PipeChat Digest #970 - Saturday, July 3, 1999
 
Re: Disney Organ
  by "antoni scott" <ascott@epix.net>
Re: New Web Site Offering...
  by "Terry Charles" <tcorgan@gte.net>
Re: Fog Horns!
  by "Bill" <WGWUTILS@webtv.net>
Re: Worcester Wednesday - Wow!!
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
The wedge w/o registration changes
  by <KriderSM@aol.com>
Way to go, Disney!
  by <KriderSM@aol.com>
Wish me luck
  by <KriderSM@aol.com>
Re: Disney Organ
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@MediaOne.net>
out-of-tune organs
  by "Bud/burgie" <budchris@earthlink.net>
Re: The wedge w/o registration changes
  by "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@arkansas.net>
Winfield, (long) KS Austin saved
  by "Frank Johnson" <usd465@hit.net>
Re: The wedge w/o registration changes
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
And now for something completely different.
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
Re: And now for something completely different.
  by <DRAWKNOB@aol.com>
411 for Fox
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: The wedge w/o registration changes
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: The wedge w/o registration changes
  by "Rod Murrow" <murrows@pldi.net>
Re: Disney Organ
  by <ORGANUT@aol.com>
arguments about authenticity that go nowhere
  by "Bud/burgie" <budchris@earthlink.net>
Re: arguments about authenticity that go nowhere
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Disney Organ Address
  by <JDeCaria@aol.com>
 


(back) Subject: Re: Disney Organ From: antoni scott <ascott@epix.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 08:37:28 -0400   How much money will Disney charge to look at the organ ? Will we have to wait 45 minutes in a long line ? I can't wait to be "mugged by MIckey" ,once again.   Antoni   ORGANUT@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/1/99 2:03:18 PM Central Daylight Time, > dutchorgan@svs.net writes: > > << Lets all get together and tell Disney what we think of their design = team > and > conceptual ideas. > > Rick dutchorgan+AEA-svs.net > >> > > Rick! > Lets all get together and let Disney know how appreciative we are that = they > are giving the Theatre Organ public exposure. We can only benefit from = this > and should encourage them to continue. IMNHO. > > Later Phil L. > > "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: New Web Site Offering... From: "Terry Charles" <tcorgan@gte.net> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:38:09 -0400     ----- Original Message ----- From: VEAGUE <dutchorgan@svs.net> To: e-mail organ chat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:09 PM Subject: Fw: New Web Site Offering...     > The Kirk organ is comprised of pipes and Allen voicing.   The Kirk Organ has a bunch of digital additions, not Allen voicing.        
(back) Subject: Re: Fog Horns! From: WGWUTILS@webtv.net (Bill) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:10:52 -0400 (EDT)   Edward, you haven't yet told us what you need the foghorn for. As I listed once before, the Great Lakes Lighthouse foghorns were a special type of Diaphone developed and patented by Robert Hope-Jones. I haven't the foggiest idea what pitch they were except that the sound was more of a BAAROOMPH rather than one fixed tone. You can't imagine how much reverberation fog can enhance until you hear one of these horns blast within a rocky fog-hidden coastline :-)   Bill Winchester (former Great Lakes boater)    
(back) Subject: Re: Worcester Wednesday - Wow!! From: runyonr@muohio.edu (Randolph Runyon) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:11:12 -0700     Malcolm Wechsler wrote: Wow! There >was a third whooping and whistling standing ovulation....   I'm not egg-zactly sure that is quite what you meant to say.... ; - )   R. Runyon      
(back) Subject: The wedge w/o registration changes From: KriderSM@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:48:17 EDT   This question: <snip>Would I sit down at a "modern" instrument (such as a =   Schlicker or a Reuter) and subject the listener to half an hour of plenum just for the sake of being historically authentic?<snip>   ....was answered by DeserTBoB saying, "I agree that using few, if any, registration changes in most of Bach's music, relying therefore upon indicated manual and dynamics changes, as has been stated earlier, is more authentic AND allows the ear = to concentrate on Bach's powerful conceptual use of polyphony.... ....Thus, the registration must be carefully chosen for sake of clarity...".   Folks, as we discuss the importance of playing music in historically = accurate settings, has any attention been given to the possibility that these = historic pipe organs were usually OUT IN TUNE? I ask this because most pre-20th century pipe organ venues were not air conditioned, and often not heated. Were these instruments tuned prior to each Sunday's service?   IMHO If not, following DeserTBoB's line of reasoning, perhaps literature = from the 19th century and earlier ought to be played on infrequently tuned pipe =   organs. What says the chat line???   Perhaps our European friends could share historical data concerning the frequency of pipe tuning in the pre-20 century (and, of course, the Bach = era) organs.   Inquiring minds want to know... :-)   Stan Krider    
