culture already more favorable to musical concerts than most. The reconstructed organ grants the church a notorietyâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;â&#x20AC;&#x201C;and an advertising campaign, since the reconstruction project itself will receive at least local press. Further, ambitious concert schedules help to maintain regular interest in the church and its organ. Reconstructed pipe organs have in

- 103 fact helped to return the organ to the forefront of the modern German or Dutch church ministry; where else should an instrument of such majesty be found?

- 104 -

VII. Appendix A: Plates Dresden, Germany I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

Hamburg, Germany VIII. IX.

Tower of St. Jacobikirche, as seen from the tower of St. Nikolai Organ of St. Jacobikirche196

Luebeck, Germany X. XI.

Exterior of Marienkirche at night Organ of Marienkirche197

Haarlem, The Netherlands XII. XIII. XIV.

Exterior of St. Bavo Kerk, over top of town buildings Interior and organ of St. Bavo Kerk198 Picture looking directly up a the Bavo Kerk organ199

Alkmaar, The Netherlands XV. XVI. XVII.

196

Exterior of Laurenskerk Interior of the church, showing organ placement and closed shutters200 Detail of the organ with open shutters201

Image by Yale University: << http://www.yale.edu/ism/Yale_Organ_Tour/Tour_images/Hamburg_church _images/pages/090_Hamburg_facade_jpg.htm>> 197 Image by Herst. N. Verlag Schรถning & Co + Gebr. Schmidt. <<http://www.schoening-verlag.de>> 198 Peeters & Vente., pg. 169. Image by Photogravure De Schutter Ltd. 199 ibid., pg. 157. Image by Photogravure De Schutter Ltd. 200 Photo from church website: << http://www.grotekerk-alkmaar.nl/>> 201 Peeters & Vente., pg. 134 Photo by Drs J. F. van Os

- 105 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 106 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 107 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 108 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 109 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 110 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 111 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 112 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 113 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 114 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 115 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 116 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 117 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 118 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 119 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 120 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 121 -

DUMMY PAGE FOR PLATE IMAGE

- 122 -

VIII. Appendix B: An Independent Study field experience at Oberlin On Friday, October 28, 2005, I traveled with my Independent Study advisor to the campus of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. The purposes of the trip were three-fold: to see, in short order, three very different pipe organs representative of three major historical styles of organ construction, to hear the instrument played in order to learn about the sound of the organ, and to play each of those instruments, as well. The visit served its purpose well, allowing me to gain practical knowledge about the different organ building styles quickly, and facilitated the comparison of the different instruments and styles. The following report constitutes my reflections on that visit.

9 A.M. The Flentrop Organ in Warner Hall, Oberlin Conservatory of Music The Flentrop is the centerpiece instrument in Warner Recital Hall at the Oberlin Conservatory. Located in an organ gallery above the stage and speaking out directly into the room. Of note, the whole organ case is enclosed inside the room, an acoustically favored position. The instrument has a beautiful wood case painted in red. The casework visually illustrates the five divisions of the organ, from the Rugwerk (situated behind the player) through the Pedaal towers and the Hoofdwerk. Listening: The sound from the center of the hall is impressive. Particularly strong is the blend between voices in trio playing; the voicing insures independence and

- 123 clarity between the different lines. The separate divisions of the organ are carefully balanced against one another so that the principle chorus on each manual complements all of the others. Also, within a division, the principles and mixtures are designed to create an additive effect, so that the organist can add these stops knowing they will fit into the musical texture. The organ has a clear chiff, a term that refers to the slightly airy sound heard at the instant a note is struck, and which is a key element to the ability of the organist to articulate different musical lines. Thus, rhythmic accuracy is rewarded thanks to this clarity of attack in the instrument. Playing: The touch of the manuals is very sensitive. The flat pedalboard (a European style) requires only minor adjustment on the part of the player. The shimmer of the mixtures and principle stops produces the characteristic sound of a pipe organ, a blend of brilliance and power. The flute stops are as carefully balanced as the principles, and I found the solo flutes to be of high quality. I was most impressed by how the instrument made me as a player desire to play very accurately. The articulation of the pipes was so clean that you knew as a player that you would be rewarded for proper attack and release of the keys. I was surprised by how self-evident the need for precise attack and release was on this instrument, even in comparison to the practice instrument with which Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m more familiar.

