PipeChat Digest #1395 - Tuesday, May 16, 2000
 
Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob
  by <dougcampbell@juno.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs. tracker/slider
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs. tracker/slider
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Luther Melby" <lmelby@prtel.com>
 


(back) Subject: Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob From: <dougcampbell@juno.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 19:16:38 -0400   I suppose that this is time to mention my Financial Model for Church Organs. This was developed a number of years ago and does a comprehensive long term cost analysis of the costs associated with both pipe organs and electronic instruments.     Douglas A. Campbell Skaneateles, NY     On Mon, 15 May 2000 17:10:55 -0400 Bob Kinner <rkinner@one.net> writes: > Dear List, > Thanks for the many responses. I'll be getting back to some of > you > personally soon. > > There are many good arguments - on both sides - on the EP to EM > case. > (We should avoid "DE" as that's a Wicks trademark.) But here's the > overruling one that made the decision easy for me: maintenance. The > only concern my church voiced when I proposed donating this organ > was: " > How are we going to maintain it? That's why we bought a toaster in > the > first place. Isn't maintenance expensive?" > > It does take a certain knack - and often a lot of time - to repair > the > EP chests made by many builders. And, yes, they do need to be > releathered once in a *great* while. On the other hand, anyone who > can > use a screwdriver and a soldering iron can repair an EM chest. IF > the > pallet valve fails, you just pull it out and replace it with > another. > > The old arguments about arcing ruining contacts should be moot by > now. An $0.88 MOSFET will switch 15 amps and a group of $.03 diodes > takes care of the switching and EMF shunting. > > Again, thanks for the help. I'll be in touch. > Bob > -- > Bob Kinner AA8FH rkinner@one.net > "If at first you don't succeed, switch to power tools." Red Green > > > > "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: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:16:29 EDT   In a message dated 5/15/00 5:18:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, opus1100@catoe.org writes:   > And while you are at it...trim the wicks and bring back the kerosene > lamps, throw out the airconditioning > and put a wood stove in the corner before next winter. You might also > check out the equine market,,,, Oh, for Peiter's sake!!! (hehehe) what is the problem with a perfectly good all mechanical and or mechanical/pneumatic system that works = perfectly well. It's simply another option. Just because I prefer to use a mechanical can opener as opposed to an electric one does not mean I'm = trying to return to another century. Tubular pneumatic is a very simple and dependable, not to mention long-lasting system. In addition, it's a heck = of alot more fun to work on/service than EP or EM. Trouble shooting is = much simpler and repairs can be make quite easily and inexpensively. In addition, there is minimal perishable materials involved. I'm not = proposing a full scale return to TP, but don't rule it out "just because it's old."   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:25:22   At 09:16 PM 5/15/2000 EDT, you wrote: >Trouble shooting is much=20 >simpler and repairs can be make quite easily and inexpensively.<schnippo>   You've OBVIOUSLY never had to wrestle with a M=F6ller TP!   dB  
(back) Subject: Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:43:48 EDT     >With "EM", these are simply "plant pipes and play". To those that seem to=20 have some >notion of the "tonal" superiority of slider chests, I point to th= e=20 perennial success of >Austin...'nuff said. Geez DB.... your level of discrimination is admirable. So much for the=20 pipe organ as a work of art. Just make it out of the cheapest crap=20 available, and stuff it into a chamber and plug it in.   > That said, I shall place yet another batch of my infamous burrs under the > saddles of the traditionalists! The day ain't far away when "pipe metal" > will be gone, too. =20 Bung! No pun intended! ;-)   >Fiberglas=AE chests? Certainly a possibility, and one that forever banishe= s=20 the water >damage problem, which has silenced many a great organ way before=20 its time.=20 Wonderful, I'm sure fibreglass will yield a very warm, rich and resonant=20 sound. And it never splits!   > Who CARES what it's made of, as long as it SOUNDS right and LASTS! And we ALL know that these factors are totally unrelated, now don't we!!! =20 And be sure that it is ugly so there is no mistaking that it has no artistic= =20 value.   Forty wallops with a schpinnette broomstick (a new fibreglass one!!!) =20 hehehehehe   Bruce=20 .