PipeChat Digest #199 - Wednesday, January 14, 1998
 
Party Horn
  by Steskinner <Steskinner@aol.com>
Re: Organ Speaker Designs
  by Kevin Cartwright <kevin1@alaweb.com>
Re: I'm new in pipechat
  by Mark Quarmby <markq@mail.flex.com.au>
Re: sampling
  by Adam Levin <alevin@advance.net>
Re: Duct tape again!!
  by dmjd <jimdave@rnet.com>
Re: I'm new in pipechat
  by Bob Loesch <rrloesch@jps.net>
Re: Duct tape again!!
  by Bob Loesch <rrloesch@jps.net>
Re:  Imitating the Real Thing vs. pipe
  by dhowarth <dhowarth@worldnet.att.net>
An old music book...
  by Kevin Cartwright <kevin1@alaweb.com>
Jelani Eddington in Concert  (Cross Posted)
  by Bob and Sally Evans <orgnloft@Ma.ultranet.com>
Re: DO Voicing
  by Russ Greene <russg@cyberspc.mb.ca>
Howdy all!
  by Kevin M. Simons <Kevin.M.Simons-1@ou.edu>
Re: Imitating the Real Thing: electron. vs. pipe
  by MFulk70776 <MFulk70776@aol.com>
Pipes vs Electronics
  by KARL W KELLER <kwkeller@juno.com>
Re: Pipes vs Electronics
  by Rick Anderson <rickan19@IDT.NET>
Fwd:  Moller Available
  by The NE ORG <TheNEORG@aol.com>
Re: Pipes vs Electronics
  by Stanley Lowkis <nstarfil@mediaone.net>
Re: Pipes vs Electronics
  by Dr.Ed <epeterso@madison.tdsnet.com>
 


(back) Subject: Party Horn From: Steskinner <Steskinner@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:15:48 EST   In a message dated 98-01-10 19:16:04 EST, Jonathan writes:   << Well, I have heard several different names for Chamade reeds/high pressure solo reeds - Partyhorn, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (the kind that rob so much wind the rest of the WP sags ;-P ) Diesel Horn, Honker, Trumpet of Jesus - I think that is what Bruce means, isn't it? Anyone else hear/know of creative nicknames like the above?>> Now this is a great thread! I'm sure that some of the names are not really fit for public posting, such as the removeable drawknob face made for the A-S at the Kennedy Center, but here are some others:   Hosanna Horn Honk-a-phonic Tompette Enchilada Shoe Horn (a reference to the Crystal Cathedral's "Cor de Schuller")   Steven Skinner First Presbyterian Church of the Covenant Erie, PA  
(back) Subject: Re: Organ Speaker Designs From: Kevin Cartwright <kevin1@alaweb.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:33:52 -0600   Anderson W. Wacaser wrote: > > Kevin Cartwright wrote: > > > > Greg wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I've been following the speaker thread for a while and wanted to put in my > > > "2 cents worth". Based on recent postings, I've noticed a pattern > > > regarding speaker placement and sound dispersion. > > > > > > Firstly, our church Rodgers sounds 100% better since the speakers were > > > faced up and at differing angles to reflect the sound which supports > > > earlier observations. > > > > > > Secondly, reverb and slight chorusing really makes a big difference in the > > > overall enhancement and perception of spacial disbursement with the > > > speakers [We have two speaker "chambers" located about 25' off the floor on > > > the left and right sides of the front of the auditorium which gives a > > > fairly decent stereo spread]. > > > > > > Thirdly, as far as indirect "pipe resonance" goes; Conn experimented with > > > this concept in the 1970's in that, not only did the speakers produce the > > > sound they also reflected upwards, away from the listener and, most > > > importantly, "RESONATED" at the played pitch. I wonder if anyone else has > > > tried this and if so, what were the results / findings? Also, do you > > > electronic users feel that if this type of speaker / pipe configuration > > > were available today along with today's speaker technology, would you buy > > > them? [Boy, I can hear the computer keyboards now; If you were to use > > > simulated pipes, why not the "real thing" as they take up the same / > > > similar space (but not the tuning and winding, etc. maintenance / room real > > > pipes take up - GK.)]. > > > > > > Just a thought. Any others / ideas along these lines out there. I'd be > > > interested in your opinions / observations. > > > > > > Gregory F. Klingler > > > Organist - Gateway Cathedral Staten Island, NY > > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > > > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > > > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > > > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > > > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > > > About speakers pointing upward; I tried this with my home theater > > system, and was VERY pleased with the results. The sound, should I say, > > "filled up" the room. Of course, on my organ, all of the reed pipes > > resinate better because the only openings are at the top. I am not a > > big DO or EO fan, but this is what I have learned: If you have a way to > > reflect the sound, it can be better imposed on the audience than > > directly from the source. Here, there is a split-second delay from all > > directions that the brain can not really decipher, but knows it is > > there. This gives the "seemingly" better tone. This somple theory is > > now being incorperated into many new buildings that require acoustic > > excellence. Where I live, the newest and best theater has speakers > > behind the screen and on the walls that point UP, not down. > > > > Open minded, > > > > Kevin Cartwright > > Greenville, Alabama > > kevin1@alaweb.com > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > I had the exact opposite results in my home installation. I have a > Wurlitzer with 11 ranks in a single pipe chamber. When I added a couple > of electronic ranks, it was recommended to me that I place the speakers > in the overhead of the chamber facing down. That seemed > counterintuitive, so I pointed them up, which produced just ok results. > Pointing them down produced a big improvement. > > I think this just reinforces the fact that there are few pat answers in > acoustics. Getting good results often seems to hinge on a lot of > cut-and-try, superstition and dumb luck. > > Regards, Andy > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org   Like I said, when you reflect the sound, you can achieve better results. In the organ chamber, would't you want the volume control of the shaes anyway? Why not point them down?   Kevin kevin1@alaweb.com  
(back) Subject: Re: I'm new in pipechat From: markq@mail.flex.com.au (Mark Quarmby) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:51:20 +1000   Jerry McKinney in Texas wrote:   >Please Help,   >I was trying to receive Han-Dieter Karras's >Web Page when AOL knocked me off taking >his address with it.   I tried several times to access this web page and I was knocked off several times; once my browser even crashed. When I finally got on, only the first picture of the Madeleine loaded and I was unable to load any of the other images. As I played a recital in Hans-Dieter's church a couple of years ago, I thought I would take up his invitation to send an email and say hello, however this wouldn't work either and I had to go back to this list to get his address and send it conventionally using my email program.   Cheers,   Mark Quarmby in Sydney     Mark      
(back) Subject: Re: sampling From: Adam Levin <alevin@advance.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 08:50:57 -0500 (EST)   On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, John Balboni wrote: > A friend who was at the AIO conference in VA last year told me he heard talk > going around that "someone in the business" was working to provide sampled > T.O. sounds for the Alesis QSR-64. Nothing else is known at this writing. > I'm curious, as Alesis has a "Santuary Card" that has samples of classical > pipe sounds, chimes, piano, etc. which plugs into the QSR. So, would they > possibly be working on a "Theatre Organ Card"? Or is this just another > unfounded rumor ... Might motivate me to get a QSR-64 if they are, in-fact, > working on T.O. samples. A lot less $$ than the alternatives.   I own an Alesis QS8, which is the 88 weighted, piano action keys version of the QSR (no -64 on that). I also own the Sanctuary card. I have some demo samples (not great, but hey, they're free) at http://zen.advance.net/alesis/wavs.html that display some of the card. It is definitely *not* a replacement for a pipe organ, and it doesn't hold a candle to boxes like the Ahlborn-Galanti series, which give you individual stops and control over ensembles. It is passable as practice, and with effort you could come up with some attractive sounds.   The Alesis is not technically a sampler. You need a computer to manipulate samples and burn them via their included Soundbridge software onto a card in the synth. The QSR runs around $800 I believe and an 8MB FlashRAM card (the largest usable in the synth) runs around $150. You can fit quite a bit on an 8MB card.   A true sampler like a Kurzweil K2000 or K2500 is more expensive but much more powerful. There are already many sample libraries available for the Kurzweils, which require less work on your part. In addition, there's a decent pipe organ library (small and not individual stops -- just principal chorus) and there's a pretty big theatre organ library (also ensembles only). Of course, with work those libraries can be transferred to the Alesis.   The thing is that the Soundbridge software is not perfected yet. They are planning to come out with version 2.0 in a month or two which will be much more robust and allow keymaps, which are an important part of sampling.   If anyone has any other, more specific questions, feel free to email.   -Adam   Rutherford, NJ USA Free speech online!_/ http://zen.advance.net/~alevin/_______/ AH. DRAMA. <*> __________________________/ -O /    
(back) Subject: Re: Duct tape again!! From: dmjd <jimdave@rnet.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 07:51:19 -0600       Prestant16 wrote:   > What about PVC wind lines, that seems VERY good. It is easily cut and it is > not as lond as the flexable wind lines. It is also I THINK cheaper than the > GOOD (not aluminum foil) flexable ductwork. > > -William C. >   Exactly! PVC (what I so stupidly referred to as plastic) is much quieter, more rigid and certainly more econimical. Joints are sealed better, and no seams to fuss with. I learned to appreciate it by working on Wicks organs. (Any Wicks people out there care to comment?)   I've also worked on organs constructed with CARDBOARD wind lines. Major company. Works fine (until one is knocked loose). Easily repaired. Certainly wouldn't advocate its use today. Not because it did not work well, but because there are better products today.   Organ building is an evolutionary process, from the first hydrolus to what is being built today. We must not be too quick to cut down someone else's place in this process, and that includes PVC papflex and duct tape. Jimmy D   > "Rainbow Ridge Farm   Plainville Illinois          