(back) Subject: Way to go, Disney! From: KriderSM@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:48:19 EDT   Atta boy, Mickey! Way to waddle, Donald! Thanks for your input on the = organ facade design, Goofy! :-) Look forward to you next performance at the organ, Grumpy!   Thank you, Walt. Your crew has their collective hearts in the right place. =   Thanks for supporting our cause!!!   Stan Krider     Dennis Goward recently declared: <snip> Disney deserves our support for deciding to include a pipe organ, = when it would have been faster and cheaper to just pop a digital in there. At least they're doing something positive to keep pipe organs up front. = <snip>    
(back) Subject: Wish me luck From: KriderSM@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:48:20 EDT   LOL LOL LOL LOL You deserve a break today, at Houston.   DRAWKNOB asked us to wish him luck. May you have the Luck of the Irish!!   Stan Krider   <snip> I am flying to Houston today for my final interview. If all goes = well I'll be working for an organ company very soon.<snip>  
(back) Subject: Re: Disney Organ From: Stanley Lowkis <nstarfil@MediaOne.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:56:38 -0400       antoni scott wrote: > > How much money will Disney charge to look at the organ ? Will we have to > wait 45 minutes in a long line ? I can't wait to be "mugged by MIckey" > ,once again. > > Antoni >   Don't worry about the long line. Bring your AGO or ATOS membership card and you will be ushered directly to the organ. Then, you will be "mugged by Mickey" and later receive "something special from Minnie"   Heigh Ho! Stan  
(back) Subject: out-of-tune organs From: Bud/burgie <budchris@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 09:56:55 -0700       (snip)   > Folks, as we discuss the importance of playing music in historically = accurate > settings, has any attention been given to the possibility that these = historic > pipe organs were usually OUT IN TUNE? I ask this because most pre-20th > century pipe organ venues were not air conditioned, and often not = heated. > Were these instruments tuned prior to each Sunday's service? > > IMHO If not, following DeserTBoB's line of reasoning, perhaps literature = from > the 19th century and earlier ought to be played on infrequently tuned = pipe > organs. What says the chat line??? > > Perhaps our European friends could share historical data concerning the > frequency of pipe tuning in the pre-20 century (and, of course, the Bach = era) > organs. > > Inquiring minds want to know... :-) > > Stan Krider >   I have found that in large stone churches with historic organs (but = without air-conditioning, and a minimum of heat) that the tuning is more stable = than in modern churches where the organ is subjected to quick changes in = temperature when the air-conditioning or heating is turned on. If the temperature is = allowed to rise and fall slowly (and naturally), less out-of-tuneness results. I have = played many 19th century organs in cavernous old RC churches where they couldn't = afford to heat the church beyond maybe 50 degrees F, and the tuning held.   Another thing to consider is that open flue pipes and mixtures in historic = organs were cone-tuned ... a method which holds the tuning much better than = modern tuning collars or tuning scrolls; also, the reed stops were accessible = (being on the backs of the chests, nearest the pallets), and organists knew how to = tune them.   Most of the churches I've served couldn't afford to tune the organ more = than once or twice a year at best ... in the interim, I tuned the reeds maybe four = times a year. Some old romantic high-pressure organs can go for much longer = without a complete tuning.   I've heard it said that in France tuning the mixtures is reserved for the rebuild, every 30-50 years (grin).   When I play a typical eclectic electro-pneumatic American organ, I DO vary = the registrations more in Bach; when I'm fortunate enough to be playing a well-appointed tracker organ based on historical principles, I simply draw = the plena, and draw or retire the couplers and the reeds (maybe) for the = prelude or the fugue, depending on which prelude and fugue we're talking about. The = result is satisfying to the ear, and musical, without being tiring.   Bach can survive just about anything, but playing his works on a fine = tracker organ without registrational aids is a revelation. But all the elements = have to be present: acoustics, voicing, action, disposition, etc.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: The wedge w/o registration changes From: Tim Bovard <tmbovard@arkansas.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:54:33 -0500   At 7/3/99 11:48 AM, Stan wrote: >This question: <snip>Would I sit down at a "modern" instrument (such as = a >Schlicker or a Reuter) and subject the listener to half an hour of plenum =   >just for the sake of being historically authentic?