PipeChat Digest #406 - Sunday, June 7, 1998
 
[organbuilder] Electricorgan (fwd)
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
(no subject)
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
Electricorgan
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
Re: YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
Lead.
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
[organbuilder] Lead. (fwd)
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
[organbuilder] (no subject) (fwd)
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
Re: [organbuilder] Electricorgan (fwd)
  by "Peggy C. Bie" <peggyb@gate.net>
Re: Lead.
  by <DEMPAR1@aol.com>
Expedience vs Aesthetics (was: Pipe vs Electronic)
  by "Barry Jordan" <Barry.Jordan@t-online.de>
Re: Lead.
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@stlnet.com>
Re: Expedience vs Aesthetics (was: Pipe vs Electronic)
  by "bruce cornely" <cremona84000@webtv.net>
English red-plastic tubing  was:Re: Lead.
  by "Ron Yost" <musik@tcsn.net>
Re: English red-plastic tubing  was:Re: Lead.
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
a sad note....off topic and cross-posted
  by "Monty Bennett" <rmb10@mindspring.com>
Re: Expedience vs Aesthetics (was: Pipe vs Electronic)
  by <FireAlarmz@aol.com>
?
  by "Jenny Moon" <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>
Re: appearance vs sound
  by "Mac Hayes" <mach37@ptw.com>
Re: English red-plastic tubing  was:Re: Lead.
  by "Ron Yost" <musik@tcsn.net>
 


(back) Subject: [organbuilder] Electricorgan (fwd) From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 14:54:36 BST       Forwarded Message: From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 14:50:47 BST Subject: [organbuilder] Electricorgan To: organbuilder@onelist.com   From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>     Hello all.   Is anybody interested in the list for electric organ builders and enthusiasts.   I created the list because subscribers prefered lists dedicated to either pipe organ building or electronic organ building, but not both.   The pipe organ building list is doing fine, but there hasn't been much response about the electric list.   If anybody is interested, please let me know and I will send you the info.   Jen.   bfus7@central.sussex.ac.uk      
(back) Subject: From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:32:16 BST     And another thing!   Much of the pipework has been pierced at the feet. This has obviously been done by the tuner to stop wimpers. They seem to have attacked the callico on the bottom of the soundboards too to reduce wind pressure. Is this normall practice, or has this been done by a cowboy who can't be bothered to take of the face board and clean the pallet.   Thats as aggressive as I get!   Jen.      
(back) Subject: Electricorgan From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 14:50:47 BST     Hello all.   Is anybody interested in the list for electric organ builders and enthusiasts.   I created the list because subscribers prefered lists dedicated to either pipe organ building or electronic organ building, but not both.   The pipe organ building list is doing fine, but there hasn't been much response about the electric list.   If anybody is interested, please let me know and I will send you the info.   Jen.   bfus7@central.sussex.ac.uk      
(back) Subject: Re: YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 12:33:11 BST           On Sat, 6 Jun 1998 14:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Stanley E Yoder wrote:   > From: Stanley E Yoder <syoder+@andrew.cmu.edu> > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 14:00:16 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! > To: pipechat@pipechat.org > > Excerpts from mail: 6-Jun-98 YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! by Jenny > Moon@central.susx. > > I am now subscribed to PIPCHAT-L. > > Ummm, Jenny: earlier it was PIPORG-L you said you couldn't get on. Now > you talk about PIP[E]CHAT (which DOES have an E). > > Are you pulling our leg? Do you exist, kettle notwithstanding? :-) > Stan Yoder > Pittsburgh > > "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 >   Sorry.   I was trying to get onto PIPORG-L, which I have succeeded in doing. Did I type pipechat? Sorry, that was a typing error, lack of concentration.   I am offended that you think I don't exist. I am not pulling you leg:)   Jen. (who exists fully)   Gosh, don't we all make typing errors at times!:)          
(back) Subject: Lead. From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:26:31 BST     Greetings once again.   I have already mentioned today that I am assisting with some repairs to an organ. Its mainly leather work, ie, power motors, purses etc.   Another problem that we are looking into are some pedal notes that are not working. The pedals are pneumatic. From the rear of the pedal board to the pedal sound board which is situated at the rear of the organ, there is all the lead tubing running across the floor. It hasn't been layed at all neatly and much of it is tangled and has collapsed under its own weight or cracked, hence the wind aint getting through and the notes are not playing.   It has been suggested that the tubing be fully replaced with plastic tubing. The reasons for this is that it will be cheaper to buy plastic than it would be to buy lead, and that there won't be the problem with collapsed tubing and cracks. I have seen many organs where the tubing has been replaced with plastic, normally an awful looking, bright red stuff. It doesn't look as attractive or as professional, but it seems to do the job.   Are there any reasons why plastic tubing wouldn't do the job just as well as lead.   Thanks for any advice.   Jen.      
