PipeChat Digest #1801 - Saturday, February 3, 2001
Steven Janco?
  by "Greg" <homza@indiana.edu>
Re: Votteler organ
  by "Luther Melby" <lmelby@prtel.com>
Re: Votteler conservation
  by "Luther Melby" <lmelby@prtel.com>
RE: organ conservation
  by "randy terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com>
RE:  Organ Conservation
  by "randy terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com>
Re: Bruce Bengston -4 Feb 4 p.m.
  by <DRAWKNOB@aol.com>

(back) Subject: Steven Janco? From: "Greg" <homza@indiana.edu> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 23:45:36 -0500 (EST)   Greetings, Pipechatters...   Does anyone know the correct pronunciation of the surname "Janco" (as in "Steven R.")? We're learning one of his Mass settings, which works quite well with organ (thus keeping this post on-topic...)   Thanks, -greg    
(back) Subject: Re: Votteler organ From: "Luther Melby" <lmelby@prtel.com> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:45:35 -0600   After reading your letter I tried blowing the Ludwigtone again, I can get them to undulate slower than 2 per second. They still sound nice.   The pipes are tapered so that the tuning coil at the top is quite small, instead of wide open, plus the mouths are opposite of each other. I think that may be why they work, although the undulation is very obvious it does not sound choppy to me. I believe that the undulation is so obvious because the 2 sides of the pipe are of the same scale. If however 1 side was a much smaller scale it would not come so close to canceling out the other side and the celeste would then be very mild. Just my thoughts Luther > >Yes, that's one of the reason why I would like to examine a Ludwigtone. = Any >two air columns placed in close proximity will influence each other. When >celestes are too close it is difficult if not impossible to get a nice = slow >undulation. They tend to "chop", you can tap the slide of the celeste = rank >sharp from >unison...nothing..tap..nothing..tap...nothing..tap...chopchopchopchopchopc= h opc > >hop! It is not very pleasant. > >Alan B >    
(back) Subject: Re: Votteler conservation From: "Luther Melby" <lmelby@prtel.com> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:48:39 -0600   If I had any idea that this was a good candidate for preservation I would have taken more precautions when removing it.   As it is now all the wiring will have to be redone (which I can do with = new wire). The only alteration that had been done, that I know of, is that the = Diapason 8' was changed to a 4' but all the pipes are here and can be simply changed back.   I do have some time to think about this as I won't get at it for a while.   Are there any others out there that have an opinion about this? Is this organ a rare and endangered species?   Thanks for all the mail concerning this, Luther lmelby@prtel.com   >From: TubaMagna@aol.com Date: Friday, February 02, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: Re: Votteler conservation     > If this is a completely unaltered instrument by Henry B. Votteler (or >Votteler-Hettche, or Votteler-Holtkamp-Sparling), it is worth saving, due to >its rarity and historic importance. > Where is this rambling leading? You have a small example of something >rare, intact, and genuine. It may be one of three, it may be the only = one of >its kind. Your soul and history will thank you for making the right >decisions regarding the fate of this organ. > >Sebastian Matthaus Gluck >New York City >    
(back) Subject: RE: organ conservation From: "randy terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:04:24 -0800 (PST)     --- Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> wrote: > At 04:13 PM 2/2/2001 -0800, you wrote:   > BOTH organs were, in > some part of their being, inadequate for the function they were = installed > to do, and were replaced and/or added to. > Well, in the case of the Skinner, it was a 4/70ish. I've never seen the original specification. However it was the equal in specification to many = of the other landmark organs of that time. However, it did suffer from being = in a dead room. The Gt/ped were on the right of the stage, the swell/choir on = the left, solo high in the center of the ceiling, and echo at the rear. It = was a very complete specification with independent reeds on the Great 8 and 4, = along with a quint and harmonics mixture. The swell had at least one mixture as = did the pedal. The swell had 2 16' flues, I understand that the choir did = lack mutations, but of course every possible solo reed was included as were = Open Wood 32, Bourdon 32, and Bombarde 32 units in the pedal, along with an independent 16' Contrabass with 8' ext. I heard the college organist play = the Toccata and Fugue in d minor on a recording and to my ears I found the = choruses quite "American classic." I am sure the big Diapasons were left out and perhaps Harrison influenced the instrument. The school was one of the = first to have an instrument (complete with tracker action and ruckpositiv) by a particular famous Dutch builder in the small recital hall, and there were = 2 Schlicker practice organs. The Skinner was replaced by a large 3/ped = Holtkamp electric action organ that used one chamber and had exposed gt and pos. = It has 1/4L 32' Reed in the pedal! I am sure the Skinner in that dead room was = more effective. The need was for an effective teaching instrument, but it = seems to me that they GAVE up an effective teaching instrument. The Holtkamp is at = St. Luke's Episcopal, Birmingham, AL. If you go to the Bham AGO webpage there = is an local organ link. The remains of the Skinner are at Advent Cathedral = and this along with the Holtkamp can be viewed. The Holtkamp is in an = Episcopal Church. It is a marvelous instrument in every way. The acoustics are fabulous, and the organ literally sparkles. Holtkamp added a Fanfara in = 1980 and the Flauto Dolce is tuned as a celeste. The never added flute celeste chest now holds a 4' Flute and the empty prepared Trumpet chest has a A-S Trompette. Milnars added a Great Harmonic Flute 8 and 8' Gemshorn to the = pos., along with electronic 32 exts. These additions did really enhance its usefulness in Anglican liturgy, and the existing voicing was preserved.   