PipeChat Digest #407 - Monday, June 8, 1998
 
Re: appearance vs sound
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
Re: Electronics/Pipes (long)
  by "Nick Grbac" <NickGTV@webtv.net>
Used Harold Gleason book
  by <JEKroep@hrn.bradley.edu>
Re: Theatre Organ top 10
  by "Nick Grbac" <NickGTV@webtv.net>
Re: Used Harold Gleason book
  by "William Morton" <wjm@pacbell.net>
Convention Time
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
Re: bulkiness-challenged organs
  by "Robert Horton" <r-horton@nwu.edu>
Re: bulkiness-challenged organs
  by "Robert Horton" <r-horton@nwu.edu>
Re: Organ decor
  by "Robert Horton" <r-horton@nwu.edu>
Re: ?
  by "bruce cornely" <cremona84000@webtv.net>
Re: appearance vs sound
  by "bruce cornely" <cremona84000@webtv.net>
Re: appearance vs sound
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@stlnet.com>
Re: PO vs EO (Vol XXV, No 73, Chapter 128...)
  by "Vernon Moeller" <vernonm@ccsi.com>
Spencer and Lye Organ Companies
  by "Nelson and Tracy Denton" <ndenton434@bigwave.ca>
Re: Convention Time
  by <GSandlawn@aol.com>
Re: Electronics/Pipes (long)
  by <mewzishn@spec.net>
WurliTzer Marimba
  by "Geoff D Rapier" <diaphone@juno.com>
WurliTzer Marimba
  by "Geoff D Rapier" <diaphone@juno.com>
Re: bulkiness-challenged organs
  by <mewzishn@spec.net>
 


(back) Subject: Re: appearance vs sound From: David Scribner <david@blackiris.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:24:10 -0500   At 12:57 PM -0700 6/7/98, Mac Hayes wrote:   >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. >   I just this week helped replace an old Gulbransen Rialto TO in a church with a used Allen. The interesting part was that many of the members of the church thought we were replacing their pipe organ with this Allen since the Gulbransen was connected up to 5 sets of Conn pipe display speakers. It really shows what the misconceptions are of the general public about organs.   BTW, if anyone is intersted in getting Conn pipe speakers the ones that were taken out are for sale. Please contact me privately about them.   Have a good Sunday.   David  
(back) Subject: Re: Electronics/Pipes (long) From: NickGTV@webtv.net (Nick Grbac) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:44:20 -0700   I find the "Pipes at all cost, Electronics are a joke" arguments getting a little tiring. I've been lurking for a while but had to add my $.02.   First, some churches have a limited amount to spend/maintain on an organ (let alone have the space). And as much cajoling as an organist can muster tellling a church a pipe organ is the way to go, the small to medium size church, at least here in the San Francisco area, generally has an electronic. (Interestingly enough, anybody from the SF area remember that period before St. Mary's Cathedral's Ruffatti was finished, there was a 2 manual Baldwin tucked under the organ pipes???)   Second, there are some poor examples of pipe organ building out there. For years, my parish limped along with a II/8 of hybrid background for 40 years. At best, it was usable for congregational accompaniment, with only one or two registrations acceptable for preludes and postludes. (BTW, part of this was due to an unscrupulous organ tech, but that's another discussion!)   When the time came to replace the organ, it came down to getting the most for the dollar. We went from the awful pipe organ to a slightly-used Rodgers 990 (this was in the early 70's--pre-digital) with voicing-assist by a nationally known organist. When the organ was premiered, an organist living in the parish (known in this area) thought it sounded "amazing," and even the nay-sayers who didn't want to contribute to the organ fund were impressed.   When everything is said and done, I think you have to be realistic. Yes, we'd all like to have a terrific instrument that will allow you to serve God and your congregation in the most effective way possible. But do you go with a very small pipe organ because that's all you can afford, or a slightly larger electronic that will most likely be more "organist-friendly," need less maintenance (I'm sorry, but my experience has been electronics need less maintenance, especially the standard makes.) and generally will have a shorter downtime should there be a problem?   OK, let the flames begin!   Nick Grbac   NickGTV  
(back) Subject: Used Harold Gleason book From: JEKroep@hrn.bradley.edu Date: 7 Jun 1998 16:55:54 CST/CDT   Dear Organ lists:     I am a student that will be going to Southern Illinois University, and Ineed to find a cheap, used copy of Harold Gleason's Organ Method. Ifanyone has editions 5,6,7 that they are willing to sell to a youngorganist, please e mail me.     Thank you,     Jonathan Kroepel   to: IN:piporg-l@cnsibm.albany.edu cc: IN:piporg-l@cnsibm.albany.edu IN:pipechat@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: Theatre Organ top 10 From: NickGTV@webtv.net (Nick Grbac) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:03:32 -0700   According to the Encyclopedia of the American Theater Organ, here's the top 10: (the + signifies "within 100," in Wurlitzer's case, between 2000 and 2100)   1) Wurlitzer (2000+) 2) Rober Morton (800+) 3) Kimball (600+) 4) Moller (500+) 5) Barton (300+) 6) Marr&Colton (300+) 7) Wicks (200+) 8) Kilgen (200+) 9) Smith (just under 200) 10) Hillgreen-Lane (approx. 150)   FYI   11) Estey 12) Link 13) Austin 14) Page 15) Welte 16) United States 17) Balcom & Vaughn 18) Wangerin 19) Reuter 20) Hinners   Nick Grbac   NickGTV  