(back) Subject: [organbuilder] Lead. (fwd) From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:33:58 BST       Forwarded Message: From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:26:31 BST Subject: [organbuilder] Lead. To: organbuilder@onelist.com   From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>     Greetings once again.   I have already mentioned today that I am assisting with some repairs to an organ. Its mainly leather work, ie, power motors, purses etc.   Another problem that we are looking into are some pedal notes that are not working. The pedals are pneumatic. From the rear of the pedal board to the pedal sound board which is situated at the rear of the organ, there is all the lead tubing running across the floor. It hasn't been layed at all neatly and much of it is tangled and has collapsed under its own weight or cracked, hence the wind aint getting through and the notes are not playing.   It has been suggested that the tubing be fully replaced with plastic tubing. The reasons for this is that it will be cheaper to buy plastic than it would be to buy lead, and that there won't be the problem with collapsed tubing and cracks. I have seen many organs where the tubing has been replaced with plastic, normally an awful looking, bright red stuff. It doesn't look as attractive or as professional, but it seems to do the job.   Are there any reasons why plastic tubing wouldn't do the job just as well as lead.   Thanks for any advice.   Jen.      
(back) Subject: [organbuilder] (no subject) (fwd) From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:33:33 BST       Forwarded Message: From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 20:32:16 BST Subject: [organbuilder] (no subject) To: organbuilder@onelist.com   From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk>     And another thing!   Much of the pipework has been pierced at the feet. This has obviously been done by the tuner to stop wimpers. They seem to have attacked the callico on the bottom of the soundboards too to reduce wind pressure. Is this normall practice, or has this been done by a cowboy who can't be bothered to take of the face board and clean the pallet.   Thats as aggressive as I get!   Jen.      
(back) Subject: Re: [organbuilder] Electricorgan (fwd) From: "Peggy C. Bie" <peggyb@gate.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 11:47:57 -0400   Yes, Jenny. I'd like to try the electric organ list for awhile - something I know nothing about. Peggy -- Rev. Peggy C. Bie "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." -Anais Nin http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1095  
(back) Subject: Re: Lead. From: <DEMPAR1@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 12:02:20 EDT   You should be able to use plastic tubing successfully provided you use the right material. Rubber tubing such as used on medical equipment is usually not a good substitute because it becomes soft over time and also cracks. I suggest that you use tubing manufactured for pneumatic air conditioning controls in commercial buildings. There are several types but I have had best results with teflon type that is non-kink. There are also barbed fittings made to work with the tubing, so that you eliminate the need for unsighty worm clamps, silicon and the things that ruin an installation.  
(back) Subject: Expedience vs Aesthetics (was: Pipe vs Electronic) From: Barry.Jordan@t-online.de (Barry Jordan) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 19:12:36 +0200   Hello all.   HDKarras schrieb   and I'm responding because Hans Karras is a really good organist (and an imaginative composer: I heard his 2nd? Symphony a while back and enjoyed it very much)   > Barry Jordan wrote the old arguments against the computer organ. Sure. There'll never be any new arguments, but the problem is that the playing fields aren't level, because on the one hand one is trying to argue from aesthetic intangibles, on the other from expedience. There's nothing against expedience, but it must be clear that that is what it is. > At this time we have much other problems, so is the "cost-effectiveness" > debate very actual. Perhaps in my Country church, the lutheran church > of Brunswick (near Hanover in Northern Germany) hath many stupid tracker > organs from the early 50s in bad condition. To make restauration for this > instrument the congreagtions must pay about 300.000,- DM. Tell me about it. Most of these instruments shouldn't be restored, because it's not worth the money. >Often is better to buy meanwhile a computer organ for 60.000,- DM with good >sound and> best condition. I play a good Johannus Organ as choir organ in the gothic> choir> in my lutheran church St.Ulrici in Brunswick and be very glad about this > instrument. In your beautiful church!! Just a question: is there anything else in your church that comes out of a box (except perhaps a kettle in the vestry for Jenny Moon)? Isn't this an aesthetic problem? I have an Allen in the winter church (Remter) of Magdeburg Cathedral too. It is better than the currently unusable zinc and plywood Schuke organ (1949) which stands in the same room, there is no question about that. The Schuke organ also needs repairs costing about a quarter of a million marks, which it isn't going to get if I've got anything to do with it, because it isn't worth it. (The problem: it's a regular, official "Denkmal!" - listed historical monument.) But: I still hate the Allen, even if I hate it a little less than I hate the Schuke. > Also we recorded with choir and a Johannus Digital Organ and sounds great. > Not every is tracker the only and best thing!!! Sometimes digital organs sound just fine on recordings (except for those mixtures, which never sound realistic, they're a dead giveaway). This is partly because they always sound a bit like recordings anyway! You can have as many speakers as you like, you still hear that they're speakers, and if they're arranged so as to "squirt from the walls" (thanks Bruce! - incidentally, do you ever sleep?) it's even worse, because no organ does that.   