10 A.M. The C.B. Fisk Organ in the style of Cavaille Coll This organ is in the French style of Astride CavaillĂŠ Coll, the dominant Parisian organ builder in the 19th Century. The organ is encased in wood, with the various chests for the different manual divisions again clear to the observer. There is no RĂźckpositiv, or

- 124 division placed behind the player, which is not unusual. Visually, one can see the wider scaling of the pipes (wider widths), which contribute to the organs broader, thicker sounding principles. Listening: This organ has incredible tonal resources. CavaillĂŠ Coll designed instruments intended to sound similar to a full orchestral sound. Swell pedals allow for realistic crescendo and decrescendo, expanding the dynamic range of the instrument without needed to change the stops. Another system, called ventils, allows the organist to draw out a set of stops and have them at the ready. To add those stops into the registration then requires only one movement of a foot piston, a simpler maneuver than trying to pull all several stops at once. I listened to the organ at its fullest, playing the famous Widor Toccata. However, it was just as engaging to hear improvisation on the softest of the string stops on the instrument. Mr. Russell demonstrated many of the solo stops that sounded clearly against the softer registrations. Playing: The addition of swell pedals on this instrument as versus the Flentrop gives the organist yet another playing aspect to consider. The depth of sound that the Fisk can produce between its 32â&#x20AC;&#x2122; stops and wide-scaling is quite impressive. In many ways, the style of the instrument rubbed off on the manner in which I desired to play it. I wanted thicker textures in the music because of the thicker-sounding organ. Put another way, this organ favors homophonic textures, and renders them with a gorgeous blend of chorale sound, whereas the Flentrop begs for polyphonic textures, and renders them with a carefully tuned ear for independent lines.

- 125 -

11 A.M. The J. Brombaugh Meantone Organ Though one does not encounter other organs in the style of either of the previous two instruments with regularity in America, surely both the Flentrop polyphonic and Fisk French-style instruments are found much more often than the Meantone organ built by Brombaugh. Meantone refers to the organ’s temperament. In meantone, the organ is tuned so that some number of the thirds are “pure” intervals––in the common modern equal-temperament system for keyboard instruments, the thirds are actually slightly outof-tune. Several varieties of meantone were in common usage in the era immediately preceding J.S. Bach––who wrote for the now standard equal temperament tuning. Equal temperament facilitates the use of all 24 keys (12 major and 12 minor), but at the expense of impure intervals. The meantone tuning system is limited to a handful of keys, but with the benefit of pure thirds. Listening: At first, the tuning system produces an illusion of being out-of-tune, since one’s ears are so accustomed to considering slightly out-of-tune thirds as in tune. The thirds sound flat in comparison to their equal temperament counterparts. Soon, though, the ears adjust and one notices the increased consonance of the intervals. The aural effect is a sound that seems extraordinarily smooth and connected. The overall sound of the instrument reminds me more of the Flentrop than the Fisk, which is inline with what my expectations were. Playing: For an organist weaned on instruments built in more modern times, the Brombaugh has several quirks. A flat pedalboard––which by this point in the morning I was used to––is also a short pedalboard, ending its lower register on a D, instead of the modern convention of C. Additionally, the manuals are shortened keyboards, with the

- 126 last octave skipping from F to C in white keys, and providing the D and E via “split sharps.” Three sharps are “split” on all the manual divisions: D#, G#, and A#. This means that two keys are provided for each sharp, so that the organist must decide, depending on the interval or chord to be played, which sharp is appropriate. The other will sound horrendously out of tune. However, these historical practices aside, the organ is just as playable as any other, and very well suited to its pre-Bach repertoire.

- 127 -

IX. Bibliography Ambrosino, Jonathan. “A USA Perspective: 1.” Towards the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Organs: A Record of the 1999 Liverpool Conference. Jim Berrow, Ed. London: Church House Publishing., 2000, pp. 8-12 Angerstein, Daniel L. “Some Reflections on the Reform of the Organ Reform Movement.” The American Organist, Summer, 1991., 107 Bawer, Bruce. “Alkmaar: A Dutch City That Still Likes to Speak Dutch.” The New York Times. 30 Oct., 2005. Bicknell, Stephen. “Voyages of Discovery: Part 2––Alkmaar.” Available at: http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/alkmaar.html Blanton, Joseph. The Revival of the Organ Case. Albany: Venture Press. 1965.

