PipeChat Digest #1548 - Sunday, August 6, 2000
 
Re: Concert Announcement--X-post
  by "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@arkansas.net>
organs ? Piano ?
  by "LAMAR BOULET" <lmar@hotmail.com>
Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ?
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org>
Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "Sam Vause \(@Home\)" <vause@home.com>
Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
RE: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "Storandt, Peter" <pstorandt@okcu.edu>
Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org>
RE: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "Storandt, Peter" <pstorandt@okcu.edu>
Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Overhead Soldering
  by <RMaryman@aol.com>
Re: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ?
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ?
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ?
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
 


(back) Subject: Re: Concert Announcement--X-post From: "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@arkansas.net> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:45:21 -0500   TommyLee wrote: >One small correction here, if you please. I am being misrepresented here = on >this thread. I did not create that original preface, but rather it was >submitted by Monty Bennett. <snip>   GADS!! A thousand pardons, TommyLee!!   I hadn't kept Monty's original post -- so accepted Bruce's attribution of the quote to you. I guess I should have known better...   TommyLee also writes: >I responded to it, replying that while I am as >much a trackerbacker as anything else, I am by no means small minded = about the >type of organ or the type of music, as Mr. Bennett seemed to imply might = be >the case, and for that matter, you too, Tim. <snip>   Indeed, TommyLee, that is exactly what I tried to congratulate you for. For the record, I tend *not* to be a trackerbacker myself, but my point is that (as you say) there is plenty of room for all sorts of organs (and music) within our world (even <gasp> electronic imitations) -- and I can certainly enjoy them all. Those that continually bombard us with their "there is only ONE correct solution, no matter what the situation..." mentality just get a bit tiring......<g>   Monty's preface to his concert announcement was meant to be "tongue in cheek", I'm sure -- and that's exactly how I took it. I still understand quite well why Monty might have been inclined to start his announcement that way (considering the List traffic in general over the last week or = so, particularly!!). Am I *really* alone here?!?   One final <snip> from TommyLee's note this morning: >Bruce, please quote from the original source the next time, since your = email >reader automatically attaches the email address of the message you take = the >quotes from.   That's great advice for ALL of us, TommyLee! All the better to eliminate confusion all around.   Somewhat red-faced this morning <g>,   Tim  
(back) Subject: organs ? Piano ? From: "LAMAR BOULET" <lmar@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 16:05:24 GMT   As I recall, something happened in the thirties to the Hammond Company. Some of you may recall. Hammond was taken to court and I think was forced =   to drop the term 'organ ' . In other words, I think it was rulled that = the Hammond Instrument was not an 'organ' since it did not sound like a pipe organ, and they do not. But what a fine instrument. If this is the case, why can the present instrument companies refer to their product as being = an organ? I was a Hammond dealer for a time. The persons I run into these days who know the old Hammond sound, will tell you that the new Hammonds do not = sound like the old. Close, but oh so far. And the Leslie tone cabinet was a = great instrument. Just think, the Leslie and Hammond each developed their sound through mechanical means.   As Jim Turner said, "If they can produce a digital piano sound that will fool me, then someone please tell me where I can hear it." Same with me. I have been tuning pianos and pipe organs for near to fifty =   years, and I have yet to hear a pipe or piano sound produced with electronics. Close but yet so far.   But Jim and I ,and other tuners, need to realize that most people hearing the sounds being produced , do not hear what we hear. What we hear from = the string and the pipe, is so real. What a beautiful world of sound others are missing.   lamar ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com    