My point was that trying to argue for real organs by using cost-effectiveness as a basis is pointless. Digital organs are fairly cheap, they don't normally need much maintenance if any, and if they break, you just do the Jen's kettle thing. Pipe organs do need looking after, and that costs a few thousand a year just to (cone-)tune a smallish instrument once annually. You need to throw away quite a lot of electronics to compete with that. The real arguments are aesthetic ones and as such are probably not comprehensible to many or even most people. The fact is: organ building is an art, and the manufacture of digitals is an industry. If we lose sight of the difference, heaven help us.   We've all heard the arguments: "In this time of global need...". OK. But read Matthew 26.6-13. Funny that the same people who find it irresponsible to build proper organs to the glory of God when a third of the world is starving are often the same ones who are perfectly prepared to spend the gross national product of a small third world country on a motor car to the glory of BMW. Not many of those cars would buy you a choir organ and solve my problems too. Then comes the real clincher: "Jesus never needed an organ at all." True. Nor a church, nor paid clergy, nor drive a car or use the railways.   We can nail a poster of a van Gogh to the wall. It looks good. Or we can go and look at a real one, and be astonished by its beauty.   And as to tracker: OK. Bad tracker is a nuisance when playing Dupré. Good tracker is heaven. That's another issue, really. I was just being provocative.   Cheers Barry    
(back) Subject: Re: Lead. From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@stlnet.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 12:49:48 -0500 (CDT)   At 08:26 PM 6/6/98 BST, Jenny Moon wrote:   >I have already mentioned today that I am assisting with some repairs >to an organ. Its mainly leather work, ie, power motors, purses etc.   >It has been suggested that the tubing be fully replaced with plastic >tubing. The reasons for this is that it will be cheaper to buy >plastic than it would be to buy lead, and that there won't be the >problem with collapsed tubing and cracks. I have seen many organs >where the tubing has been replaced with plastic, normally an awful >looking, bright red stuff. It doesn't look as attractive or as >professional, but it seems to do the job. > >Are there any reasons why plastic tubing wouldn't do the job just as >well as lead.   It depends how long you want the repairs to last. Plastics all tend to oxidise in the air and have a tendency to develop various kinds of "plastic plague" such as becoming friable or turning to chewing gum, depending on the plastic. I have rarely seen plastic tubing in organs lasting more than twenty years, though I suspect your existing lead tubing has lasted fifty years or more.   If the organ is in a Church of England church another consideration is that a faculty ought to be obtained to make changes to an instrument, and I suspect most diocesan advisors would not permit the use of plastic, though in many cases they do not get asked and such changes get made illegally. Replacement lead tubing can be obtained from Lauckhuff in Germany and other organ supply houses. Your local organbuilder may be able to supply you with some.   The only situation where there may be some advantage in using plastic tubing is in very small lengths in offset chests on electro-pneumatic action organs where the pouch is tubed to the primary. Here plastic is flexible and makes it easier to get the pouchboard in and out of the chest. Also the lengths are short and the extent of the tubing is small, so that it is less trouble to replace it frequently.   John.    
(back) Subject: Re: Expedience vs Aesthetics (was: Pipe vs Electronic) From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 14:00:53 -0400   Thanks for the ackngmnt (re "squirting organs"), and I did sleep once, but I don't remember anything about it!   I do recall, however, with regard to the "feeding the poor" issue, having a similar conversation in a parish meeting when the minister said that if we had aluminum siding, a tape system for music, and projector instead of hymnals that we would have more money to feed the poor. My question for him was, "What poor? Oh, you mean the people who paint wood siding, organists who used to play in churches, people who used to build and service pipe organs, and printers/binders who used to make hymnals??" All of a sudden, the committee members became attentive too!   bruce o h s __________ a g o cornely o o __________ o o ........... cremona84000@webtv.net ...........    