<snip> > >...was answered by DeserTBoB saying, "I agree that using few, if any, >registration changes in >most of Bach's music, relying therefore upon indicated manual and = dynamics >changes, as has been stated earlier, is more authentic AND allows the ear = to >concentrate on Bach's powerful conceptual use of polyphony.... >...Thus, the registration must be carefully chosen for >sake of clarity...".   Good morning, folks!   Stan's query made me think of something I've believed for quite some time, and I thought I'd "throw it out" for input.   Disclaimer: I'm NOT a practicing organist, nor any sort of music scholar. I do play a little, mostly for my own satisfaction (seldom when anyone else is there to listen). I make my living building pipe organs, and tend to leave the scholarly issues of music performance to those more qualified to know, while freely enjoying the efforts of all those who ARE professional performers.   That being said, I now give MY reasoning behind the "judgement" of any/no particular performance. I simply ask myself this question: Was it ENJOYABLE? With the answer to this question (hopefully 'yes'...), I have all the information I need to know whether I 'liked' the performance.   It seems to me that many in our "organ world" tend to obsess about the nitpicky details of what is "authentic" vs. "non-authentic"; "correct" = vs. "incorrect"; "proper" vs. "improper" etc. etc. Often these obsessions = come at the exclusion of those situations that do not fall within whatever category is being questioned.   Perhaps I'll be blasted for my ignorance in making this observation, but I still think I have to believe that there's something more important (especially to the much maligned 'general public'). If any given performance of any given piece of music on any given organ is "MUSICAL", then who really cares about the authenticity in it?? (Virgil Fox comes to mind in the organ world; perhaps Liberace on the piano would also = qualify...)   If we as organ affectionados cannot "let our hair down" and simply enjoy the music of our instruments, in all its many and various forms and interpretations, then how can we expect to have any success at asking the general population to do the very same thing?   I do not, BTW, mean to imply that there's no reason to be concerned with the history (and, yes, authenticity) of our instruments or their music...certainly this is not the case. When this concern is used to dismiss a performance, performer, or type of instrument, however, I = believe we're crossing a dangerous bridge, indeed.   So, to give my answer to the original question, I would say to play the Wedge any d*** way you want to; just make it musical and do it well. This, I believe, is how the "uneducated public" (myself included) will make their judgement -- not by "concentrat(ing) on Bach's powerful conceptual use of polyphony". Let that be topic for conversation at a Conservatory somewhere -- we have a greater task ahead to promote and preserve our instrument for the future.   Comments???   TMB              
(back) Subject: Winfield, (long) KS Austin saved From: Frank Johnson <usd465@hit.net> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 13:04:54 -0500 (CDT)   AUSTIN IS SAVED (FOR THE TIME BEING)   About 5 months ago I posted a message about a small 2/4 Austin organ in a building that was to be gutted and remodeled. Here is a = portion of that post: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I am a musician, instrumental music teacher, have my own dixieland group (I play clarinet) and direct the 104 year old Winfield (Kansas) Municipal Band. The band is in the process of moving into an old building on the campus of the defunct Lutheran College, St. John's College. There was a large organ in the auditorium and it was moved to another Lutheran college somewhere. Still in basement of the building where the band is to have our home is a 2/4 Austin practice organ. According to the Austin = Opus list, Opus 733 was originally installed in a 1st Pres. church in Nowota, Oklahoma. It was called a Chorophone according to my correspondence with the Austin company. Due to the fact that the building will be gutted and then completely remodeled, we have less than 30 days to remove the organ OR it will be 'bulldozed' along with the rest of the inside of the building. We would like to see the instrument used in the small auditorium (seating about 300). We have another very fine small Methodist college here. The = organ instructor is one of those interested in preserving the Austin. The removal, while it would be a big task, would be somewhat easier due to the fact that although it is in the basement, it is a half basement and has very large windows, the middle of which are about ground level. The last thing we want is to see it destroyed. The four ranks are: Open Diapason Gedeckt Viole Dulciana   Here is the stop list:   Pedal: Bourdon 16' Contra Dolce 16' Open Diapason 8' Gedeckt 