PipeChat Digest #552 - Tuesday, October 13, 1998
 
Lanquetuit, Paponaud, and Grunenwald
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@po.muohio.edu>
Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments
  by "Karl E. Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersv.edu>
Fine Organ Recital CORRECTION!
  by "Frank Johnson" <usd465@horizon.hit.net>
Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments
  by "John (Jack) Cormack" <jackjack@erols.com>
Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments
  by <Afreed0904@aol.com>
Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments
  by <Afreed0904@aol.com>
Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments
  by "Charles Krug" <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net>
Re: Lanquetuit, Paponaud, and Grunenwald
  by <giwro@juno.com>
Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments
  by "John (Jack) Cormack" <jackjack@erols.com>
 


(back) Subject: Lanquetuit, Paponaud, and Grunenwald From: runyonr@po.muohio.edu (Randolph Runyon) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:32:09 -0400   I was delighted to see that someone else (Dr. Bodie) has discovered the delightful Toccata in D by Marcel Lanquetuit. I fell in love with this piece when I heard it in a recital by Elmar Jahn in Paris last March. I found a copy at Salabert and when I got back home played it as a postlude on June 7. The harmonies are refreshing (lots of sixths) and the tune jaunty. Reminds me just a bit of Poulenc. I can add a little to the information already provided by Jonathan Orwig and Lew Williams, from the paragraph printed on the back of my copy: "Marcel Lanquetuit (1894-1985) was born in Rouen into a family of musicians, and began his musical studies very early. He first took lessons with Albert Dupre', continuing with Marcel Dupre', and then entered the Paris Conservatoire under the guidance of Eugene Gigout, soon obtaining a first prize. On leaving the Conservatoire he was appointed organist at the church of Saint-Godard in Rouen before taking up the post of Cathedral organist there, a position he retained until his death. There he gained fame for his talent as a performer, improviser, conductor and choirmaster. He also led an international career as composer and recitalist." There's a picture on the back of the music with Lanquetuit at the organ, and Marcel Dupre' looking on.   I would like to ask a question similar to Dr. Bodie's, with regard to an organ piece, likewise a Toccata in D, by Marcel Paponaud. I have a copy published by Editions M. Combre, Paris, with no copyright date and no dates for Paponaud. The Toccata is, like Lanquetuit's, a spirited confection, its repeated chords in the beginning making me think of Gottschalk's "Banjo." Does anyone know anything at all about this composer? The only information the music provides is that he was Organist for the Societe des Grands Concerts and for the Eglise Saint Bonaventure, in Lyon.   Another query: Does anyone on the list like to play the music of Jean-Jacques Grunenwald (1911-1982)? I'm going to try to learn his "Jubilate Deo"--a fantastic piece. Grunenwald was Dupre's successor at St. Sulpice starting in 1971.   Randy Runyon runyonr@muohio.edu Organist and Music Director, Norwood Christian Church (Cincinnati, OH) Professor of French, Miami University (Oxford, OH)      
(back) Subject: Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments From: "Karl E. Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersv.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:38:27 -0400 (EDT)     Some persons evaluate the difference between pipe and electronic instruemnts only in terms of how they sound. I keep pondering the REAL difference between pipe and electronic instruments not only in terms of sound but in terms of what they really ARE. One is the real thing; the other is a very skillful electronic imitation of the real thing. After all, electronic instrument builders claim with pride that their instruments sound like pipe organs; did you ever hear a pipe organ builder claim that his instruments sound like electronics?   Reed organs do not have this problem; they sound like what they ARE. Sadly enough, I have seen reed organs with false pipe displays, trying to hoodwink people into thinking they're pipe organs.   I keep pondering this in terms of the chalice on the altar for communion. We could use a plastic chalice skillfully coated so as to appear like sterling silver; but we don't! We use a sterling silver chalice. It's genuine. Poor musician that I am, my family and I eat with stainless steel utensils at home, save for "special" occasions when we use silver-plated "silverware;" I simply cannot afford table service for 12 in sterling silver!!! But my home is not the Church.   Worst of all to me are the attempts to fool people into thinking an electronic instrument is a pipe organ by erecting false pipe displays in front of the speakers or by maintaining old pipe displays and putting the speakers behind them. If we should have integrity of practice anywhere, it ought to be in the Church. After all, I do know churches who cannot afford sterling silver chalices and who use ceramic or pewter chalices instead, in some cases very old colonial-American era pewter, in fact.   One can take my discussion to extremes, of course. For example, is it somehow "dishonest" to build a wall of brick veneer instead of three-row-deep solid brick the way old houses were built? Or of stone veneer instead of solid stone walls? Is it somehow "inartistic" to have furniture with, say, cherry veneer instead of solid cherry? I actually DID suggest we bury my late father in a cloth-covered casket instead of a veneer-finish casket with this question of integrity of appearances in mind; we simply could not afford a solid wood casket!!!. Does it mean that we should not use body perfume because it makes us smell like what we really do NOT smell like? Well, perhaps. It is, in fact, a false presentation of our bodies. We have become so accustomed to false pretenses!   