Brombaugh, John. “Bach and the Organs of His Time: Their Influence in America.” The Musical Times, Musical Times Publications Ltd. Vol. 126, No. 1705, Bach Tercentenary Issue (Mar., 1985), 171-176 “Christian Müller Organ (1738), The.” The International Summer Academy for Organists 2006. Available at: http://www.organfestival.nl/eng/ mullerorgan/history.html “COLLAPSE Project, The.” The North German Baroque Organ Research Project in Göteborg, Sweden. Available at: http://www.goart.gu.se/cgibin/collslev1/collproj.taf

- 128 Davidsson, Hans. “The Organ in Seventeenth-Century Cosmology.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. Kerala Snyder, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002 pp. 78-92 Die Orgeln Gottfried Silbermanns (Inventory of Known Gottfriend Silbermann Organs). The Gottfriend Silbermann Museum, Frauenstein, Germany. Available at: http://baroquemusic.org/silblist.html Dollinger, Philippe. The German Hansa. Trans. D.S. Ault & S. H. Steinberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1970 Downes, Ralph. “The Organ in the Great Church, Alkmaar. Some Notes and Comparisons.” The Musical Times, Vol. 92, No. 1301 (Jul., 1951), 314-317 Duncan, J.M. “Church and Organ Music: A Glance at Some Silbermann Organs.” The Musical Times, Vol. 66, No. 986 (Apr. 1, 1925), 342-345 Dunning, Albert et. al. “Low Countries.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2001 Vol. 15, 227-253 Edwards, Lynn. “Schnitger, Arp.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2001 Vol. 22, 563-564 Galbraith, Kate. “Mastering the Mighty Pipes.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 49 Issue 37 Gillham, Christina. “Noteworthy Problem” Newsweek. 5/23/2005, Vol. 145, Issue 21., pg 14

- 129 Grahn, Göran. “Conservation of working instruments: When to restore.” Towards the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Organs: A Record of the 1999 Liverpool Conference. Jim

Berrow, Ed. London: Church House Publishing.,

2000, pp. 8-12 Gress, Frank-Harald. “Silbermann: Organs, Saxony: Gottfried Silbermann.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2001 Vol. 23, 384-385 “Gottfried Silbermann: Master Organ-Builder of the German Baroque.” Available at www.baroquemusic.org/silbeng.html “Haarlem: Grote Kerk or St. Bavo.” Archimon: The Virtual Museum of Religious Architecture in The Netherlands. Available at: http://noordhollandchurches. tripod.com/haarlemgrotekerk.html Hahn, Andreas. “The Organ’s history from 1755 to 2002” Liner notes from Hansjürgen Scholze spielt die restaurierte Silbermann-Orgel der Kathedrale zu Dresden. Motette CD 13161, 2004, pp. 25, 31-42 Hewitt, Kenneth. “Place Annihilation: Area Bombing and the Fate of Urban Places.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), 257-284 Hill, Cecil. “A German Organ Museum.” The Musical Times, Musical Times Publications Ltd. Vol. 125, No. 1692 (Feb., 1984), 110-111 Hutchins, Farley. Dietrich Buxtehude: The Man, His Music, His Era. Paterson. Music Textbook Company. 1955 “In Praise of Reconstruction.” The Guardian (London). 1 Nov. 2005: 34