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:48:23 EDT   In a message dated 5/15/00 7:00:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, desertbob@rglobal.net writes:   > All pneumatic systems leak, for one, plus the energy source, the blower, > must be actively consuming power at all times to provide static = pressure to > work the action. Not necessarily. Some TP actions work on the exhaust principle and = simply make use of the chest pressure. "All" systems do not leak. Some may. They should be maintained so that they don't. It is a serious mistake = to encourage the proliferation of "maintenance free" equipment. There is no such thing, except that which is disposable. So what if an electronic = or EM organ is "maintenance free"; please bear in mind that you still must suffer the trauma of having to listen to the thing for whatever length of time is does not need maintenance!   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:09:48 -0500   It's simply another option. Just because I prefer to use a mechanical can opener as opposed to an electric one does not mean I'm trying to return to another century.     I don't believe I heard anyone mention scrapping perfectly good, working organs. For those of you who don't like modern equipment such as microwaves and electric can openers hang in there with what you are familiar with. There quite a few functioning model Ts which get folks from point A to point B... (don't think I would want to tackle a Chicago expressway with one of them however).   jch    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:28:29 EDT   In a message dated 5/15/00 9:25:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 desertbob@rglobal.net writes:   > You've OBVIOUSLY never had to wrestle with a M=F6ller TP! Yes, I have. It was quite easy to work on, in spite of the bar & membrane=20 chest. And it worked well after being rained on and sitting idle for almos= t=20 twenty years.=20   So there... =20 tttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbpppppppppffffffffffffffttttttt! ;-)   Bruce=20 .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs. tracker/slider From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:28:25 +0800   Yes I mean the whole action. One was in a Grammar School Chapel (1970). = The design was bad - pallets too big for one thing. The action was extremely heavy and uneven. = It was reworked by J.W.Walker of the UK but was still not satisfactory and finally the = complete action was scrapped and redesigned and rebuilt to a design by Lynn Kirkham of West = Australian University. My son built the new action and installed it. It is = satisfactory now   A new 3 m tracker was put into St George's Cathedral in Perth by Knud = Smenge, a builder who learnt his craft with Marcussen. There has been all sorts of problems with = the action which is only about 10 years old. They are still working on it.   Since I have mentioned names of builders who still exist and I don't wish = to have any litigation over anything I have said I have kept this private   You may remember that my point was not about tracker action versus EP or = DE, it was that not all tracker organs are good, and that some EP and DE organs can be very = good. That was my point and it was made in reply to that died in the wool all trackers are = good dilettante, Mr Lampert. Bob E.   Quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > If a TRACKER organ had to have its action REPLACED after thirty years, = then the church > should be taking the builder to COURT. Surely you don't mean the ACTION, = unless, > perchance, they used unstable wood or aluminum for the trackers and = plastic nuts or > bearings and the thing had to be REWORKED, but that's still not the same = as REPLACING it. > A properly constructed tracker ACTION will last for HUNDREDS of years = ... a slider > windchest that gets rained on will NOT (grin). > > Speaking of, though, a PROPERLY-CONSTRUCTED slider windchest made out of = properly-cured > wood will also outlast a pitman or d.e. chest by several hundred years = ... > Bob-In-The-Desert was evidently exposed to some of the cheezy examples = that were built in > the U.S. in the sixties ... we had one at CCM in Cincinnati with = wafer-thin transparent > PLASTIC sliders, which of COURSE never sealed properly. > > They're more expensive to build initially, to be sure, but not if you = factor in having to > completely disassemble an organ on pitman chests to releather the = primaries every 25-50 > years (depending on air pollution). Yes, d.e. chests last longer than = pitmans, but > there's still the issue of the quality of pipe-speech and blend on a = stop-channel versus > a tone-channel chest. > > OK, MAYBE d.e. applied to slider chests is the best of all possible = worlds, IF you MUST > have electric key action. > > Cheers, > > Bud > > Bob Elms wrote: > > > An organ builder friend of mine who specialized in extension organs = with DE trebles, > > EP basses (built the organ I play) used an expansion chamber round the = foot hole of > > each pipe. No bounce there. > > > > Incidentally as far as longevity of actions is concerned a number his = organs go back > > 45 years with minimum maintenance and tuning, and still showing no = signs of the need > > for any work done on them. On the other hand I know of some tracker = organs which have > > already had their actions replaced after less than 30 years. > > > > It all depends on WHO builds the organ in the first place. > > > > Bob E. > > > > Quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: > > I've talked to a couple of builders who are using direct electric = action applied > > > > > to slider chests ... they say they've solved the bouncing and = popping so > > > characteristic of old Wicks organs. If so, then certainly direct = electric is more > > > DURABLE than electro-pneumatic, as long as it fires as fast and the = valves don't > > > bounce. But then, thinking about it, I suppose slider chest pallet = valves wouldn't > > > bounce in the first place (grin). > > > > > > > > > > > "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/      
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:38:41 EDT   In a message dated 5/15/00 10:09:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, opus1100@catoe.org writes:   > There quite a few functioning model Ts which get > folks from point A to point B... > (don't think I would want to tackle a Chicago expressway with one of = them > however). > The fact that seems to be eluding us in this discussion is that we are dealing with a work of art, not an automobile or a piece of functional machinery. It is too bad that the organ must suffer the indignity of consumerism, having to be big, big, big and cheap, cheap, cheap (not to mention maintenance-free). It does come to mind that most equipment in churches and educational institutions is maintenance free: the equipment = is neglected until is no longer works and then is replaced with something cheaper and requiring "less" maintenance than the previous neglected equipment. We are living in a very sick and irresponsible society. = Gag!   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 20:34:42   At 09:43 PM 5/15/2000 EDT, you wrote: >And be sure that it is ugly so there is no mistaking that it has no = artistic >value.<snip>   Ah, but it's the AURAL sensation we're after, correct? Certainly there's room in the budget for the tactile and visual appeal of fine consoles, artistic casework and front pipes. It's the stuff that ISN'T seen where things can be modernized to keep the instrument competitive. It's great = to sit up in the Ivory Tower and proclaim that the instrument should be "art for art's sake"...but it isn't going to sell to those potential buyers, = the vast majority of whom are looking at bottom line issues very seriously!   >Forty wallops with a schpinnette broomstick (a new fibreglass one!!!)   GACK! Noooooo! NOT the schpinette broomstick torture again!!   dB  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:25:12   At 09:48 PM 5/15/2000 EDT, you wrote: >It is a serious mistake to=20 >encourage the proliferation of "maintenance free" equipment. There is no= =20 >such thing, except that which is disposable.<snip>   Sorry, invalid arguement, and here's why. Witness the labor and cost intensity in maintaining the average automotive engine of today vis =E0 vis one of, say, c. 1960. Of course, much improvement was brought to bear by improved support technology, such as better fuels and lubricants, but the fact is that one can buy a car now, drive it 100,000 miles, and never have to change spark plugs, mess with breaker points or timing settings, do 2,000 mile oil changes and chassis lubes, valve grinds and adjustments, and so on. You change air filters now and then, oil and filter about twice a year, especially using new synthetic-based oils, and it just goes, all the while spewing far less pollutants than its precedessors while delivering superior fuel economy.   I did a cost survey between two cars I've owned...a 1962 and a 1992 Cadillac. When one adjusts labor rates and parts, supplies and fuel costs for inflation, the '92 Cadillac cost me me about one FIFTH of what the '62 did, in terms of routine repair, servicing and fuel costs. I did all my own work on both except wheel alignments, and kept detailed shop records, including shop time, parts costs, and so on. THAT's the reality. Was the '92 a "throwaway"? Hardly. I drove it four years, and it gave me back purchase price minus only $5,500 in depreciation. What caused the "big savings"? Better technology, pure and simple.   