(back) Subject: Re: Used Harold Gleason book From: William Morton <wjm@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 16:32:22 -0700   At 04:55 PM 6/7/98 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Organ lists: > > >I need to find a cheap, used copy of Harold Gleason's Organ Method.   I ran a quick scan and Powells Books in Portland, OR has this used for $13.95. Or Amazon has it new for $52. I'm sure there are other bookstores out there that have it as well........    
(back) Subject: Convention Time From: David Scribner <david@blackiris.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:36:11 -0500   Folks   We are coming up on the OHS and AGO conventions later this month. I am wondering how many list members are going to be attending each of these. And am also wondering if, as has been done in past years on the PIPORG-L, if list members would like to have a get-together to meet each other in person. I know that I would like to be able to put faces with the various names I keep seeing on the list.   I will be attending both conventions and if there is enough interest I will make arrangements for some sort of an evening gathering. But I need to know how many of us will be attending each of them and if there is interest in my arranging some gathering.   If you are attending either convention please let me know. In order to keep this traffic off of the list I have set up a seperate account just for this purpose. The address is mailto:convention@blackiris.com DO NOT USE THE REPLY FUNCTION if you want to let me know that you are attending. If there is enough interest I will post some info about gathering and will find some way of getting it spread around at the convention itself.   I am leaving next Sunday for Denver - since I am driving and need to make a couple of stops, but I will be accessing the mail while I am on the road. I will be arriving at the OHS Convention Hotel on the 19th and will figure out that day about a gathering for that convention and will post it to the list and will ask Pete to put an anncoucement on the PipeChat Web site.   Looking forward to meeting some of you in Denver.   David **************************************** David Scribner Co-Owner / Technical Administrator PipeChat   850-478-9635 david@blackiris.com  
(back) Subject: Re: bulkiness-challenged organs From: Robert Horton <r-horton@nwu.edu> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:47:35 -0500   >>From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) >>Smaller organs by reputable builders are more often better voiced and >>finished than the big monsters that are too large to properly maintain. I'd like to take the chance to put in a plug for Mr. Dan Jaeckel and some of the work he's been doing. He not only produces some great "big" instruments (recommended listening: David Schrader: Complete Toccatas and Fugues on Cedille Records and James Higdon, Alain Samtliche on something else), but also makes some exquisite chamber organs. One of his latest creations is in the Bales Recital Hall at the University of Kansas. Two manuals and straight pedalboard with three ranks...one full-length 8' stop for each division! (1-6 are common between all 3 ranks) It's got a sweet, balanced sound, dignified, prompt in speech, and pleasing to hear. The action was a dream come true...(sensitive enough to play even a wacked-out Japanese piece that requires the pallets to be opened slowly at full organ making a sound something like sssssffffwwwWWAAAAA) If I can be a little presumptuous, I think Mr. Jaeckel is really onto something here for chamber/practice organ building. Currently, most practice organs try to get by with the smallest, chintziest, stoppered 8' rank possible and then add stuff like 2' Tveetenskreetchenprinzips, etc...to make up for the lack of sound. Unfortunately, chamber organs usually get put in acoustically dead rooms (like my living room...someday) and upperwork like that gets deadly tiring when heard at point-blank range. Having just one balanced and well-voiced open unison rank is SO much more satisfying musically. It still fit into the space occupied by a normal practice organ (even smaller than some). I could have practiced on this thing for days! From a mechanical point of view, it also allows you to do away with the stop action and sliders altogether! (only one rank per pallet)   simplify...simplify...simplify...     Robert Horton, Northwestern University Organ Scholar 1726 1/2 Sherman Ave. Evanston, IL 60201 tel.847.424.1733 http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~rch507/index.html   "You don't have to practice all the notes... ....just the ones that you want to play well."       >Your message could not be processed because you are not allowed to post >messages to the PipeChat list. > >For more information, you can contact the list administrator at: > > Administrator <admin@pipechat.org> >      