(back) Subject: Re: I'm new in pipechat From: Bob Loesch <rrloesch@jps.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 08:50:37 -0800   At 23:30 1/12/98 EST, you wrote: >Please Help, > >I was trying to receive Han-Dieter Karras's >Web Page when AOL knocked me off taking >his Address With it. > >Does anyone have it. I would very much >appreciate having it. > >Thanks, > > Here it is:   HDKarras@aol.com   Regards,   Bob        
(back) Subject: Re: Duct tape again!! From: Bob Loesch <rrloesch@jps.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 08:48:18 -0800   At 22:26 1/12/98 EST, Prestant16 wrote: >What about PVC wind lines, that seems VERY good. It is easily cut and it is >not as lond as the flexable wind lines. It is also I THINK cheaper than the >GOOD (not aluminum foil) flexable ductwork. >   Hi, List!   I would rather have PVC wind lines than ANY TYPE OF FLEX.   Regards,   Bob        
(back) Subject: Re: Imitating the Real Thing vs. pipe From: "dhowarth" <dhowarth@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:21:39 -0600   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD2015.6AF539E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   List,   Karl E. Moyer has made some valid points regarding "real" vs. "fake". = But, while I have continually stated my preference for a "real" pipe = organ, I must point out that both the Chalice and the Organ are, to my = understanding, adjuncts to worship, not worship itself. =20   So, depending upon my earthly circumstances, I may make decisions to use = other than what some consider to be the "real thing" in providing music = and the fixtures for other parts of a worship service - I may even meet = in a school or some other temporary building, certainly not the "real = thing".   When one gets away from the worship service, while I still would prefer = a pipe organ, I have made a decision to have an electronic organ in my = home - where I do most of my playing.   I made that conscious decision based on several factors: 1. My wife could live with it and that is important to me. 2. It is a better instrument than that in most of the churches for = which I have played. [You lucky guys with big rich churches and nice = organs will probably make a different decision.] 3. I can get a more versatile instrument that satisfies my need not = just for practice, but many times to just unwind and produce beautiful = music - for lots less money. 4. My piano is a 60 year old 4' 6" petite baby grand - I'd also like to = have the "real thing", a 9' concert grand, preferably a Blutner or = Steinway or ... 5. Etc.   I readily admit that the Pipe Organ is the "real thing", despite having = heard some, the sound of which I do NOT LIKE [but that's another = thread]. Living, however, in the real world, I must make decisions = based on factors other than my preferences.   Dave Howarth   ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD2015.6AF539E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD>   <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>List,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Karl E. Moyer has made some valid = points=20 regarding &quot;real&quot; vs. &quot;fake&quot;.&nbsp; But, while I have =   continually stated my preference for a &quot;real&quot; pipe organ, I = must point=20 out that both the Chalice and the Organ are, to my understanding, = adjuncts to=20 worship, not worship itself.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>So, depending upon my earthly = circumstances, I=20 may make decisions to use other than what some consider to be the = &quot;real=20 thing&quot; in providing music and the fixtures for other parts of a = worship=20 service - I may even meet in a school or some other temporary building,=20 certainly not the &quot;real thing&quot;.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>When one gets away from the worship = service,=20 while I still would prefer a pipe organ, I have made a decision to have = an=20 electronic organ in my home - where I do most of my = playing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I made that conscious decision based on several=20 factors:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>1.&nbsp; My wife could live with it and that is = important to=20 me.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>2.&nbsp; It is a better instrument than that in most = of the=20 churches for which I have played.&nbsp; [You lucky guys with big rich = churches=20 and nice organs will probably make a different decision.]</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>3.&nbsp; I can get a more versatile instrument that = satisfies=20 my need not just for practice, but many times to just unwind and produce =   beautiful music - for lots less money.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>4.&nbsp; My piano is a 60 year old 4' 6&quot; petite = baby=20 grand - I'd also like to have the &quot;real thing&quot;, a 9' concert = grand,=20 preferably a Blutner or Steinway or ...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>5.&nbsp; = Etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I readily admit that the Pipe Organ is the = &quot;real=20 thing&quot;, despite having heard some, the sound of which I do NOT LIKE = [but=20 that's another thread].&nbsp; Living, however, in the real world, I must = make=20 decisions based on factors other than my preferences.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dave Howarth</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>   ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD2015.6AF539E0--    