(back) Subject: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ? From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 10:31:55   At 04:05 PM 8/6/2000 GMT, you wrote: >As I recall, something happened in the thirties to the Hammond Company. =20 >Some of you may recall. Hammond was taken to court and I think was forced= =20 >to drop the term 'organ ' . In other words, I think it was rulled that the= =20 >Hammond Instrument was not an 'organ' since it did not sound like a pipe=20 >organ, and they do not.<snip>   That's the famous FTC case, and Hammond won, not lost. Shortly after the introduction of the Model A in 1935, the AGO and various pipe builders brought suit against Hammond with the Federal Trade Commission, charging that Hammond's instrument could not be called an "organ". It was decided that a demonstration recital of both a pipe organ and a Hammond would be held, and the audience would be polled afterward, and this would decide the case. The venue picked was the Rockefeller Chapel of the University of Chicago, with it's fairly new Skinner facing off with a Model A with a plethora of tone cabinets.   Trial day came, and the Hammond Company had managed to install none other than Porter Heaps, an early promoter for Hammond as well as an AGO Associate, as the organist. Heaps performed on both the Skinner and the Hammond, and to the chagrin of the AGO and the builders, most in the audience declared they couldn't tell the difference between the Hammond and the pipe organ. Immediately, charges spewed forth from the pipe organ tribe that Heaps had "manipulated" the registrations on the Skinner to favor the Hammond, such as using coupled stopped flutes and the like. Still, the FTC declared the test fair, and went on to render its decision.   The FTC did find that the Hammond lacked enough harmonics to properly mimic most pipe organ tones, but was close enough in tone to properly be called an "organ", albeit and electric one. This set off an immediate fury at the AGO, and the "pipes only" movement was born, continuing to this day. I've investigated this trial at some length over the years, and have a good hypothesis on what happened to favor the Hammond in the recital. First, we must remember the times...the mid 1930's, when electronic instruments were completely unheard of , save for Thaddeus Cahill's "Telharmonium", which delivered "electric" music to peoples' homes and businesses via private line telephone lines. In fact, the Hammond Organ was stolen directly from Cahill's patents, only Laurens Hammond succeeded in miniaturizing it with the use of vacuum tube amplification. Up until this time, no one had ever heard of any instrument of electrical generation schemes that remotely purported to sound anything like a pipe organ. Thus, when confronted by the Hammond, which indeed can sound VERY close to a bourdon, gedackt, and other harmonically challenged stops, the lack of experience on the part of the listeners came into play. Not having any previous aural experience with anything that had come so close to organ tone, many were fooled. Helping the Hammond was the typical "mushy" character of most of Skinner's work, Rockefeller Chapel being no exception, buried as it is in chambers, with little upperwork of any consequence. Add to this fact that Heaps, already on the Hammond payroll, was quite well versed in the harmonic content of organ stops, and knew well enough to avoid bright chorus reeds (Hammond's biggest failure) and silvery strings in his recital. Thus, by playing upon listener inexperience, capitalizing on Skinner's errors in specificatory judgement and using favorable registrations, Heaps and Hammond were able to sway the crowd enough to win their position.   Fast forward to present sixty-four years later, if you will, and we'll see that the "pipes only" crowd still exists, is as indignant as ever, but the competitor is no longer an electromechanical device, but one that has evolved through independent oscillators and finally to digital synthesis. If we could indeed transport those Depression-era folks present in Rockefeller Chapel to today, and have them compare the elderly Skinner with, say, an Allen Rennaissance, I'd be willing to bet serious money that the results would be even more conclustive...no difference. Even experienced musicians are increasingly having trouble discerning one from another. Indeed, there are instances where digital ranks from the likes of Walker Technical, et al, are added to a specification, and the "golden ears" of the AGO are unable to tell...until they are told, that is! This just creates more invective and brings forth charges of treachery and worse from the pipe crowd, although the evidence is pretty clear that even they couldn't ferret out the digital imposters. However, these same "golden ears", when confronted with the information upfront, will invariably say they can pick out the interloper every time. Suffice it to say that there is little, if anything, going on in the world or organs and organists that even approaches scientific method or reason; witness the "TrackerMania" phenomena of the last thirty-five years or so as being another example of this.   >I was a Hammond dealer for a time. The persons I run into these days who= =20 >know the old Hammond sound, will tell you that the new Hammonds do not= sound=20 >like the old. Close, but oh so far. And the Leslie tone cabinet was a= great=20 >instrument. >Just think, the Leslie and Hammond each developed their sound through=20 >mechanical means.<snip>   Being a dealer, then, obviously you will remember the intense rivalry between Laurens Hammond (actually, his lackey, John Hanert) and Don Leslie! Any Hammond dealer caught selling Leslie speakers would have their franchise revoked forthwith if the factory caught them selling Don Leslie's speakers! Of course, after Lauren Hammond left in 1960, this policy slowly went away, and Hammond actually entered into partnership projects with Leslie, by then owned by CBS as part of their music conglomerate, which also included Rodgers.   