For almost 70 years Harald Vogel (b.1941) has been on a mission, working tirelessly at shaping and sharing his profound understanding of historical north German organ culture. With countless publications, sound and video recordings, organ restorations and consultation, honours and prizes, and teaching engagements to his credit, his name is synonymous with the organ culture he has pioneered.

Now in his 82nd year, and with long-range hindsight, he reflects on the early scene and experiences that made his distinguished career possible. ‘I was, by sheer coincidence, born within cycling distance of historic organs, such as the wonderful Arp Schnitger organ from 1693/4 in Grasberg, near Bremen. In the middle of the 1950s I met Franz Lengemann [19262000], principally a clavichord builder with connections in the pioneering scene. Among the leaders then was the French organist and clavichordist Charles Letestu [190282], a student of Alfred Cortot and, in the late 1920s, organist at the famous abbey of Solesmes. He came to Hamburg as a friend of Rudolph von Beckerath. Letestu was among the first to develop the foundation of a playing technique based on the clavichord. That influenced me early on. His method was not historical, rather it was newly created. I should also mention that I began employing early fingerings in the late 1950s. The first information I received on that topic came from the Baroque violinist Sol Babitz [1911-82]. He was of Russian origin and lived in California. He had learned the Geminiani technique in the early 1940s at the suggestion of Igor Stravinsky, and he told me that the appropriate fingering for keyboard instruments is as important as bowing for strings and tonguing for woodwind instruments.

Other influencers in the 50s were the young organ builders Jürgen Ahrend [b.1930] and Gerhard Brunzema [192792]. They began restoring historic organs in Ostfriesland [East Frisia] according to the early building style and were the first to tune historic instruments in meantone. That was an absolute sensation! I remember in 1955 my first visit to the freshly restored meantone organ in Westerhusen [Ostfriesland] from 1642/3. That was a shock to one’s aesthetic self-understanding. Playing, I noticed immediately something perfectly appropriate for the music, yet at the same time completely different: the purity of harmonies, the simplicity of triads that suddenly seemed imbued with their own distinct character, each becoming a musical event. Hearing this, I thought, “Now I’ve finally heard an organ,” and I doubted if I’d ever really heard one before.’

Among Vogel's chief vehicles for sharing his work is his North German Organ Academy, which started in the late 1960s. He explains: ‘The organ academy offered the opportunity for students and teachers alike not only to engage with this music, but also to practise and perform on original and reconstructed instruments. This is still possible. The interest was also greatly awakened through my recordings. The participants, naturally, went back to their respective homes saying, “We need instruments like these.”’

I remark how influential his work has been globally, particularly in Asia, and wonder when Asian students first arrived at the academy. ‘They came in 1972 as a direct result of my 12-part 1969 recording series about Arp Schnitger organs for Radio Bremen. These recordings were streamed worldwide due to Radio Bremen’s international exchange programme. The series was taken up by 50 radio broadcasters, among them the [former] Soviet Union and USA – entirely unthinkable today. The series ran in 1971 in Japan, and the very next summer a bus arrived with Japanese guests wishing to see and hear the historic organs. This was a turning point.’

Countless organists were, and still are, keen to study abroad with Harald Vogel. His studio is the sweeping landscape of historic organs, not those of one city or institution alone. In that vast studio a world of organists was formed, a global family of performers and scholars. ‘It is interesting that in the first phase of my work, 85 percent of the students and academy participants came from outside Germany. The first were from all over Europe (the Netherlands, France, Italy, Scandinavia, etc.), Japan and America. The German students came a bit later. One must note that, especially among the Americans, the orientation and interest was strongly academic. It is of course the responsibility of academia to present the models that later will be used in practice.’