(back) Subject: An old music book... From: Kevin Cartwright <kevin1@alaweb.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:29:54 -0600   I went to the "Red Barn," an old junk store in town, a few months ago, and found a collection of organ pieces for pipe organ. It is now browned with age, the pages are seperated, and the staples are solid rust. The edges are freyed, but the ink is still dark and heavy, like they did it in the "good ole days." The pieces can be played on an organ with pedals any number of manuals. It has the following pieces:   "Matins" A. Graham "Prelude in F" W. Haynes "Moderato" A.J. Greenish "Andante" N. Heins "Full Voluntary" J.E. Newell "Prelude" A. Carnall "Andante" A.J. Greenish "Allegretto Pomposo" J.E. Newell "Melody in E" W. Haynes "Melody" N. Heins "Minuet" A. Carnall "Finale - March" Udden   The origional price was 75 cents, but I obviously got a bargain at 25 cents. However, I had never thought to look at the copywright date until yesterday. This book was published White-Smith Music Publishing Company in 1896!   This collection is No. 12 in the "Universal Series"...Volume 1. If anyone might have another volume, I was wondering if they would be interested in selling it. But, mine is not for sale. And, if you might like a copy of a piece, now that the copywright is void, I am going to see how the Xerox machine takes it. So, send your address, and I will see about getting the piece to you.   These are nice pieces. The main organist in church and I have played them before. Keep in mind, these pieces are do NOT sound very well on the electric or digital organ. The pipe organ only does justice to this wonderful, old piece of history.   For now,   Kevin Cartwright Greenville, AL  
(back) Subject: Jelani Eddington in Concert (Cross Posted) From: orgnloft@Ma.ultranet.com (Bob and Sally Evans) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:48:44 -0500 (EST)       Dear Listers,   That magnificent young theatre organist, Jelani Eddington, will appear in concert at the Eastern Massachusetts Chapter of the American Theatre Organ Society's (EMCATOS) Mighty Wurlitzer Theatre Pipe Organ (4/18) this Saturday evening at 8:00 in Richard Knight Auditorium, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.   Jelani will offer something for everyone's taste. He is one of the premiere theatre organists on today's concert circuit. Don't miss this one! Bring a friend...They'll thank you for it!   Tickets are available at the door.   Bob Evans   Bob's Wurlitzer Loft Swansea, MA Home of "Rochelle" the RJ-12 Wurlitzer Pipe Organ      
(back) Subject: Re: DO Voicing From: Russ Greene <russg@cyberspc.mb.ca> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 98 19:38:22 -0600   >Couple of years ago, I bought a digital piano for club dates (NEVER buy the >home models, they're overpriced and under-able, IM-not-so-HO) I knew what I >wanted. I got 32-note polyphony, a good sound for club dates (stands up to >the guitar), and the best digital action on the market (again, IMO) All this >for $1,000 US. For twice the money, I could have gotten more polyphony, >ability to edit voices, sequencer etc etc etc. I didn't need any of >those, so >I made a value decision. IMO a very good one.   Charles, What digital piano did you buy?   Thanks, Russ  
(back) Subject: Howdy all! From: "Kevin M. Simons" <Kevin.M.Simons-1@ou.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:33:13 -0600   Howdy everybody in PipeChat land!   Its been a long time since I was a member of Pipeorg-L, but I'm glad to be back on a list with some organ friends.   Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm 19, and a voice major at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. I also play the organ, and currently am soloist at McFarlin Methodist here in Norman. I'm originally from Pinckney, MI (north of Ann Arbor). I love all things organ and choral. I love learning new things, and I'm really happy that I have the time to be back on a list.   I look forward to talking with all of you,   Kevin M. Simons   "Bach gave us God's word, Mozart gave us God's laughter, Beethoven gave us God's fire...God gave us music that we might pray without words"  
(back) Subject: Re: Imitating the Real Thing: electron. vs. pipe From: MFulk70776 <MFulk70776@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:35:24 EST   In a message dated 98-01-13 00:00:43 EST, you write:   << We organists have the opportunity to stand apart from the quick-fix society that substitutes disposables for things of greater permanence. We have the opportunity to teach that society something about value, higher perception, and more refined beauty, including as these impact on our understanding of and witness to God. Giving 'em what they want does not necessarily accomplish this; in fact, sometimes it works against this. Which will we seek to do? >> This post is, to me, the vey soul of sophistry, and is a veritable taxonomy of pleonasms and tautologies I certainly respect the intentions of the author which appear to pure, but have about as much relation to PO's and EO's, as skunk cabbages have to red ants,.  