8' Viole 8' Dulciana 8' Octave 4' Flute 4'   Swell 4 presets Contra Dolce 16' Gedeckt 8' Viole 8 Dulciana 8' Flute D'Amour 4' Violin 4' Dulcet 4' Quintette 2 2/3' Flautina 2' Tremolo   Great 4 presets Bourdon 16' Open Diapason 8' Gedeckt 8' Viole 8' Dulciana 8' Octave 4' Flute D'Amour 4' Violin 4' Dulcet 4' Flautina 4'   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Two week ago I received word on Wednesday that the lease (with the city of Winfield, KS) had been signed and that the demolition/construction work would begin in a couple of days. We actually were able to get into the building on Monday June 28. Three of us started the task of first removing the pipes. I had set an order of removal as pipes, console, = chest and blower (1/2 HP Spencer). After working all day Monday, we could see good progress and two of us were able to work again on Tuesday. I couldn't believe how tolerant = the foreman and workers were of our presence. (The foreman approached us on Monday and asked if we could do him a favor and of course we said yes. = The favor was that we were to wear hard hats.......which we did and certainly understood. Especially when I knocked a crow bar off on my head.) They even occasionally asked if we needed anything. We did use a ladder of theirs several times when working on dismantling the chest. This was the biggest part of the job. Some had said the an Austin chest could not be dismantled but others (including a post from the Austin Company) said that it was very possible. I had several posts saying they had been organ service men for many years and Austin was a favorite of theirs. The work was made more "interesting" by the fact that they were using a bobcat as close as AT the wall of the room where the instrument was. A time or two the floor actually shook when the bobcat would hit something solid. In fact a small portion of wallboard was shoved several inches into the room. On Wednesday, the man who has been in charge of maintenance on the campus since 1980, begin working with us and without his help, I'm not = sure we would have accomplished our task. He also had another city worker helping. A gentleman from Bartlesville, OK knew of our plight and loaned us his 7 pipe trays. We had planned to meet in Ponca City, OK but because of rain, had canceled that meeting. However after the rains quit, he loaded up the trays and brought them all the way to Winfield. What a great help! On Wednesday we were able to finish the entire removal before noon. By mid afternoon Wednesday, the room was gone! It took 2 1/2 days for the project. The response we've had from across the country and even out of the country has been unbelievable. There is no way I could ever say enough thanks for the outpouring of suggestions, offers and help. As for the future of the 2/4 Austin, we are now ready to begin thinking as to what can be done with the instrument. The entire = instrument is stored in a dry building which is not heated or air conditioned. The possibility exists of placing it in the small auditorium on the main floor of the building where the organ was. It has been suggested that with the addition of a couple of ranks, this would make a satisfactory instrument for the 300 seat auditorium. I do have pictures before and after its removal. I would try and send a few to those who might be interested in seeing them. The one picture I missed was when the console was being removed from the half-basement on the prongs of a fork lift through the hole knocked in the side of the building. The local newspaper came and took pictures and did a really nice story on the removal. Although the paper is online, they don't put the entire paper online and that story did not make it. Again thank you to everyone who offered help and suggestions.   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 wedge w/o registration changes From: Noel Stoutenburg <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 13:04:59 -0500   Tim Bovard wrote:   > <snip>So, to give my answer to the original question, I would say to = play the > Wedge any d*** way you want to; just make it musical and do it well. > This, I believe, is how the "uneducated public" (myself included) will > make their judgement -- not by "concentrat(ing) on Bach's powerful > conceptual use of polyphony". Let that be topic for conversation at a > Conservatory somewhere -- we have a greater task ahead to promote and > preserve our instrument for the future. > > Comments???   None needed. You said it well.   > > > TMB > > "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: And now for something completely different. From: Noel Stoutenburg <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 13:08:44 -0500   Either here or in another forum to which I subscribe, there was recently a thread about the quality of Dupre's editions of Bach's works. While I don't want to re-open _that_ thread, I have been thinking about something related.   Suppose Bach, whilst sittiing one morning on the Bench at St. Thomas in Leipzig, was confronted with a score by Dupre. How would Bach Play that?    