- 130 Jaacks, Gisela. “Ducal Courts and Hanseatic Cities: Political and Historical Perspectives.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. Kerala Snyder, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002 pp. 3147 Joslin, Paul. “Germany.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2001 Vol. 9 708-745 “Kathedrale Dresden (Kath. Hofkirche)” Jehmlich Orgelbau. Available at: http://www.jehmlich-orgelbau.de/deutsch/frame.htm Keegan, John. “Necessary or not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish.” The Daily Telegraph (London). 31 Oct. 2005: 18 Kelber, Rudolf. “Arp-Schnitger Organ, St. Jacobi Hamburg: History of the Organ.” St. Jacobi. Trans. Trefor Smith., 1996. Kern, Daniel. “A few words from Daniel Kern on the Design of the New Pipe Organ: The New Organ in the Frauenkirche in Dresden.” Available in German at: http://www.kernpipeorgan.com/Dresden/Dresden%20articles.htm Knight, David. “What is a historic organ?” Towards the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Organs: A Record of the 1999 Liverpool Conference. Jim Berrow, Ed. London: Church House Publishing., 2000, pp. 8-12 Kuznik, Joel H. “Dresden’s Frauenkirche: Once a Silbermann, now a Kern.” The Diapason, Vol. 97, No. 1155 (Feb. 2006), 20-21 Landler, Mark. “A Symbol of War’s Horrors is Reborn in Dresden as Testament to Hope and Healing.” The New York Times, 30 Oct. 2005: International

- 131 Littler, William. “Strauss, Schumann rise from Dresden’s ashes.” The Toronto Star. 26 Nov. 2005: H4 Loos, Gertrud. “The Great Organ at the Laurenskerk at Alkmaar.” Liner notes of Die Kunst der Fuge. Available at: http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/alkmaar.html Mander, Noel. “Restoring Old Organs: An Organ-Builder’s Viewpoint.” The Musical Times, Vol. 110, No. 1514, pp. 420-421 Matthews, John. “The Silbermann Organs at Dresden.” The Musical Times, Vol. 63, No. 955 (Sept. 1, 1922), 643 Monaghan, Peter. “A Breath of Life for an Old Instrument.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/30/2005 “Organ as a Symbol of European Vision, The.” The North German Baroque Organ Research Project in Göteborg. Available at: http://www.goart.gu.se/gioa/w17.htm Owen, Barbara, Williams, Peter & Bicknell, Stephen. “Organ.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 2001 Vol. 18 565-651 Peeters, Flor & Vente, Maarten Albert. The Organ and Its Music in The Netherlands, 1500-1800. Antwerp: Mercatorfonds. 1971 Phelps, Lawrence I. “A Short History of the Organ Revival.” Church Music, Fall 1967, 13-29

- 132 Porter, William. “Hamburg Organists in Lutheran Worship.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. Kerala Snyder, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002 pp. 60-77 Reinburg, Peggy Kelly. Arp Schnitger, Organ Builder: Catalyst for the Centuries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press., 1982 Rodriguez, Gregory. “Rebirth rising from a rain of fire.” Los Angeles Times. 25 Dec. 2005: M5 “Side Trip: Haarlem and Delft.” The New York Times Online., http://travel2.nytimes.com/fodors/top/features/ travel/destinations/Europe/Netherlands/Amsterdam Snyder, Kerala J. “Buxtehude, Dieterich” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd Ed. Stanley Sadie. London. Macmillan Publishers. 1980 Vol. 4, 695-710 –––. “Buxtehude’s Organs: Helsingor, Helsingborg, Lübeck. 2: The Lübeck Organs.” The Musical Times, Vol. 126, No. 1709 (Jul. 1985), 427+429+431+434 –––. Dieterich Buxtehude: Organist in Lübeck. New York. Schrimer Books. 1987 –––. “Exordium: Organs by Compenius (1610) and Schnitger 1693).” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. Kerala Snyder, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002 pp. 23-30 –––. “Organs as Historical and Aesthetic Mirrors.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. Kerala Snyder, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002 pp. 1-21

- 133 Somerville, Christopher. “The Raising of Dresden.” The Daily Telegraph. 22 Oct. 2005: Travel, pg. 1 Vogel, Harald. “The Genesis and Radiance of a Court Organ.” The Organ as a Mirror of its Time: North European Reflections, 1610-2000. Kerala Snyder, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002 pp. 48-59 Williams, Peter. “Werkprinzip.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd

Ed. Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan Publishers, Ltd., 2001 Vol. 27,290

Wosnitza, Regine. “Pulling out All the Stops.” Time, 20-27 Aug. 2001, Available in English at: http://www.jehmlich-orgelbau.de/englisch/frame-eng.htm