(back) Subject: Re: bulkiness-challenged organs From: Robert Horton <r-horton@nwu.edu> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:49:01 -0500   >>was...Subject: Re: Pipe vs Electronic >>From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) >>Smaller organs by reputable builders are more often better voiced and >>finished than the big monsters that are too large to properly maintain. I'd like to take the chance to put in a plug for Mr. Dan Jaeckel and some of the work he's been doing. He not only produces some great "big" instruments (recommended listening: David Schrader: Complete Toccatas and Fugues on Cedille Records and James Higdon, Alain Samtliche on something else), but also makes some exquisite chamber organs. One of his latest creations is in the Bales Recital Hall at the University of Kansas. Two manuals and straight pedalboard with three ranks...one full-length 8' stop for each division! (1-6 are common between all 3 ranks) It's got a sweet, balanced sound, dignified, prompt in speech, and pleasing to hear. The action was a dream come true...(sensitive enough to play even a wacked-out Japanese piece that requires the pallets to be opened slowly at full organ making a sound something like sssssffffwwwWWAAAAA) If I can be a little presumptuous, I think Mr. Jaeckel is really onto something here for chamber/practice organ building. Currently, most practice organs try to get by with the smallest, chintziest, stoppered 8' rank possible and then add stuff like 2' Tveetenskreetchenprinzips, etc...to make up for the lack of sound. Unfortunately, chamber organs usually get put in acoustically dead rooms (like my living room...someday) and upperwork like that gets deadly tiring when heard at point-blank range. Having just one balanced and well-voiced open unison rank is SO much more satisfying musically. It still fit into the space occupied by a normal practice organ (even smaller than some). I could have practiced on this thing for days! From a mechanical point of view, it also allows you to do away with the stop action and sliders altogether! (only one rank per pallet)   simplify...simplify...simplify...     Robert Horton, Northwestern University Organ Scholar 1726 1/2 Sherman Ave. Evanston, IL 60201 tel.847.424.1733 http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~rch507/index.html   "You don't have to practice all the notes... ....just the ones that you want to play well."   >> > >Your message could not be processed because you are not allowed to post >messages to the PipeChat list. > >For more information, you can contact the list administrator at: > > Administrator <admin@pipechat.org>        
(back) Subject: Re: Organ decor From: Robert Horton <r-horton@nwu.edu> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:56:49 -0500   >>From: Jenny Moon <bfus7@central.susx.ac.uk> >>Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 20:20:02 BST >>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? Possibly because true artisians, crafts-woperchildren, and woodworkers are becoming in really short supply these days. Architecturally speaking, we're still recovering from the era of "make everything look like a municipal parking garage but without the warmth" architecture that was perpetrated back in the 50s (just take one look at Tokyo). Almost all new houses and condos are decorated with the same dull, gleaming white paint on gypsumboard and troweled plaster ceilings. So, anytime you see someone who's willing to actually take chisel in hand and make a stab at woodcarving and genuine artistry, it's true cause for rejoicing.   >>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. True, true, but often these two go hand in hand. Shoddy craftsmanship and dimestore materials usually attend poor tones and individual voices.   >>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 a lot of enjoyment, (don't take that the wrong >>way). ROTFLOL...Sorry Jen, but it took me a good while to compose myself after reading this, just long enough to get my fingers to the "Print" key.         Robert Horton, Northwestern University Organ Scholar 1726 1/2 Sherman Ave. Evanston, IL 60201 tel.847.424.1733 http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~rch507/index.html   "You don't have to practice all the notes... ....just the ones that you want to play well."      