(back) Subject: Re: And now for something completely different. From: DRAWKNOB@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 14:18:14 EDT   In a message dated 7/3/99 1:11:33 PM Central Daylight Time, mjolnir@ticnet.com writes:   << Suppose Bach, whilst sittiing one morning on the Bench at St. Thomas in Leipzig, was confronted with a score by Dupre. How would Bach Play that? >>   With his hands and feet I do suppose :-)   John  
(back) Subject: 411 for Fox From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:10:15 -0700   Dear Pipechatters:   I'm archiving a collection of 15 albums of Virgil Fox that I recently acquired, and have a question about his lone Columbia release, "Organ Reveries" (CL 813). The jacket and disk itself lead me to believe this LP was issued around 1952-53, Virgil's only release on LP for Columbia, I believe. There's been a rumor for years that Virgil was upset at Columbia for putting him on their popular "red label" line, rather than on the prestigeous "Masterworks" label, along with E. Power Biggs. This may have led to Virgil heading off for RCA in 1954. But I digress....   This recording certainly sounds as if it's the original 1930-31 Hook and Hastings pipework, albeit surely controlled by the 1948 =C6olian-Skinner console. Best information I've got says the =C6-S rebuild didn't get= underway until 1953, which is about the time of this recording. Does anyone know for certain that this IS the Hook and Hastings instrument? There's no trace of G. Donald Harrison anywhere in this organ, at least from what Virgil played, but the trademark H&H flutes are in evidence. Later RCA recordings definately had the post-1955 "Skinner sound", although RCA's rendition of the church's acoustics is best described as "dead on arrival".   Enquiring minds wanna know!   DeserTBoB    
(back) Subject: Re: The wedge w/o registration changes From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 13:09:26 -0700   At 01:04 PM 7/3/1999 -0500, you wrote: >> <snip>So, to give my answer to the original question, I would say to play the >> Wedge any d*** way you want to; just make it musical and do it well. >> This, I believe, is how the "uneducated public" (myself included) = will >> make their judgement -- not by "concentrat(ing) on Bach's powerful >> conceptual use of polyphony".   Ohhhhkay, but the "Wedge" played on flutes and voix celestes coupled at = 16' and 4' sounds pretty awful, IMHO.   DeserTBoB    
(back) Subject: Re: The wedge w/o registration changes From: Rod Murrow <murrows@pldi.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 15:38:05 -0500   Bob Scarborough wrote:   > At 01:04 PM 7/3/1999 -0500, you wrote: > >> <snip>So, to give my answer to the original question, I would say to > play the > >> Wedge any d*** way you want to; just make it musical and do it well. > >> This, I believe, is how the "uneducated public" (myself included) = will > >> make their judgement -- not by "concentrat(ing) on Bach's powerful > >> conceptual use of polyphony". > > Ohhhhkay, but the "Wedge" played on flutes and voix celestes coupled at = 16' > and 4' sounds pretty awful, IMHO.   Bob; You missed the main point that he made - "make it musical and do it well" = - obviously, the use of flutes and voix celestes coupled at 16' wouldn't be = very musical...   I'm not all that terribly interested in "historical" registrations anyway = - we're getting ready to enter the 21st century - let's deal with current registrations. I don't care one way or another how Bach would play vs how Dupre would play - what difference could it possibly make?   Okay - send in the flamethrowers!   Rod Murrow    
(back) Subject: Re: Disney Organ From: ORGANUT@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 17:04:34 EDT   In a message dated 7/3/99 11:58:29 AM Central Daylight Time, nstarfil@MediaOne.net writes:   << antoni scott wrote: > > How much money will Disney charge to look at the organ ? Will we have = to > wait 45 minutes in a long line ? I can't wait to be "mugged by MIckey" > ,once again. > > Antoni > Don't worry about the long line. Bring your AGO or ATOS membership card and you will be ushered directly to the organ. Then, you will be "mugged by Mickey" and later receive "something special from Minnie" Heigh Ho! Stan >>   Stan, Let's all hope and pray that it is such a popular attraction that we = have to stand in line to get to see it!!!!!! Allllllllright!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Later, Phil L.  