Like the digital imitator of pipes, digital Hammonds and their competitors are increasingly zeroing in on "tonewheel sound". Others and myself have done some basic research into what makes a tonewheel Hammond sound like a tonewheel Hammond, and have found that, up until lately, issues such as the "Ham-burger" temperament, crosstalk, intrinsic harmonic content of individual notes, residual magnetism in tonewheels, and other eccentricities make the Hammond a tougher instrument to copy than originally thought. The LSI and first digital Hammonds (Super-B, 825) were woefully inadequate. However, the newest XB-3A and XK-2 come very close indeed, although in the wrong temperament. The new Korg CX-3 addresses issues of crosstalk and harmonic content like no other before it. It is a known fact that these manufacturers and others read the HamTech mailing list religiously, and gleen "free" engineering information about the old tonewheelers from their most ardent fans. The Korg unit arrives after some spirited discussions on that list regarding "what makes a Hammond sound like a Hammond" that have taken place over the last couple of years. I'm quite sure the digitorg manufacturers read THIS list, and e-org-l, with more than passing interest, also!   >As Jim Turner said, "If they can produce a digital piano sound that will=20 >fool me, then someone please tell me where I can hear it."<snip>   Only recently has the phenomena attached to true piano tone been address. Clouding this issue is a cadre of hackneyed academics who have come up with a scientifically incorrect notion of "inharmonicity of strings", junk science of the highest order. What digital pianos cannot do (yet) is replicate the pitch rise of a string when it is struck, vis =E1 vis when it is simply resonating. Tuners for years have struggled with seemingly inexplicable phenomena such as "spread tuning", and the hacks of the university set designed the "inharmonicity" theory mostly to answer as to why this happens (and write books!). Flagelated cream! If a tuner mentally "blocks out" the tone produced by the hammer blow, and instead concentrates solely on the tone that exists during string resonance, "spread tuning" simply goes away, which also blows the "inharmonicity" theory to bits. So much for what comes out of universities these days!   >Same with me. I have been tuning pianos and pipe organs for near to fifty= =20 >years, and I have yet to hear a pipe or piano sound produced with=20 >electronics. Close but yet so far.<snip>   Pianos, yes. Organs? You'd better listen again...the new stuff is getting VERY close, as the organ pipe is a simpler prototype to model than is a piano string. The Japanese are working feverishly to address piano intonation problems, after a brief sidetracking at the hands of US "academics", whose junk science "inharmonicity" theory they took as truth for awhile.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:24:31 -0400   > Monty's preface to his concert announcement was meant to be "tongue in > cheek", I'm sure -- and that's exactly how I took it. I still = understand > quite well why Monty might have been inclined to start his announcement > that way (considering the List traffic in general over the last week or = so, > particularly!!). Am I *really* alone here?!?   Thanks, Tim. :) That I took Monty's announcement as (mostly) = tongue-in-cheek should be fairly obvious through my response to it (intended to be = humorously worded, anyway) and my later rebuttal, especially the sign-off, which was = also intended to be a pointed attempt at humor. I hope it wasn't completely = lost on most people! 8-O   I think I must have missed some rough threads (fortunately!) on another = list.   Btw, Monty, you never responded about the URL for the college and the = frescos which you mentioned, so I will take the opportunity to display it here.   http://www.montreat.edu/alumni/fresco/Complete_fresco.htm   One of the pictures also nicely shows off the organ that I presume you = will be playing for the concert. :) I also note that Montreat is close to = Ashville, NC, which is located in the beautiful Great Smokey Mountains. What a wonderful setting! It's a bit of a drive from Washington, DC, but I have family not far away in South Carolina, so who knows. I might manage the = trip.   Amiably, TommyLee   PS, Bruce, no hard feelings! :)    
(back) Subject: Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "Sam Vause \(@Home\)" <vause@home.com> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:28:31 -0700   Ah! Why does it seem so many South Carolina organists leave the state?!?! :-) :-) (I'm originally from Greenville...) --sam Sam Vause (Chandler, AZ)   ----- Original Message ----- From: "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....     ....Btw, Monty, you never responded about the URL for the college and the frescos which you mentioned, so I will take the opportunity to display it here.   http://www.montreat.edu/alumni/fresco/Complete_fresco.htm   One of the pictures also nicely shows off the organ that I presume you = will be playing for the concert. :) I also note that Montreat is close to Ashville, NC, which is located in the beautiful Great Smokey Mountains. What a wonderful setting! It's a bit of a drive from Washington, DC, but I have family not far away in South Carolina, so who knows. I might manage the trip.   Amiably, TommyLee...      