(back) Subject: Re: ? From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:31:23 -0400   Jen, I think deciding upon a pipe organ builder involves all of the aspects which you questioned. The appearance of the instrument is a very important and integral part of the music making apparatus. Pipe shades contribute to the beauty of the sound. The quality and type of wood is also a sound-enhancing/producing feature. The shape of the instrument also figures in the overall success of the instrument with regard to projection, blend etc. The beauty of the exterior of the instrument AND of the interior is indicative of the level of craftsmanship which goes into all aspects of the instrument from making pipes to making the various delicate parts which comprise the mechanism. Organ builders can advertise whatever they like. The proof is in the playing and listening, and also in investigating the track record of the instruments produced--how well they hold up, stay in tune, etc. My own personal opinion is that the more advertising and tooting one's horn a builder does, the less money and time is spent on producing great, artistic instruments. Just from my reading, the most lavishly advertised and loudly proclaimed as superior instruments are electronic substitutes which generally are neither superior or instruments! Even with electronic provides, the less arrogant the advertising the better the quality. Look, listen, play and ASK ASK ASK ASK.   bruce o h s __________ a g o cornely o o __________ o o ........... cremona84000@webtv.net ...........    
(back) Subject: Re: appearance vs sound From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:45:15 -0400   Mac said:   >even I would like to have a 4 manual >drawknob console in my living room....   If its a Skinner 4 manual drawknow console, it is also an extra ROOM!   >even if it isn't connected to anything...   Oh! At least get a good wind supply so you can push the general cancel and scare the hell out of everyone... kaTHUMP!   bruce o h s __________ a g o cornely o o __________ o o ........... cremona84000@webtv.net ...........    
(back) Subject: Re: appearance vs sound From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@stlnet.com> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 21:27:21 -0500 (CDT)   At 12:57 PM 6/7/98 -0700, Mac Hayes wrote:   >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,   I have a story that illustrates this. A pipe organ firm I am associated with was installing a new console in a pipe organ. A member of the church was arranging the flowers for Sunday and commented to the organ technician, "It's just great that the church is getting a new organ." The organ technician responded that they were not getting a new organ, but just a new organ console or keydesk. "That's the organ!" he said, pointing to the 16' pipes that formed the fa=E7ade at the front of the organ chamber in the chancel. "Oh, ----!" said the flower lady, "That's terrible! My sister bought a new organ at the mall and they only gave her the console!"   John.    