(back) Subject: Pipes vs Electronics From: kwkeller@juno.com (KARL W KELLER) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:05:41 EST   Hi List,   In the past weeks a lot has been posted on the above subject. I have been wondering what the feeling would be if the electronic organ had been invented before the pipe organ. After everyone had become accustomed to hearing electronic organs in churches, concert halls, theaters, etc. I would suspect that the invention of the pipe organ would be very upsetting to some people who would refuse to accept a "wind blown" organ as a substitute for their dearly beloved "electronics".   Think about this.   Karl Musica est Dei donum optimi  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipes vs Electronics From: Rick Anderson <rickan19@IDT.NET> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:34:48 -0800   Karl -   Nice post. A new thought after all the rehashing.   RICK   At 10:05 PM 1/13/98 EST, you wrote: >Hi List, > >In the past weeks a lot has been posted on the above subject. I have >been wondering what the feeling would be if the electronic organ had been >invented before the pipe organ. After everyone had become accustomed to >hearing electronic organs in churches, concert halls, theaters, etc. I >would suspect that the invention of the pipe organ would be very >upsetting to some people who would refuse to accept a "wind blown" organ >as a substitute for their dearly beloved "electronics". > >Think about this. > >Karl >Musica est Dei donum optimi > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > >  
(back) Subject: Fwd: Moller Available From: The NE ORG <TheNEORG@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:46:44 EST   Available immediately, 2m Moller Artiste, 3 ranks, good condition, cabinet 6'7" tall; 7'9" wide; 2'5" deep; attached console. Must be moved before the end of January, at which time the price will increase. Contact the Organ Clearing House, PO Box 104 Harrisville NH 03450, 603/827-3055; FAX 603/827-3750; E-mail 103202.2212@compuserve.com     Len Levasseur The Northeast Organist tneorg@aol.com PO Box 747 http://www.tneorg.com Lawrence, MA 01842-1547 Fax:1-508-970-1133 Phone: 1-800-841-4030    
(back) Subject: Re: Pipes vs Electronics From: Stanley Lowkis <nstarfil@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:51:24 -0500   KARL W KELLER wrote: > > Hi List, > > In the past weeks a lot has been posted on the above subject. I have > been wondering what the feeling would be if the electronic organ had been > invented before the pipe organ. After everyone had become accustomed to > hearing electronic organs in churches, concert halls, theaters, etc. I > would suspect that the invention of the pipe organ would be very > upsetting to some people who would refuse to accept a "wind blown" organ > as a substitute for their dearly beloved "electronics". > > Think about this.   Electronic organs of all types can be fairly compared to each other. They are capable of sound qualities that cannot be duplicated by any other instrument, including the pipe organ. Many achieve with varying degrees of success the ability to sound like a pipe organ. Pipe organs of various types are judged for what they are within their respective categories. The electronic organ world can explore additional 'new' voices that cannot be achieved on OTHER instruments such as banjos, drums, pianos, pipe organs, guitars, trumpets...   I like apples, oranges, peaches, pears... I'll leave it to some of our opinionated list members to throw fruit at each other. I'll just eat all of the fruit that has not gotten rotten like some of the postings.   Bon Appetite! Stan Lowkis  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipes vs Electronics From: epeterso@madison.tdsnet.com (Dr.Ed) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:49:27 -0500   On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:05:41 EST, kwkeller@juno.com (KARL W KELLER) wrote:   >In the past weeks a lot has been posted on the above subject. I have >been wondering what the feeling would be if the electronic organ had been >invented before the pipe organ. After everyone had become accustomed to >hearing electronic organs in churches, concert halls, theaters, etc. I >would suspect that the invention of the pipe organ would be very >upsetting to some people who would refuse to accept a "wind blown" organ >as a substitute for their dearly beloved "electronics". > >Think about this.   Interesting. Albeit I see little immediate hope for most electronic instruments - a relatively recent invention - when, after 150 years and more, the 'lowly' reed organ still suffers an odious comparison to what it is NOT rather than being appreciated for what it IS.   Methinks the upstarts should begin developing some patience. ~_^   Dr.Ed ROS