(back) Subject: Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 12:47:00   At 12:28 PM 8/6/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Ah! Why does it seem so many South Carolina organists leave the state?!?! >:-) :-) (I'm originally from Greenville...)<snip>   Jesse Helms and company, aided and abetted by rabid conservatism, and the Southern Baptists, perhaps?   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: RE: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "Storandt, Peter" <pstorandt@okcu.edu> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:45:25 -0500   Jesse's from NC. But SC has the distinction of being the country's most anti-gay state according to a lengthy analysis last year reported in the = New York Times.   -----Original Message----- From: Bob Scarborough [mailto:desertbob@rglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 7:47 AM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....     At 12:28 PM 8/6/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Ah! Why does it seem so many South Carolina organists leave the state?!?! >:-) :-) (I'm originally from Greenville...)<snip>   Jesse Helms and company, aided and abetted by rabid conservatism, and the Southern Baptists, perhaps?   DeserTBoB   "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: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 16:08:05 -0400   > At 12:28 PM 8/6/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >Ah! Why does it seem so many South Carolina organists leave the = state?!?! > >:-) :-) (I'm originally from Greenville...)<snip> > > Jesse Helms and company, aided and abetted by rabid conservatism, and = the > Southern Baptists, perhaps? > Wrong state, BaWb! Jesse is a NORTH Carolina affliction. We got stuck = with Senator Strom.   tlw    
(back) Subject: RE: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "Storandt, Peter" <pstorandt@okcu.edu> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:57:17 -0500   Don't worry, TommyLee; he swears he'll only serve two more terms....   -----Original Message----- From: TommyLee Whitlock [mailto:tommylee@whitlock.org] Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 3:08 PM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Concert Announcement and rebuttals....     > At 12:28 PM 8/6/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >Ah! Why does it seem so many South Carolina organists leave the = state?!?! > >:-) :-) (I'm originally from Greenville...)<snip> > > Jesse Helms and company, aided and abetted by rabid conservatism, and = the > Southern Baptists, perhaps? > Wrong state, BaWb! Jesse is a NORTH Carolina affliction. We got stuck = with   Senator Strom.   tlw     "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: Concert Announcement and rebuttals.... From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 15:22:10   At 04:08 PM 8/6/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Wrong state, BaWb! Jesse is a NORTH Carolina affliction. We got stuck = with >Senator Strom.<snip>   Same ole same ole...Thurmond, Helms, they're almost interchangable. What gets me is that people bitch and moan about these two morons loudly, yet they've been reelected for over 40 years. Somebody's not voting often enough! hehe   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: Overhead Soldering From: <RMaryman@aol.com> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:11:04 EDT   In a message dated 00-08-03 18:59:17 EDT, you write:   << Can anyone offer tips on overhead soldering? Even attempting to hold the iron as level as possible, I seem to drip as much solder as I use. Bob >>   What are you trying to Solder? I have most success by heating the joint = in question first and then touching the solder to the joint just long enough = for the solder to flow and adhere. then I pull the iron and the solder away = and let the joint cool. If you are trying to solder a windline make sure the joint area in CLEAN and use the right type of flux (acid based if you are soldering galvanized) and use the "tack-fill-smooth" technique to complete =   the joint( similar to that used by pipemakers).   hope this helps   Rick M Staunton VA  