(back) Subject: Re: PO vs EO (Vol XXV, No 73, Chapter 128...) From: Vernon Moeller <vernonm@ccsi.com> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 21:43:59   Greetings, Fellow Organists and Organ Aficionados:   As I sit here at my PC, wondering how to begin, I see on my TV good ol' Dan Quayle, with a subtitle "Road to the White House" near the bottom of the screen, and I cannot believe that my thoughts about him so closely parallel my thoughts on this topic: "Again?!?!? I thought we cleared this up a while back!!!"   After reading many, many intelligent responses to this old argument, and quite a few boorish, puerile ones as well, I have come to a few conclusions which I would like to share with you.   1) No one type of organ (pipe, electronic, digital, tracker, hydraulis, whatever) fits every situation.   2) It's really hard to beat the feeling of total power when you are playing a PO that has been properly installed in its auditorium or sanctuary. With very little physical exertion, the organist can make the building shake to its very foundations, and only seconds later, move to an ethereal pianissimo on a flute celeste that would wring a tear from the coldest heart in the room. That is power, my friends, true power.   3) OTOH, it's really wonderful to play a digital organ and be able to play in any of various styles by just making a few simple adjustments on an internal MIDI or in one of several memories. True, some of the power is missing, but oh the versatility! Bach? Just a second, lemme change to memory 5 - there you go, 5 generals using the registration old Johann himself would have picked. Franck? Hold on - I think it's memory 3 - there! Two-piano accompaniment? OK - that's MIDI setting 14, flip on the Choir and Pedal - there y'go, ready when you are, pianist! And on and on...   4) Churches looking for a new instrument would do well to interview organ search committees from other churches (which ended up buying a new instrument) not so much to discuss which organ they picked, but rather *why* they selected the organ and *how* they eliminated various arguments for and against this or that instrument. I think we organists tend to get ourselves in dutch, forgetting two rather important details:   4a) We are not the sole financial support of our churches, and   4b) Many of us are not going to be around when the new organ needs replacing or substantial rebuilding. Some of us will have moved on to other churches, and some of us will have retired altogether.   In either case, we want to provide the guidance necessary to provide the church with the best possible instrument, one which will work for the styles of music performed there (a church that never hears French toccatas probably won't need one built in a French style) and will do so at a reasonable cost. Spending a lot of money on a PO in a town with special air considerations (constant high humidity, smog, etc) without making corresponding investments in the air supply system and the AC/heating systems is false economy, in my opinion. Perhaps a digital instrument or a pipe/digital combination would have worked better.   Then again, if you're dealing with a new church comprised mostly of people who want an organ only because all the churches they attended had them, but who could really care less what kind to buy, then I predict you're probably going to have a bit of trouble convincing them to spend hundreds of thousands on a large instrument when a small one would do just as well.   I guess that what I'm trying to say, in short, is that we organists should be grateful to our congregations who are considering replacing our instruments by offering them the kind of guidance that will result in future members saying that we were mature enough to set aside our personal likes and dislikes so as to find the best instrument for the situation, thereby keeping the church moving forward through what is so often a difficult time. By doing our best for our congregations, we cannot help but do our best for our profession and for our positions.   Regards, \/\/\    
(back) Subject: Spencer and Lye Organ Companies From: Nelson and Tracy Denton <ndenton434@bigwave.ca> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 23:53:48 -0400   Hi all.   In the past few days there has been some talk over at the CMIH list about the Spencer and Lye organ companies of Canada in the 19th century.   Does anyone on the list know of any Spencer Organs or Edward Lye organs (Lye and Sons) anywhere or do any of you have any info about them?   Lye was known in Canada from about 1867 to 1955   (Walter) Spencer organs are possibly known in Canada from as early as 1845?-1910 ( now my company - R. A. Denton and Son)     Edwin Spencer was born in Hamilton Ontario in 1870 (Farrand and Votey, Murray Harris and the California Organ Company etc. ) and he was possibly the brother? of Walter Spencer and the son of an English organbuilder who emigrated to Canada sometime before 1870. ( from the Encyclopedia of Pipe Organs)   Who was Edwin's Father? (and no Bruce it wasn't the milkman)   Do any of you know of any English organ builders who were related to the Spencer s and Lye s and possibly how they got started in the trade?     