I do agree with the comment that the Holtkamp was lacking. I can't say = that I agree in the case of the Skinner. The organ prof., whom I admire greatly wanted it. Maybe there was not money to restore it, but This was 1980 - 6 = or 7 more years and that instrument would still be in its original location, = maybe!   > Now comes the crux of the situation, and a sore sticking point with me = and > many others: WERE the existing organs replaced/modified for the BETTER > overall, or were they simply trashed for the latest "fad"? No doubt, = the > organ is victim to faddishness more than any other musical instrument = (as > to some reasons why, I shall keep MY trap SHUT!). There seems to be a > total disregard for logical progression of tonal resources, and instead, =   > one complete school is laboriously (and QUITE expensively) sacked in = favor > of another. In the case of the Skinner, it's hard to see why much of = this > fine work got tossed, when simple, judicious additions of upperwork and > juggling of ranks to achieve better ensemble are probably all that was > needed. Of course, then there's the "fad" of TrackerMania, which = dictates > that ALL EP and romantic instruments are somehow inherently pass=E9, and = must > be scrapped. To disprove this onerous idea, witness the 1929 E.M. = Skinner > of UCLA's Royce Hall, which, with the same modifications mentioned = above, > now sings forth with new authority and flexibility. This instrument now > probably more closely conforms to the ideals of G. Donald Harrison's = reform > movement instruments, but still retains an unmistakable "Skinner sound". > > On the other hand, the Holtkamp was probably in need of such = modifications > to make it more useful. Anyone that has played one of Walter Sr.'s = works > knows his extremism in the Organ Reform Movement, and knows he went far > overboard on chiffiness and ear-shattering mixtures at times. (I'm sure =   > that our own BuuD-by-the-Beach can weigh in on this, having dealt with > Waltah's "Martini organs" at Oberlin!) Still, the fine vertical = choruses > are there, and just some softening and expansion of his ideas would = surely > make the instrument "warmer" and more apt to give good renditions of = more > of the literature. > > Certainly, purists will decry what I say (they ALWAYS do), but the fact > remains that BOTH of these organs, in their original forms, were lacking =   > from being workable instruments able to cover large areas of the organ > schools, Skinner probably for his massive collection of unison solo = voices > and "slush" at the expense of solid vertical chorus, and Holtkamp for = his > xylophonic speech and diamond-cutting upperwork. The Skinner was dumped =   > (most assuredly erroneously), while the Holtkamp was retained but > modified. The first example was plainly wrong, while the second was > probably the best overall outcome without succumbing to "faddishness". = I > daresay that the Holtkamp, in its current incarnation, is probably a = better > instrument overall than when new, while we also know that similar = treatment > to a "lacking" Skinner can also be quite successful, as the UCLA organ > bears witness to. > > "Change for change's sake" is most definitely wrong, but also, = "historical > preservation for historical preservation's sake" can be equally = erroneous > and self-serving! Somewhere in between the two extremes, scholarly = reason > must prevail and, all too often, simply does not! > > Off my soapbox, leaving 2=A2... > > 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 >     __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: RE: Organ Conservation From: "randy terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:18:37 -0800 (PST)     --- Wurlibird1@aol.com wrote:   > Randy, I appreciate your concern but why should an organ be allowed to = sound > its worst when it can sound its best, regardless of its genre? Butchery = is > to be avoided at all cost but if voicing, regulating and obvious = deficits can > > be corrected, where and why should we feel guilt?   Well, I have never regretted any changes I made to the instruments that = needed them. I remain amazed at what simple tonal finishing can do to organs = such as the 1975 Wicks at Christ Church, Los Altos. I get upset when organ = consultants tell churches to "throw out" instruments such as this. I guess I was = simply thinking out loud more than anything because in the present church and = project I am allowing myself to do the experiment of "having it my way." So there = are some duplexes and extensions that are unnecessary and look a bit over the = top. For example, I chose only unison couplers, but the Gemshorn in the sw = plays at 16/8/4 and the celeste at 8/4. On the other hand, room is in short supply = so we chose to add an enclosed 8/4/2 Principal unit with borrowed bass rather = than a real string and celeste, which I really wanted. the Great Principals 8 = and 4 are exposed and the only mixture is enclosed so at least now if there are temperature problems there is an 8/4/2/mixture chorus to use...I realize = all of this is very objective, I just wondered if there were any thoughts about = some of the styles of the recent past being preserved intact. There is a 1969 Beckerath 37 r. tracker in my area in an Episcopal that I understand had "extra" finishing applied by a local technician to make it more Anglican. = It still sounds very "Germanic" to me, but If I were in charge of an = instrument like that I would feel obligated to keep it as is. Whatever the case I = played it recently and other than the reeds found it to be quite nice.   __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: Bruce Bengston -4 Feb 4 p.m. From: <DRAWKNOB@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:42:17 EST   In a message dated 2/2/01 10:27:00 PM Central Standard Time, jlspeller@mindspring.com writes:   << There is another organist -- and having heard both of them I would recommend both highly -- named Bruce A. Bengtson. It is Bruce A. Bengtson who used to be in Dallas. >>   GEE, Now I'm confused.... Bruce BENGTSON is was the organist at the = church I now serve at and the same Bruce B. (I guess) is playing the concert..... = No?   John