baroqclassicalantic

Ah, terminology.

I prefer “French Symphonic” over “French Romantic.” I feel the Romantic stuff happened in the opera houses and on the concert stage. But French Symphonic was more literal to organ music. “Sym” [‘together’] and “phonic” [‘sound’] form the perfect word to describe what Cavaillé-Coll pulled off, by combining reeds and mixtures together from the Classic organs. He found a way to provide enough wind and proper voicing so that “full organ” (not just “plein jeu”!) might be achieved.

And the work of Cavaillé-Coll was “symphonic,” NOT “orchestral!” A thousand times No.

As for “French Classic” vs. “French Classical” vs. “French Baroque,” I’ll defer to Cavaillé-Coll once again. “Baroque” reminds this writer too much of Bach (wrong country) and the various King Louis-es (wrong audience) to be applied to organ music. “Classical” smacks too much of Mozart (wrong country AND wrong audience). But “Classic” is perfect, especially since Cavaillé-Coll himself referred to the older organs he renovated as classique.

Now, closer to home:

I have dealt with electronics geeks working as “sound engineers” who do not correct you if you call them “acousticians.” I train my students to run the other way when they encounter this. Hanging around that cannot be a good thing.

Then there is “acoustical treatment,” which is described as “necessary to deaden” a room. I prefer it “temper” a room.

In tuning temperaments, certain intervals are characterized as “wide” or “narrow,” rather than “sharp” or “flat.” I can live with those euphemisms, since “sharp” and “flat” may suggest “sour.”

Then there are some committee decisions, with which I sometimes say I am “less than pleased.”

Then there are those brides and/or wedding soloists I describe as “typical.”

I suppose non-organists characterize organists in their own way, too. “Old” tends to come to many minds. So does “crotchety.” And “opinionated.” I can’t imagine why.