Chris and Rosemary Conliffe, from Kingston Ontario are writting a book about the Lye company and they need our help.   I also need help tracking down my own company's history   Also does anyone remember Walter Spencer's Apprentices   R. Arthur Denton Prentice and Palmer Steed from Hamilton Ontario. Prentice possibly worked with Edwin Spencer and others in California it would appear from the 1920's to the 1940's. Palmer died quite young in Hamilton 1920's? And Charlie Williams from Hamilton who worked for Spencer, The Hamilton Church Organ Works and R.A. Denton and Son 1890's -1950's     Any knowledge or discussion of anything to do with Canadian Musical Instrument History, "CMIH" is welcome at   http://onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/cmih       Time for me to go to bed. +(:-P)   Nelson E. Denton The Pipe Organ Tracker Project, The worlds largest collection of organ related links http://www.freeyellow.com/members/radentonson      
(back) Subject: Re: Convention Time From: <GSandlawn@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 00:11:19 EDT   I will be at the OHS Convention.... wearing my PIP-ORGL T shirt..... when is pipechat gonna have a T shirt!   Sand  
(back) Subject: Re: Electronics/Pipes (long) From: mewzishn@spec.net Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 02:04:07 +0000       Nick Grbac wrote:   > I find the "Pipes at all cost, Electronics are a joke" arguments getting > a little tiring. I've been lurking for a while but had to add my $.02.   (major snippage)   > OK, let the flames begin!   Oh good grief, please, someone hand me my fire extinguisher. Not this tired old nag of a subject again! Just let it die, it's not worth arguing over.   Ken Sybesma        
(back) Subject: WurliTzer Marimba From: diaphone@juno.com (Geoff D Rapier) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 02:44:24 EDT   Does anyone know what a WurliTzer Marimba is worth. And also a small WurliTzer toy counter? Thanks   _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]  
(back) Subject: WurliTzer Marimba From: diaphone@juno.com (Geoff D Rapier) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 02:45:39 EDT   Does anyone know what a WurliTzer Marimba is worth. And also a small WurliTzer toy counter? Thanks   _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]  
(back) Subject: Re: bulkiness-challenged organs From: mewzishn@spec.net Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 03:05:34 +0000   Robert Horton wrote:   > One of [Dan Jaeckel's] latest creations is in the Bales Recital Hall at the > University of Kansas. Two manuals and straight pedalboard with three > ranks...one full-length 8' stop for each division! (1-6 are common between > all 3 ranks)   Halbert Gober has done something similar with a practice organ for a Canadian organist's studio ( http://www.interlog.com/~goberorg/vanlee.htm ) as well as for the Univ. of Notre Dame. I don't know that I would want all three of the ranks, as on the Jaeckel instrument, to share their bottom 6 pipes; I would hope for at least the bottom 6 pipes of the Pedal register to be independent, perhaps having those notes or the bottom two or three stopped for space and cost considerations. While it would be unusual for a contrapuntal piece to require playing in the bottom end of the low octave on both manuals at once, it would make for at least a reduction in duplicating pitches between the bass end of the keyboards and of the pedalboard.   Another option might be to adapt the short octave used on some of the older organs (and on modern creations in that style). Provide the low C D E F G for both manual stops, but use a common pipe between the two ranks for C# D# F# and G#-- the pedal rank could even be done similarly, maybe using the C# and D# in common. It might not save as much money as elminating the first 6 pipes of two 8' open registers, but the musical sacrifice is thereby reduced.   Yet another consideration is when the primary recital instrument is larger than two manuals, and how to provide a practice instrument, without breaking the bank, that allows to practice manual changes. One solution is to use a coupling manual, eliminating any need for a coupler and keeping the overall size of the instrument smaller. Still there's the ability to practice more than just notes, but to also work on console technique. There is a photograph of one of the Salt Lake Temple Square practice organs by Kenneth Coulter, with three manuals, at this web site ( http://theatreorgans.com/mormon/ ). [There's also a great view of the mouths of the 32' Flute Ouverte at the bottom of the page.) A stoplist for the Coulter is at ( http://www.blackiris.com/organs/iof/uscat/dat/04400003.htm )   Ken Sybesma