(back) Subject: English red-plastic tubing was:Re: Lead. From: Ron Yost <musik@tcsn.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 10:23:21 -0700   I know the 'red' plastic tubing Jen is referring to .. its widely used in England for tubing on Fairground Organs too (another of my Passions!).   While I was in England in 1986 touring the Steam Rallies, every Fair Organ I saw was fitted with the tubing .. old organs and new ones.   It is completely unlike any tubing we have available over here in the U.S. It is thin-wall, and is made in several sizes which 'telescope' within the next size .. very handy, except for the awful hot-pink-cerise color! Ick!!! I wish we had a source for it though. Perhaps Jenny knows of a distributor in England which will ship it overseas??   In Fairgroud Organs, the plastic tubing is used to tube-up all of the action and pipe chests. There is no need for brass nipples in the valve chests, as the tubing is simply glued into the wood, just as with lead tubing. (I may be confusing those who are not familiar with the design of Fairground Organs .. called Band Organs here). Sorry if I am.   Well .. that's a little more info on the stuff! It is ugly, but it's very useful. :)   Ron Yost, Paso Robles, Calif.    
(back) Subject: Re: English red-plastic tubing was:Re: Lead. From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 19:21:41 BST     Hi.   I don't know of a distributer for this 'red' tubing, but I do know that many, if not all, of English organ builders use this stuff. I feel sure that if you needed some that it could be ordered through a firm over here, or they could steer in in the right direction. I agree it is very ugly but it seems to do the job. Do you use chatty in the USA to secure the tubing? That doesn't do much to improve its appearence, but it does smell very nice! I'll explain what chatty is if you don't know it over that side of the pond.   Jen.     On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 10:23:21 -0700 Ron Yost wrote:   > From: Ron Yost <musik@tcsn.net> > Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 10:23:21 -0700 > Subject: English red-plastic tubing was:Re: Lead. > To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> > > I know the 'red' plastic tubing Jen is referring to .. its widely used > in England for tubing on Fairground Organs too (another of my Passions!). > > While I was in England in 1986 touring the Steam Rallies, every Fair > Organ I saw was fitted with the tubing .. old organs and new ones. > > It is completely unlike any tubing we have available over here in the U.S. > It is thin-wall, and is made in several sizes which 'telescope' within > the next size .. very handy, except for the awful hot-pink-cerise color! > Ick!!! I wish we had a source for it though. Perhaps Jenny knows of a > distributor in England which will ship it overseas?? > > In Fairgroud Organs, the plastic tubing is used to tube-up all of > the action and pipe chests. There is no need for brass nipples in > the valve chests, as the tubing is simply glued into the wood, just as > with lead tubing. (I may be confusing those who are not familiar with > the design of Fairground Organs .. called Band Organs here). > Sorry if I am. > > Well .. that's a little more info on the stuff! It is ugly, but it's > very useful. :) > > Ron Yost, Paso Robles, Calif. > > > "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: a sad note....off topic and cross-posted From: rmb10@mindspring.com (Monty Bennett) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 14:43:37 -0500   Dear List- It is with great sadness that I send the list this posting about the death of someone that some of you probably knew or had talked to on the phone. Linda McMinn, the longtime Administrative Assistant of the Music Dept. of Calvary Church in Charlotte, NC, died in her sleep late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning as a result of heart disease at age 52. Linda had fought a valiant battle with breast cancer over the past year, and was beginning to recouperate after just having finished up her chemo and radiation treatments, and the cancer was in remission, so the unexpected death due to arteriosclerosis has been a great shock. Anyone who had ever called Calvary Church to get information on the V/205 Moller organ or to order CD's of the organ had dealt with Linda, and she was loved by all. When I left my position as Assoc. Minister of Music/Organist at Calvary (email me privately for the full story on that!) to go back to school and begin my apprenticeship to become a mortician, Linda was in the middle of undergoing surgery and treatments for her breast cancer. While she was going through that ordeal, she made me promise her several things that I would take care of if she were to die and I was working at a funeral home in Charlotte, NC. Since her family chose to use McEwen Funeral Service, the funeral home where I work, I had the great honor of serving her family through this rough period, not only making the funeral arrangements, but also overseeing the music at the funeral service, which was held at Calvary Church on Saturday, June 6. Linda had made me promise her that I would play the organ and coordinate the music, which was to include her dear friends David and Kathleen German (former Minister of Music at Calvary) and Pam Crenshaw (former Calvary choir soloist.) The service was a great tribute to Linda, and was a very positive service that glorified God and thanked God for Linda's life. I know that this post is long and off topic, but I felt that the list should know of the great loss since many of you had known Linda or had talked to her when calling Calvary Church. If anyone would like to send her family a card, please email me privately and I will put you in touch with Linda's family for you to express your condolences.   Monty Bennett      
