Organ improvisation is a remarkable art, whether or not accompanying a silent film. In any of France's great cathedrals, the foremost musical experience is to hear the "titulaire" (essentially the headline organist) improvising on whatever theme they've selected for the day - sometimes chant, sometimes a hymn tune, sometimes something entirely frivolous and inappropriate that takes on a life of its own.
Even here in the UK, where it's not such a big thing, there's often an enjoyable few minutes at evensong where the organist improvises in the gap between finishing the prelude and the choir processing in. But France does it like nowhere else. One of the finest musical experiences I've ever known was Olivier Latry, titulaire at Notre Dame, giving a recital at Worcester Cathedral. After the appointed recital, he performed a 20-minute improvisation on the hymn chosen for evensong earlier that day (Herbert Howells' "Michael"), which he had never heard before. Superb yet entirely ephemeral - like most improvisations, it was never recorded.
There are more great improvisers, in other traditions, e.g. Sietze de Vries (1), who's Dutch and improvises mainly in Northern German Baroque style (the video has an improvised fugue), and Wolfgang Seiben (2), who's German and improvises more in late Romantic/early 20th century style.
However, these improvisations differ quite a bit from theatrical improvisations. All are virtuoso, but the classical traditions emphasizes structural elements, such as a uniting theme, counter-point, and development, whereas movie accompaniment is more fragmented, and builds on common musical experience, usually popular, to evoke the right mood, and is restricted by the visuals.
Playing styles also differ quite a bit. E.g., theatre organs have all kinds of bells and whistles (literally), a complex registration system, and sometimes extra techniques such as a "second touch" which allows to play dynamic accents, which is almost impossible on church organs.
"Here, passive consumption becomes active and creative: the performer reacts with individual spontaneity while summoning sounds of orchestral heft."
Everyone should get a chance to see a silent film projected in a theater to live accompaniment. When I was a teenager I was given that opportunity (even in Kansas City) for the silent, The Thief of Bagdad (1924). It was indeed magical.
There is plenty of room for recontextualization of old silent films with alternative genres of music, which need not take away from the also excellent experience of listening to good organ music.
Organ improvisation is a remarkable art, whether or not accompanying a silent film. In any of France's great cathedrals, the foremost musical experience is to hear the "titulaire" (essentially the headline organist) improvising on whatever theme they've selected for the day - sometimes chant, sometimes a hymn tune, sometimes something entirely frivolous and inappropriate that takes on a life of its own.
Even here in the UK, where it's not such a big thing, there's often an enjoyable few minutes at evensong where the organist improvises in the gap between finishing the prelude and the choir processing in. But France does it like nowhere else. One of the finest musical experiences I've ever known was Olivier Latry, titulaire at Notre Dame, giving a recital at Worcester Cathedral. After the appointed recital, he performed a 20-minute improvisation on the hymn chosen for evensong earlier that day (Herbert Howells' "Michael"), which he had never heard before. Superb yet entirely ephemeral - like most improvisations, it was never recorded.
There are more great improvisers, in other traditions, e.g. Sietze de Vries (1), who's Dutch and improvises mainly in Northern German Baroque style (the video has an improvised fugue), and Wolfgang Seiben (2), who's German and improvises more in late Romantic/early 20th century style.
However, these improvisations differ quite a bit from theatrical improvisations. All are virtuoso, but the classical traditions emphasizes structural elements, such as a uniting theme, counter-point, and development, whereas movie accompaniment is more fragmented, and builds on common musical experience, usually popular, to evoke the right mood, and is restricted by the visuals.
Playing styles also differ quite a bit. E.g., theatre organs have all kinds of bells and whistles (literally), a complex registration system, and sometimes extra techniques such as a "second touch" which allows to play dynamic accents, which is almost impossible on church organs.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWswgz3vLaA
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62g9LT2Ezs0
"Here, passive consumption becomes active and creative: the performer reacts with individual spontaneity while summoning sounds of orchestral heft."
Everyone should get a chance to see a silent film projected in a theater to live accompaniment. When I was a teenager I was given that opportunity (even in Kansas City) for the silent, The Thief of Bagdad (1924). It was indeed magical.
https://archive.ph/l6RB2
I watched Po Zakonu (1926) with a modern, eerie electronic score and it made for a very distinct (and quite interesting) viewing experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycElt5k821Y [warning: sudden loud sound]
There is plenty of room for recontextualization of old silent films with alternative genres of music, which need not take away from the also excellent experience of listening to good organ music.
I watched a performance by Donnie Rankin on a classic Wurlitzer organ at Grand Rapids Public Museum in Michigan this past November.
https://tickets.grpm.org/events/01998223-5b9a-deac-f45e-f0d7...
My favorite pieces he played were the themes for Princess Leia and Star Trek TNG.
It’s an amazing instrument.
The trick is formula. Many improvisers do it.