I'm not sure how far one takes this kind of thinking. Yet, I struggle with the ethics of electronic instruments being presented as pipe organs. And I really DO recognize that some people will be satisfied so long as the sound pleases them, just like some of my church people probably would not mind if we served them wine in a plastic chalice coated with fake silver. But we don't.   At issue here: too often the problem is not whether a church cannot afford a real pipe organ but whether there is the motivation to have the real thing. I do not pretend here to define the limits of cost below which an electronic substitute is O.K., but I do commend Burton Tidwell's writings on the subject of skillfully unified organs as a viable choice. I also commend used pipe organs via the Organ Clearing House as a viable choice. I simply cannot understand $200,000 spent for electronic fakery--which is really what it is. (I suspect some readers will wish to take immediate exceptiono to this last sentence, but do ponder my comment for an hour before you react.)   Let me invite constructive, careful criticism of my comment. I do not, however, wish nor deserve mindless knee-jerk reaction.   Cordially,   Karl E. Moyer Lancaster PA    
(back) Subject: Fine Organ Recital CORRECTION! From: usd465@horizon.hit.net (Frank Johnson) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:54:40 -0500   The fine organ recital was played by JAMES HIGDON and NOT David (whoever that might be). My apologies!   Frank   Frank R. Johnson (KA0API) Spirit of New Orleans - clarinet/leader http://www.hit.net/~usd465/ 1922 E. 14th Winfield, KS 67156      
(back) Subject: Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments From: "John (Jack) Cormack" <jackjack@erols.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:59:40 -0400   At 10:38 PM 10/12/98 -0400, Karl Moyer wrote: > > Some persons evaluate the difference between pipe and electronic >instruments only in terms of how they sound. I keep pondering the REAL >difference between pipe and electronic instruments not only in terms of >sound but in terms of what they really ARE. One is the real thing; the >other is a very skillful electronic imitation of the real thing. After >all, electronic instrument builders claim with pride that their >instruments sound like pipe organs; did you ever hear a pipe organ >builder claim that his instruments sound like electronics? > Cordially, > > Karl E. Moyer > Lancaster PA   <A BIG SNIP HERE TO MINIMIZE CLUTTERING UP THE LIST> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Karl:   Let's not start the war again over real vs fake, or imitation, or whatever prejudicial term you choose for non-wind-blown instruments. But may I remind you that wind-blown (pipe organs) have many stops that are imitations. No lesser authority than Gleason, the author of the book on the method of organ playing mentions that many organ stops attempt to imitate other instruments, for example, clarinet, trumpet, english horn, french horn, oboe, etc. We all know that when we pull such stops we are not getting the real thing, but we don't label pipe organ stops with those names as fake.   So I suggest that you knock off the diatribe about pipe vs electronics. We have better things to do than clutter up the list with such chatter. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I recognize that no one is going to change your views.   In my 67 years of organ playing I have played many different pipe organs at various cities around this country, and also played many different electronics organs (toasters, if that makes you happy) and each has its place..   Reality is what one perceives to be true. Your reality is that all electronics organs are imitations, and that all pipe organ stops are genuine. So be happy in your reality and let the rest of those who might not share your views be happy in their reality. You are not going to change anybody, so why fight on the list. It's not good for your blood pressure or heart !   Sincerely,   Jack Cormack Potomac, Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"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: Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments From: Afreed0904@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:16:05 EDT     In a message dated 10/12/98 11:52:52 PM, kmoyer@marauder.millersv.edu writes:   <<Let me invite constructive, careful criticism of my comment. I do not, however, wish nor deserve mindless knee-jerk reaction. >>   As always, Karl Moyer, very carefully thought, and very carefully written.   You've probably heard about the inclination in some quarters to buy a nice tracker and then plant large, but empty, loudspeaker baffles around the front of the pipework, so people will think you are so "with it" that you have the latest digital/analog/whatever electronic organ. One would not want to be thought hopelessly archaic in these wonderful 90s, would one?   Alan Freed, St. Luke's Church, Manhattan  
(back) Subject: Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments From: Afreed0904@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:22:33 EDT     In a message dated 10/13/98 12:01:09 AM, jackjack@erols.com writes:   <<We all know that when we pull such stops we are not getting the real thing, but we don't label pipe organ stops with those names as fake.>>   Jack: Without attempting to dispute your main points, which may have value I cannot even judge, I think you are wrong on this one quoted above. When I took my first organ lesson 47 years ago I was told right up front: Flute does not mean flute, and oboe does not mean oboe. These are organ stops, not orchestral instruments. They do not attempt to imitate the orchestral instruments. Maybe you'll think the Clarinet sounds like a clarinet, but that is not, ultimately, the intention. Sure, there may be similarity, but that's all.   Vox humana was the obvious example.   Alan Freed, St. Luke's Church, Manhattan  