What's this got to do with pipe organs, anyway?? Everything, in this sense. The new technology afforded in 30 years meant that I could get an equal number of miles for much less real cost, once adjusted for inflation over the 30 year period. Superimpose this type of accounting on the purchase of a pipe organ for, say, a civic auditorium. If one could project maintenance expenditures over a 100 year period for one using old, "artistic" technology vis =E0 vis one using new, "maintenance free" technology, the cost savings factor becomes quite a return on investment. That's MORE money to be used for music programs, promotion, and artists fees, than having to spend it on releathering, adjustment and repairs of finnicky actions, replacing wood due to water damange, and so on.   >So what if an electronic or=20 >EM organ is "maintenance free"; please bear in mind that you still must= =20 >suffer the trauma of having to listen to the thing for whatever length of= =20 >time is does not need maintenance!<snip>   Who's saying that "maintenance free" will necessarily equal "bad tonality"? There are different engineering targets than can be aimed at, most certainly. One is to engineer every last nickel out of initial production costs, thus being the absolute low price leader, while foresaking items of tonality and reliability. This was the decision made by Hammond Organ Company that sunk them in the early 1980s, aided by short-sighted, incompetent management. Conversely, another target choice could be a "initial-cost-is-no-object" scenario, where old, expensive technology of the highest quality can be used, whether for art's sake, tradition's sake, or whatever. This is the approach that =C6olian-Skinner tried to sell to their prospects, and it eventually sunk them, also, also aided by some really bad management. Both scenaria are flawed...they do not look at an item squarely on the mind of the purchaser, best described in an earlier post that said, "Do we have to maintain this thing?" In both our examples thus present, the obvious answer was, "Yes, you sure do, because if you don't, this thing will lapse into total silence!"   Consideration has to be given to both financial nodes of a pipe organ investment, to wit, cost up front, AND ongoing maintenance. Although some of my ideas are indeed futuristic, especially to such a reactionarily tradition-bound area as organ manufacture, I opine that, unless both of these areas of concern are adequately addressed through engineering improvement aimed at cost reduction at both nodes, the electronic poseur will completely, except for the largest and most prestigeous installations, push pipes out of the market entirely. If this happens, there will be precious few shops in business to MAKE the large, prestigeous installations in the first place!   One must take emotional backlash out of such decisions in engineering. I saw these decisions being made on a daily basis at AT&T, and the cost savings long and short term was phenomenal, while improved deliverables were secured by the customer. Certainly, the "art" of telephony was fascinating throughout 20th century, but the fact remained that equipment that needed constant, or at least predicitable, routine maintenance was scrapped in favor of that which required no routine maintenance whatsoever. Social implications of all this, of course, run contrary to my grain, in terms of lost, high paying jobs, but that is not within the scope of arguement here. What IS within the scope is to engineer, build, voice and install instruments of high quality and high reliability which demand the absolute lowest in terms of maintenance cost over a long time span.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:36:07   At 10:28 PM 5/15/2000 EDT, BaWLd-OnE bReWsE wrote: >It was quite easy to work on, in spite of the bar & membrane >chest.<snip>   Talk about your "throwaways", these babies were IT! Once the leather's gone, it's firewood!   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs. tracker/slider From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:38:49   At 10:28 AM 5/16/2000 +0800, you wrote: >You may remember that my point was not about tracker action versus EP or DE, it was that not >all tracker organs are good, and that some EP and DE organs can be very good.<snip>   Eloquently stated, Mr. Elms.   >That was my >point and it was made in reply to that died in the wool all trackers are good dilettante, Mr >Lampert.<snip>   Fortunately, he hasn't breeched our cyberspace as of yet, and God willing, won't!   dB  
(back) Subject: Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:46:34 EDT   In a message dated 5/15/00 11:40:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, desertbob@rglobal.net writes: > Ah, but it's the AURAL sensation we're after, correct? Certainly = there's > room in the budget for the tactile and visual appeal of fine consoles, > artistic casework and front pipes. It's the stuff that ISN'T seen = where > things can be modernized to keep the instrument competitive. I'm afraid this is part of the downfall of the organ. The organ, to PLEASE, must please the eye as well as the ear. Organs buried in = chambers do not please the eye, and the pleasure to the ear is lessened as well. =   Fine consoles are one of the greatest wastes of money. People, evidently =   organists especially, need to be educated that the console is NOT the = organ, but only the means of controlling the organ. Spending upwards of $50, 000 = on a console is obscene. Keeping the organ competitive by cheating on = the innards is not the way to create an instrument that will compete either financially, musically or artistically.     > It's great to sit up in the Ivory Tower and proclaim that the = instrument should be "art > for art's sake"...but it isn't going to sell to those potential buyers, = the > vast majority of whom are looking at bottom line issues very seriously! Unfortunately, I have never had the option of sitting in the Ivory Tower. = It is the reality of the bottom line that convinces me that the highest quality in the TOTAL instrument is what creates the finest instruments. =   The lowest quality instruments are those which style permits cost-cutting = and shoddy work within. Ultimately, the buyers tire of this and finally = realize that what they got is not as good as what they wanted.   > GACK! Noooooo! NOT the schpinette broomstick torture again!! and you don't even want to know what I can do with a drawbar!!!! ;-)   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:56:40 EDT   In a message dated 5/16/00 12:25:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, desertbob@rglobal.net writes:   > Sorry, invalid arguement, and here's why. Sorry.... condense it and I'll try to read it again. Organs and = autos: apples and grapefruits! sorry!   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:39   At 10:38 PM 5/15/2000 EDT, bReWsE wrote: >The fact that seems to be eluding us in this discussion is that we are=20 >dealing with a work of art, not an automobile or a piece of functional=20 >machinery. It is too bad that the organ must suffer the indignity of=20 >consumerism, having to be big, big, big and cheap, cheap, cheap (not to=20 >mention maintenance-free).<snip>   Sorry, bReWsE...economics drives the world, not art. I've never said this is correct, but this is reality. Forwarding the art while dealing with the economics is the balancing act to be done!   >It does come to mind that most equipment in=20 >churches and educational institutions is maintenance free: the equipment= is=20 >neglected until is no longer works and then is replaced with something=20 >cheaper and requiring "less" maintenance than the previous neglected=20 >equipment.<snip>   Thank you for making my point so well for me! IF the instrument can stand on its own without needing ongoing, unscheduled maintenance, and can give years of satisfying tonal performance, then the art of the organ has been furthered, not hindered! We must realize that a goodly number of fine organs lapsed into total silence and were scrapped due to the exact neglect you mentioned! Witness the complete demolition of a fine Cavaille-Coll instrument in Mexico at the hands of termites! Certainly, had ongoing peripheral maintenance been done to prevent the termite infestations, this instrument could be peeling forth today. The REALITY is, however, it wasn't done, and a good portion of the organ is lost.   Termites don't attack Fiberglas=AE, however! <snarf snarf snarf!>   >We are living in a very sick and irresponsible society. Gag!<snip>   As one Methodist minister friend of mine recently said: "I know it's sad that the organ no longer is playable, but we only have so much money to spend in any quarter, and ministering to the congregation's various social and spiritual needs is the first priority. People need care first...organs have to come later." I don't call that sick at all!   DeserTBoB   PS: Had this dog contained my NEW, REVOLUTIONARY technologies, it'd still be playing! Reason for collapse? Dry-rotted leather in the 36 year old pitman chests. Again, thanks for making my case! BWAAAAAHAHAHAA!  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:16:39 EDT   In a message dated 5/16/00 1:09:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, desertbob@rglobal.net writes:   > People need care first...organs > have to come later." I don't call that sick at all! > Unfortunately that SOB is only concerned with the physical, not spiritual care of people. Typical !!   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Luther Melby" <lmelby@prtel.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:23:19 -0500     -----Original Message----- From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:49 PM Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic       As one Methodist minister friend of mine recently said: "I know it's sad that the organ no longer is playable, but we only have so much money to spend in any quarter, and ministering to the congregation's various social and spiritual needs is the first priority. People need care = first...organs have to come later." I don't call that sick at all! DeserTBoB "Spiritual needs"? Good music fills the bill better than many other things the church spends money on.. Lutlher