(back) Subject: Re: Expedience vs Aesthetics (was: Pipe vs Electronic) From: <FireAlarmz@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:00:00 EDT   << thing. Pipe organs do need looking after, and that costs a few thousand a year just to (cone-)tune a smallish instrument once annually. You need to throw away quite a lot of electronics to compete with that. The real arguments are >>   Hi listers. I *was* gonna stay out of this, but I can't resist getting my $0.02 in on this subject.   In Wilmington DE USA is a 25-stop, 39-rank Rieger tracker organ which I often play. The flue pipes are cone-tuned. As I understand it from the church, this instrument, installed in 1977, costs a "few hundred" dollars a year for tuning the reeds and minor maintenance/adjustments. And it is ALWAYS in 100% pristine condition.   As much as I don't particularly care for tracker organs (sorry Bruce), that LOW annual maintenance figure is far superior to any E or EP pipe organ of its vintage- or, let us be honest, any electronic of its vintage--given the fact that service calls start at $65. an hour here plus parts for the electronic organs, and *no* electronic organ is at its best after 20-plus years.   It may not be my cup-o'-tea, but the Rieger tracker organ is the clear winner--- not to mention its extremely long lifetime.   Peace, Bill Miller  
(back) Subject: ? From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 20:20:02 BST     Hi.   Tell me, what would persuade you to buy a new organ from an organ builder? Its appearence, or its specification and reliability.   I have just spent some time looking at web sites for some of the leading organ builders in USA and UK. They all boast about how wonderful they look, what materials are used, and how nice it would look in the chancel of a church. Is appearence the important factor?   To me, the way it sounds and the reliability of the instrument is the most important factor. I would much rather buy an instrument that had an awful appearence (like me!) and played well, than one that looked wonderful and and performed without any tonal colour or reliability.   I can't understand why organ builders don't advertise the fact that their instruments are well built and carefully voiced/tuned. Afterall, thats why we play organs, because of how they perform, not because of how they look. Don't condemn me yet, I appreciate the artistic side of organ building a great deal and to see a great looking organ gives me alot of enjoyment, (don't take that the wrong way). I just don't think it is very important. Perhaps organ builders assume that all buyers are ignorant when it comes to the workings of an organ and they rely on appearence as a selling device.   Jen.      
(back) Subject: Re: appearance vs sound From: Mac Hayes <mach37@ptw.com> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:57:10 -0700   Jenny Moon wrote: > ... > I can't understand why organ builders don't advertise the fact that > their instruments are well built and carefully voiced/tuned.   > Perhaps organ builders assume that all buyers are > ignorant when it comes to the workings of an organ and > they rely on appearence as a selling device.   This is probably the most common perception in the US; but the digital/electronic organ builders do seem to stress the "voicing/tuning" and console quality.   I am pondering the implications of the many church pipe organ installations where the pipes are buried in chambers and only the console is visible. I am sure the majority of US church-goers today think of the console as The Organ, and may not even be aware there is any more to the organ, physically --except for the hidden "speakers" of course.   Hey, even I would like to have a 4-manual drawknob console in my living room; even if it isn't connected to anything it is great sculpture, and extra seating!   -- Mac Hayes mach37@ptw.com Cogito per aspera    
(back) Subject: Re: English red-plastic tubing was:Re: Lead. From: Ron Yost <musik@tcsn.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:30:40 -0700   Hi Jen!   Nope .. no klue what "chatty" is? Unless you mean IRC chat, and I don't think you do. Or, "chat a person up" .. I DO know that one. ;)   If you're going to describe a glue substance, could you possibly tell us the general type of cement it is .. and what it is normally used for over there? We have several 'plumbers cements' for PVC and ABS piping and things .. used all the time for plumbing windlines for theatre organs.   Thanks!   Ron Yost, Paso Robles, Calif.   At 07:21 7:24 PM 6/7/98 BST, you wrote: > >Hi. > >I don't know of a distributer for this 'red' tubing, but I do know >that many, if not all, of English organ builders use this stuff. I >feel sure that if you needed some that it could be ordered through a >firm over here, or they could steer in in the right direction. I >agree it is very ugly but it seems to do the job. Do you use chatty >in the USA to secure the tubing? That doesn't do much to improve its >appearence, but it does smell very nice! I'll explain what chatty is >if you don't know it over that side of the pond. > >Jen.