(back) Subject: Re: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments From: "Charles Krug" <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:45:54 -0400   > Let me invite constructive, careful criticism of my comment. I do >not, however, wish nor deserve mindless knee-jerk reaction.     The question for a church is whether the commitment of resources to a pipe organ is an asset to the ministry of the church or a white elephant, strangling the ministry with upkeep or falling into disrepair.   I, for one, am quite happy that numerous accidents of history have conspired to make the pipe organ the standard in Christian worship. I am always delighted to be able to play a well designed instrument that is lovingly maintained.   Two years ago this Christmas, my church bought me a "new" organ, a 1965 Allen TC-3, that cost the princely, for us anyway, price of $3,000 installed. The instrument it replaced was one of the first Conn's ever made. That was the original instrument in the church. Before that, there was no organ. That they bought it for me, for around 1/5 of their pastor's salary, I consider the kindest complement anyone has ever paid my playing.   Maybe someday, they will complement me with tin, lead, and wood. Hey, I can dream, can't I? Until then, it is enough.     Charles    
(back) Subject: Re: Lanquetuit, Paponaud, and Grunenwald From: giwro@juno.com Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:43:41 -0700   On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:32:09 -0400 runyonr@stream.mcs.muohio.edu (Randolph Runyon) writes:   <snippage>   > Another query: Does anyone on the list like to play the music >of Jean-Jacques Grunenwald (1911-1982)? I'm going to try to learn his >"Jubilate Deo"--a fantastic piece. Grunenwald was Dupre's successor >at St. Sulpice starting in 1971.     Haven't played any but have been fascinated by his music since I heard it on an LP by the late David Britton, which included:   Grunenwald: Hymne aux Memoires Heroiques Diptyque Liturgique -Preces -Jubilate Deo   Langlais: Pasticcio Poemes Evangeliques -L'Annonciation -Nativite -Les Rameaux   I also have a recording of the Final from his organ Sonata, a much more tonally astringent piece, but still       *********************** Jonathan Orwig http://members.aol.com/giwro/index.html (personal) http://members.aol.com/evnsong/pgone.html (Music Publishing)   ___________________________________________________________________ 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: The REAL difference between pipe & electronic instruments From: "John (Jack) Cormack" <jackjack@erols.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 01:39:53 -0400   At 12:22 AM 10/13/98 EDT, Alan Freed wrote: > >In a message dated 10/13/98 12:01:09 AM, jackjack@erols.com writes: > ><<We all know that when we pull such stops we are >not getting the real thing, but we don't label pipe organ stops with those >names as fake.>> > >Jack: Without attempting to dispute your main points, which may have value I >cannot even judge, I think you are wrong on this one quoted above.   Gleasons book on the Method of Organ Playing is the source that said that pipe organs have stops that are imitative of the instruments whose stop names are labeled oboe, etc. I did not claim that I was the originator of the use of the phrase indicating imitation in pipe organs. Gleason wrote it in his book. If you disagree, disagree with him, not with me. Mr. Skinner said that he tried to imitate orchestral instruments in the stops on Skinner organs. Again disagree with Skinner -- not me. So there is more than one opinion as to whether or not pipe organ stops are imitative, or only "sound similar to the instrumental names. You decide whether "similar to" is different from "imitative of". I bow out of the semantic argument. I simply reported what experts in the organ field have said. You might not like what the experts believed and you are entitled to your opinion as I said in my original posting. I am not trying to change your opinion -- just reporting the facts that are widely known. Other experts have said that the stops are NOT imitative. So there is a difference of opinion, that I am afraid will never be settled to every one's satisfaction. But in all fairness,I believe that both opinions need to be known.   >When I >took my first organ lesson 47 years ago I was told right up front: Flute does >not mean flute, and oboe does not mean oboe. These are organ stops, not >orchestral instruments. They do not attempt to imitate the orchestral >instruments. Maybe you'll think the Clarinet sounds like a clarinet, but that >is not, ultimately, the intention.   Then why is it labelled Clarinet? Why not give it a name not the same as a wood wind instrument. The clarinet sound has a harmonic structure similar to the harmonic structure of the pipe organ stop so labelled. The "argument" would then go away the stop were named with a name bearing no relation to a real instrument .. I suspect the name clarinet was used so that the when the organist chooses that stop he/she knows that stop will produce sound that is similar to a real clarinet.   Imitative or similar to? What difference does it make to enjoyment of the sound.? So why insist that it is only "similar to" but not "imitative of"? If we can talk about it without strong bias and emotion the subject could never come up.   What bothers me is that some of the List members are so passionate in their beliefs and try to force others to believe the same way that they do. As I have said before, let's agree that each person is entitled to his/her opinions and to chastise others for a different opinion/belief does not result in harmonious relationships.   >Sure, there may be similarity, but that's all. > >Vox humana was the obvious example. > >Alan Freed, St. Luke's Church, Manhattan > >"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 > >