The Organ Forum

Everyone is well aware of the ill will between E.P. Biggs and Virgil Fox. I wouldn't dream of asking who is considered the better organist since it would probably generate a heated (and probably inconclusive) discussion.

Instead, I am asking WHY is Fox regarded almost as a saint these days while Biggs is nearly forgotten? I have an extensive collection of the performances of both men and, 'though I prefer one over the other, I enjoy listening to both.

As always, your opinions (and reasons) would be most appreciated.

  

 

---

BOZ

Virgil was no saint by a long shot. He has active fan clubs that promote him for financial gain. Biggs not so--no ''Jimmy'' Biggs fan club. So it is a matter of active agents for Fox that are enriched by his fame monetarily.

You know, I'm honestly not sure.  I feel the same way about both of them, and like both pretty evenly (I do have a preference for Fox over Biggs, though it's slight.)  I think it has to do with two factors.  The first is the people who were their following.  E. Power Biggs was a traditionalist, and was a concert musician first.  He attracted the type of people that liked that.  Virgil Fox thumbed his nose at a lot of tradition (not all!), and attracted the people who liked that.  As a result, the people who were into the cult of personality and so forth followed Fox rather than Biggs, and when he died there was a group of people left who honored his memory and, as you said, almost regard him as a saint.  The second has to do with the early music revival movement: Biggs on the other hand, has been 'supplanted' by more modern traditionalists who do things even closer to 'Bach's original way' (quotes aren't meant to start arguements, just there because I'm sure we'll do some more research down the road that proves something different....again....) such as Ton Koopman, Sandra Soderlund and so on.  As a result, Fox is looked on as an innovator who did 'his own thing' while Biggs is looked upon as someone who isn't 'up-to-date'.

 

How fashion-conscious we organists are!    Along the same lines I remember reading in Whitney's book All the Stops about how an old Mr. Skinner attended an AGO convention and was ignored/shunned because everyone was interested in the new 'modern revival instruments' that were on display!

---

'It isn't that difficult. All one has to do is press all the right keys at the right time and the organ plays itself.'
Yeah RIGHT.

Pipedreamer:

... I remember reading in Whitney's book All the Stops about how an old Mr. Skinner attended an AGO convention and was ignored/shunned because everyone was interested in the new 'modern revival instruments' that were on display!

Whitney's book should be required reading for anyone interested in the American organ scene before and during the Biggs/Fox years.  Fascinating.  There are hefty chapters on both Biggs and Fox (the latter taken almost verbatim from The Dish, Ted Alan Worth's recollections of Fox) and I think the topic starter will find much of interest.  I certainly learned a great deal and gained a lot of respect for Biggs. 

Fox and Biggs were both towering figures, complex men to be sure, but great musicians.  I just wish The Dish contained more biographical info about Fox before Mr. Worth met him. 

 

I don't think of Fox as a saint.  Neither have I forgotten Biggs.

Biggs made a point to abandon the Romantic camp - he consciously chose to walk away from his friend G. Donald Harrison, just as he walked away from Aeolian-Skinner as the ideal organ.  He confined his world to the Orgelbewegung and the foundations of the Werkprinzip to the exclusion of all else.

When wiser heads in the organ world finally realized how extreme this movement was becoming, it became unfashionable (along with its most prominent champions).  By aligning himself so closely with these instruments you might say Biggs chose his undoing.  Nevertheless, Biggs was an extraordinarily fine performer, and it seems he was very sincere in his pursuits.

To me, Biggs was the intellect and Fox was the emotion/passion.  The ideal artist combines both elements ... Maria Callas comes to mind.

---

Soubasse32

I atteneded a midnite program 1971 New Years Eve at St George Episcopal in NYC by Power Biggs along with Brass and percussion and the entire performance was immaculate. Later I found an album of Biggs doing the heavy French on that same organ; the 1957 Moller by Ernest White. i was flabergasted coz I never knew Biggs could play other lit so incredibly well.

I attended in 1978 a gig by Virgil at NY Met Museum of Art. He played harpsichord, piano and a 2m ''pipsqueak'' Holtkamp unenclosed [ to quote Virgil offstage] and he was astounding. These revered greats earned their fame and could do anything musically. Their choice to follow one school versus another was a conscious one; not born of limited musical accumen, but a matter of preference, taste, natural inclination etc. They were equally talented keyboard artists that spoke from differing perspectives to different audiences. The world is better having had both as contemporaries and in the good ole USA at that.

soubasse32:

.

To me, Biggs was the intellect and Fox was the emotion/passion.  .

 SB32 I think you said it best.  If I want to hear absolute perfection I listen to Biggs.  If I want to be moved in an emotional/soul searching way I put on Fox. I try not to even compare the two men.