(back) Subject: Re: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ? From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 08:28:22 +0800   Desert Bob is not correct here. My reference gives the following = information:   The first electric organ was developed by a Russian physicist in the USA = in early 1920s. It used spinning disks and photo-electric cells and had two manuals = but no pedals. He named the instrunment "The Photonie". He usd two banks of = stops, one to produce the fundamental tone and insert harmonics, and the other to = allow chords to be played by depression a single note after the fashion of the = piano accordeon. This instrument was followed by the "Phototone" built by Edwin = Welte, a German in the USA, who used transparent disks with the desired wave form printed on the disk. A third man, Major Ranger built an electronic organ in the early 30s, = again in the USA using a system of tuning forks set in vibration electrically. Laurens Hammond followed in 1935, but he was far from the first. Bob E.   > must remember the times...the mid 1930's, when electronic instruments = were > completely unheard of ,    
(back) Subject: Re: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ? From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 17:45:50 -0700   Ah, the "Rangertone", wasn't it? But I only know it from books ... I've = never seen one.   Welte as in the pipe-organ builder?   DesertBob is probably correct in a practical sense ... Hammond was = probably the first commercially-successful pipeless electro-mechanical organ to enter the = mass market .... wasn't the Everett Orgatron slightly later? And TECHNICALLY it was a = reed organ.   Cheers,   Bud   Bob Elms wrote:   > Desert Bob is not correct here. My reference gives the following = information: > > The first electric organ was developed by a Russian physicist in the USA = in early > 1920s. It used spinning disks and photo-electric cells and had two = manuals but no > pedals. He named the instrunment "The Photonie". He usd two banks of = stops, one > to produce the fundamental tone and insert harmonics, and the other to = allow > chords to be played by depression a single note after the fashion of the = piano > accordeon. This instrument was followed by the "Phototone" built by = Edwin Welte, > a German in the USA, who used transparent disks with the desired wave = form > printed on the disk. > A third man, Major Ranger built an electronic organ in the early 30s, = again in > the USA using a system of tuning forks set in vibration electrically. > Laurens Hammond followed in 1935, but he was far from the first. > Bob E. > > > must remember the times...the mid 1930's, when electronic instruments = were > > completely unheard of , > > "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: Hammond and the FTC, was organs ? Piano ? From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 08:42:45 +0800   Granted, but that is not what he said. He said completely unheard of. I = thought the Everett was of about the same time as the Hammond. From what I can = remember it was a completely unwieldy instrument having dozens of radio valves in it with = the consequent heat problem but maybe I am wrong there. Bob .   quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > Ah, the "Rangertone", wasn't it? But I only know it from books ... I've = never seen > one. > > Welte as in the pipe-organ builder? > > DesertBob is probably correct in a practical sense ... Hammond was = probably the first > commercially-successful pipeless electro-mechanical organ to enter the = mass market > ... wasn't the Everett Orgatron slightly later? And TECHNICALLY it was a = reed organ. > > Cheers, > > Bud > > Bob Elms wrote: > > > Desert Bob is not correct here. My reference gives the following = information: > > > > The first electric organ was developed by a Russian physicist in the = USA in early > > 1920s. It used spinning disks and photo-electric cells and had two = manuals but no > > pedals. He named the instrunment "The Photonie". He usd two banks of = stops, one > > to produce the fundamental tone and insert harmonics, and the other = to allow > > chords to be played by depression a single note after the fashion of = the piano > > accordeon. This instrument was followed by the "Phototone" built by = Edwin Welte, > > a German in the USA, who used transparent disks with the desired wave = form > > printed on the disk. > > A third man, Major Ranger built an electronic organ in the early 30s, = again in > > the USA using a system of tuning forks set in vibration electrically. > > Laurens Hammond followed in 1935, but he was far from the first. > > Bob E. > > > > > must remember the times...the mid 1930's, when electronic = instruments were > > > completely unheard of , > > > > "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 > > "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   -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/