Harald Vogel at the 1981 meantone organ by Charles Fisk at Wellesley College, Massachusetts – a project for which Vogel served as adviser © MATTHEW PROVOST

Vogel’s scholarly editions, most for Breitkopf & Härtel, include the works of Nicolaus Bruhns, Dieterich Buxtehude, Vincent Lübeck, Jacob Wilhelm Lustig, Samuel Scheidt, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck and Michael Johann Friedrich Wiedeburg. Congratulating him on his newest release, volumes 1-3 (of 5) of his complete Buxtehude edition, I ask about his editorial philosophy. ‘My philosophy has been to focus on the source edition concept. In the 20th century editors altered original sources to align the scores with modern performance practices. In the 70s and 80s a tendency toward systematisation emerged. By this is meant that, for example, each slightly different entry in a fugue would be “corrected” so that all entries are the same. Figuration, so prevalent in this style, was also subjected to systematic equalisation. The result of this so-called Innere Textkritik [internal textual criticism] is in my opinion a falsification. We need editions that provide unaltered versions of the originals.’

There remains much that Vogel hopes yet to offer. ‘I’m working toward assembling my entire 50-plus years of work (writings and recordings) in one virtually accessible space. The newest development in my work is what I call “model videos” or “teaching videos” [ Lehrvideos ] in which all aspects of interpretation will be presented and discussed as part of a live lecture performance by me. We use a four-camera and split-screen approach, allowing the viewer to see clearly as well as hear all that is presented.’

Our conversation continues with a discussion of the unexplored, and areas where more work remains to be done. His response is remarkable, presenting some provocative new ideas. ‘One aspect of our art that has yet to find its ideal mode of transmission is the teaching of improvisation – something I’ve always done in teaching and performing. My Sweelinck recording [winner of Germany’s highest award, the Echo Klassik prize 2012] on the Slegel/Scherer Renaissance organ in Lemgo, Germany, includes a lengthy improvisation. Improvisation remains under-researched. In practice, of course, there are many who do it wonderfully. The big question – how does one improvise in historical styles? – needs further examination because we presently have a false understanding.

Vogel grew up within cycling distance of the 1693/4 Schnitger organ in Grasberg, near Bremen © DENNIS WUBS/WIKIMEDIA

The meantone organ of Westerhusen by Joest Sieborg (1642/43), restored by Ahrend und Brunzema in 1955 © DUCHESS ANNA AMALIA LIBRARY, WEIMAR/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

In almost every publication on the matter it is suggested that the near entirety of organ playing by important organists in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries was improvisation. But we simply do not know when organists improvised and when they played repertoire. However, we can conclude that performing repertoire was done, as a rule, from memory. Scores served as vehicles of transmission to facilitate memorisation. There is a body of evidence suggesting that the great composers always played repertoire from memory. Many of the witnesses who shared accounts of hearing organ music were likely unable to distinguish between repertoire playing and improvisation, or even a mixture of the two practices. I am convinced that the existing repertoire was performed from memory. The method for learning music was first to read the score, second to memorise it, and third to practise at an instrument. Organists practised from memory. This is why clavichords and harpsichords had no music desks. And this is entirely different from our modern way of studying organ music.’

At the close of our time together, Vogel shares a fascinating theory. ‘I am reminded of the famous encounter in 1722 between Bach and Johann Adam Reincken in Hamburg. We now know that Bach copied out Reincken’s famous large-scale chorale fantasia An Wasserflüssen Babylon during his early studies from 1700-02 with Georg Bӧhm in Lüneburg. In copying the piece, Bach would also have memorised it. Therefore, rather than improvising afresh on the chorale theme when playing for Reincken, Bach surely played Reincken’s own piece, memorised two decades earlier! Bach might not have played the piece exactly as written, but surely could easily have improvised what he didn’t remember, perhaps resulting in a blending of repertoire playing and improvisation. This point – my present research interest – revolves around an aesthetic and mental problem organists wrestle with today: the desire to play repertoire note-perfectly from scores. This unhistorical approach was not part of 16th and 17th-century practice.’

Reflecting on my 30 years of engagement with Harald Vogel, I recall how each encounter leaves one with something new to ponder, a new lead to follow, or a new way to consider an idea. Surely this is a hallmark of the pioneer: the preternatural quality of infusing each encounter with one’s own infectious intellectual curiosity. In continually sharing his wealth of ideas with the world through performing, teaching and recording, Harald Vogel remains the single most influential global voice in historical north German organ art.