---

"The Organ is in truth the grandest, the most daring,
the most magnificent of all instruments invented by human genius."

I agree with SB32 and Don.  I have the original LP recording of The Glory of Gabrieli with E. Power Biggs in St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice, Italy.  It is incredible!  His multi-LP album The Organ in Sight and Sound was also very interesting, with many interesting historical instruments.  My favorite Virgil Fox recording is The Christmas Album, although Heavy Organ probably is more quintessential Fox.

David

The two are almost, if not, impossible to compare, I think Biggs generally went for smaller registrations (fewer stops, or at least, fewer loud stops) while fox was far mor liberal in his registrations, and went for the flash, whizz-bang factor whenever he could. When he wasn't being an incredible showoff and braggart, and when he felt like it, I think Fox could be just as intellectual a player as Biggs.

But, it isn't really fair for me to compare the two, I'm kind of biased towards Fox, and I've listened to more Fox than Biggs.

---

Once you can tie your arms into a pretzel and your legs into a knot, you've got it under control

Austin766:

The two are almost, if not, impossible to compare, I think Biggs generally went for smaller registrations (fewer stops, or at least, fewer loud stops) while fox was far mor liberal in his registrations, and went for the flash, whizz-bang factor whenever he could. When he wasn't being an incredible showoff and braggart, and when he felt like it, I think Fox could be just as intellectual a player as Biggs.

But, it isn't really fair for me to compare the two, I'm kind of biased towards Fox, and I've listened to more Fox than Biggs.

 

Virgil was a virtuoso. I attended many many live performances. This ''showoff'' thing is exaggerated. He did something along those lines in Japan after an enormous cycle of heavy Bach on a 5m Rieger pipe organ where he stood straight up on the pedals and waived with one hand and played with the other. Apart from that all performances I attended and they were many, Virgil played with feeling and captured nuances in the music that I feel no other has ever done be it Bach Franck Vierne Brahms Messian Purcell etc etc. The accusations that Virgil is a show off are largely false and emminate from talentless sources looking to draw attention to self at Virgils expense.

 

Biggs was ever the English gent and played wonderfully at all times. Two wonderful organists with differing talents contemporaneously. Stop comparing/ contrasting and accept that the organ scene had two wondrous music geniuses at the same time.

I'm not putting either organist down, but listen to the Widor on Virgil's "A Virgil Fox Organ Book" and tell me he wasn't showing off. He absolutely ruined the piece. Now, I know that Fox was a virtuoso, but I think sometimes his showmanship got in the way of the music.

---

Once you can tie your arms into a pretzel and your legs into a knot, you've got it under control

sesquialtera16:

. Stop comparing/ contrasting and accept that the organ scene had two wondrous music geniuses at the same time.

 

 

Only two?  

 

I went to hear Paul Jacobs live at the Arizona AGO Winter Conclave and oh my gosh.  I have never heard someone do what he did with an organ.  I think I'd place him right up there with the other two in terms of sheer skill and musicality.  I listen to everyone make comments about how wonderful these players are, and I think now I know what you mean.  He didn't plan an encore, and did the Bach fugue in D major from memory with no slips without having registered it beforehand!  He just checked out stops and fiddled with them as he went!  On an organ he probably had only seen for four hours at maximum!

Really floored me.  Even better, his Bach was as good as his Sowerby.


 

---

'It isn't that difficult. All one has to do is press all the right keys at the right time and the organ plays itself.'
Yeah RIGHT.

Austin766:

I'm not putting either organist down, but listen to the Widor on Virgil's "A Virgil Fox Organ Book" and tell me he wasn't showing off. He absolutely ruined the piece. Now, I know that Fox was a virtuoso, but I think sometimes his showmanship got in the way of the music.

 

You can bash Virgil all you like and I am not an apologist for him.I wouldnt play things his way. But when you are that good he has his reasons for performing the way he does. To say showmanship etc is to merely jump on a bandwagon of some dull people who couldnt play and found Virgil a nice target to get their names noticed.

I really was NOT asking who was the better performer (since that is a personal call, in many cases) but why Biggs is so far less acknowledged than Fox.

It appears that Biggs was immensely talented but limited his capabilities early in his career and, hence, had a limited following that eventually switched to even more traditional performers. Fox, on the other hand, was more experimental in his playing, putting his own interpretations on more traditional pieces, in order to attract interest in the organ. Intellect versus showmanship; both very talented but with different motivations.

Thank you, one and all, for your insight. You are all talented people who obviously have strong opinions. Just be nice to each other.

God bless you. 

---

BOZ

I think Biggs kind of limited his appeal somewhat by being such a proponent of trackers and period accurate playing of Bach and the like.

---

Once you can tie your arms into a pretzel and your legs into a knot, you've got it under control