(back) Subject: arguments about authenticity that go nowhere From: Bud/burgie <budchris@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:42:53 -0700   I think nobody's gonna change anybody's mind on this ... but, to quote = Landowska, "You play it your way, and I'll play it HIS (Bach's) way" ... (grin).   Of COURSE you can't transfer high German baroque registrational practice = to the average eclectic electro-pneumatic American organ, any more than you can = transfer high SPANISH baroque registrational practice. But I still think it's a = good idea to KNOW what high German or Spanish baroque registrational practice WAS = (is), and have something of an idea as to what the organs sound like.   The cleanest Bach sound I could get on the 1928 Austin at Old Saint Mary's = DID include coupling the Viole d' Orchestre from the Swell to the Great at = 16-8-4 (and playing up an octave ... 73-note chests), along with some other stuff, but = NOT the foghorn diapasons.   My first organ teacher (Ramona Beard at Florida State University) taught = me to add the Solo Tuba on the last page of "Wir glauben" and gradually open the = Solo box from there to the end. Authentic? Naw ... but it was kinda fun and = exciting. I don't DO it anymore; I don't add the Swell reeds in the Bach b minor at = the place Henry Fusner taught me to, either. But I know HOW. And occasionally I DO = use Edwin Arthur Kraft's registrations for some of the chorale-preludes. BUT ... you = have to KNOW the rules first before you can break them INTELLIGENTLY. The Fox knew = EXACTLY what he was doing, and why, and the results were exciting and musical.   The argument about what Bach would have done if he'd had a modern organ to = play is irrelevant. He didn't. The sound he had in his head was Schnitgers and Silbermanns. The registrational aids he had at hand were his eighteen = kids. His only swell-box was (maybe) the doors on the Brustwerk. He liked reeds, and = 32' stops, and well-regulated tremulants ... that much we know. But that's = about ALL we know, aside from the few general registrations in a few of the pieces. = But we DO know the ORGANS of the period, even if there aren't a lot of surviving = "Bach" organs.   Cheers,   Bud        
(back) Subject: Re: arguments about authenticity that go nowhere From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 15:22:55 -0700   At 02:42 PM 7/3/1999 -0700, you wrote:   >The cleanest Bach sound I could get on the 1928 Austin at Old Saint = Mary's >DID include coupling the Viole d' Orchestre from the Swell to the Great = at >16-8-4 (and playing up an octave ... 73-note chests), along with some = other stuff, >but NOT the foghorn diapasons.   I think we've all done that trick a time or two on 1900-1930 "mushboxes". The proliferation of Hope-Jones' "Diapason Phoney" and other such aberrations of the time completely obliterated any sense of true principal plena, and as such, the organist was left to couple and play octaves = higher just to get any sense of clarity at all. Even with such measures, notes would entirely disappear from the counterpoint due to unification and lots of coupling. The use of coupled viols in such organs would provide some relief in terms of harmonic content, but not much. Still, it was better than the gawdawful "horn diapason" at 8', with nothing upstairs to corroborate its tone!   In a couple of cases, where a mushbox coincided with a Hammond endowed = with several tone cabinets, I'd opt for the Hammond! Armed with Stevens = Irwin's dictionary of "stops" and a screwdriver, I could certainly do a lot more with IT than the mushbox!    
(back) Subject: Disney Organ Address From: JDeCaria@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:01:12 EDT   i missed the site info for the disney organ, and the site i did find only = has a tiny pic of the facade... is there a website with the full specs of the beast?   joe, toronto