Talk:Aristide Cavaillé-Coll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Pipe organ Portal
Aristide Cavaillé-Coll is part of WikiProject PipeOrgan, which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's content relating to the pipe organ and its associated repertoire, organists, and other articles.
If you would like to participate, you can edit Aristide Cavaillé-Coll, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Innovations

I have added the Innovations section because Cavaillé-Coll's innovations in organ building are the reason he is remembered and absolutely must not be overlooked. Most of the text is a revision from organ repertoire, but I wrote that text anyway, so I don't see why I can't bring it over here. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 03:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Denis?

I edited the reference to the organ of Ste. Clothilde from "the first" to "one of the first" in the understanding that his earlier instrument in the abbey of St. Denis (in a northern suburb of Paris) was the ground-breaker for many of these innovations. (Interestingly, the building itself was a pace-setter in early Gothic architecture, c.f. references under Abbot Suger.) What is its present condition? Is it still sufficiently a Cavaille-Coll to be included in the list of his organs? --Paul Emmons

Thanks, I totally forgot about that instrument. Indeed, the instrument at St. Denis was, I believe, his very first (large) organ, and is well-preserved, from what I have heard. It draws heavily on the French classical tradition of Cliquot etc., but it does contain some groundbreaking elements. I believe it was the first Cavaillé-Coll with the Grand orgue as the lowest manual, for example, but I'm not totally sure. The current titulaire is Pierre Pincemaille, who (Mr. Boe tells me) puts out his cigarettes on the case!!! At any rate, it is a very significant organ and I'm glad you put it in.—Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're talking about C-C's landmark instruments, surely we should mention (1) the one in Lyons that C-C proclaimed was his greatest creation (to date); (2) the one in Toulouse that Michael Murray recorded -- such a stupendously beautiful and authentic C-C sound; and (3) the one in Ouen (Rouen? Ouen? I don't remember now). Sorry for my sketchy details, but I know you guys and gals will be able to fill in the gaps pretty quickly. Cheers, LorenzoPerosi1898 09:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Greatest"

Friends, there is positively no doubt that Cavaillé-Coll was to 19th-century French organists what Steinway was to 20th-century pianists. Thus, on the one hand, there is no reason not to say "the greatest" instead of "one of the greatest" or "possibly the greatest." However -- and this is a big however -- one could not possibly compare C-C to contemporaneous builders in Germany, America, et al. How can we alter the first paragraph so that people know that every single Parisian organist of note -- yes, every single one -- preferred a C-C like modern pianists prefer a Steinway -- but without a comparison to all the other foreign organbuilders? My second thought is that the business about the organ reform movement hits the reader too soon and seems out of place, almost irrelevant. However, it certainly could and should be said that, since said reform movement has taken hold, original unchanged C-C instruments are all the most precious, etc. etc. etc. Which is absolutely true -- that is a verifiable part of organ history. Anyhow, my thoughts only. LorenzoPerosi1898 09:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)