PipeChat Digest #2198 - Thursday, July 5, 2001
 
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Panning" <jpanning@cal-net.net>
RE: Miking of cantors and choirs
  by "Dan Gawthrop" <Gawthrop@dunstanhouse.com>
Re: Miking of cantors and choirs
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Miking of cantors and choirs
  by <TEvans1032@aol.com>
Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: Rodgers (Question to list)
  by "Colin Hulme" <colin_hulme@lineone.net>
Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: Rodgers (Question to list) comments about period-specific versus ecle
  by <RMaryman@aol.com>
Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall
  by "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com>
Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall
  by <RMaryman@aol.com>
Re: I'm just an old softy (X-posted)
  by "Stephen Barker" <steve@ststephenscanterbury.freeserve.co.uk>
 

(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Panning" <jpanning@cal-net.net> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:06:29 -0500   Jackson R. Williams II writes:   >Different keys do have different colors because of the >physical properties of how the overtones line up >depending on the temperament used in the tuning >process. Even in equal temperament, each key has it's >own color. E-flat sounds different than E major. and >there is a definite difference between D-flat and and >D major. People who don't have perfect pitch can hear >the difference. The Bach Prelude and Fugue in D major >would have a completely different color and sound when >played in D-flat.   There is some truth to this idea if one is considering only unequal temperaments, where the distance between semitones and other intervals varies from key to key. However, with a true equal temperament, every semitone is exactly 100 cents apart from its neighbors. Any scale of the same type (major, minor, etc.) will have the same relationship between the intervals.   Here is a C-major scale.   C 0 D 200 E 400 F 500 G 700 A 900 B 1100 c 1200   Here is an E-major scale:   E 0 F# 200 G# 400 A 500 B 700 C# 900 D# 1100 e 1200   Therefore, it is impossible to detect key flavor in a melody played in equal temperament.   Further, because of equal tempering, all of the other intervals in every key will have the same relationship: all the seconds, thirds, fourths, = etc. will be as out of tune in one key as in another. Therefore, it is impossible to detect key flavor in any harmony played in equal = temperament.   Perhaps some will say it's the detection of key flavor through absolute pitch. Most people cannot detect absolute pitch, and therefore presumably would not be able to identify the key of a piece without reference to a known musical pitch or the score. Even if a person has absolute pitch, I think all will agree that no single pitch holds any character in and of itself. This is especially true when one considers music written several hundred years ago, before there was agreement on standard pitches. One town's C might be another's C#. (I recall an Allen ad of a few years ago on this very theme, which touted their transposer: that to be truly authentic, one should play a piece that Bach had written in c-minor in b-minor, because the the purported pitch of his local instrument was lower than modern pitch. I don't recall whether temperament was a part of = Allen's equation.)   What else is there? In the end, the only convincing explanation to me is that we filter our sense of what a key is about and what it sounds like to us by what our heads bring to the experience, not anything inherent in the music or sounds (assuming equal temperament here).   Peter Harrison writes:   >I have often suspected that equal temperament is not truly equal, perhaps = as >a result of the beat counting method many tuners use when setting out the >basic scale. It would be interesting if a professional tuner could = confirm, >or deny, that the methods they use to create an "equal temperament" = results >in semitones of different sizes across the scale. Do they believe it = would >create exactly the same scale as a high precision digital tuning aid = which >gave the exactly the same frequency multiples between all semitones?   I doubt that a truly accurate equal temperament exists in any pipe organ anywhere. Pipes draw, tuning by ear is often only a relative approximation (compared to the accuracy that might be built into an electronic keyboard, for example), and there is no saying that the slight errors introduced by human tuners will always benefit the same keys in a way that would allow the listener to detect any key flavor.   >My feeling is that a truly equal temperament could not posses the "key >colour" attribute that so many of us sense.   Agreed.   >It has been suggested that key colour could be due to association with = the >character of other known pieces in that key. However, I don't claim to = have >perfect pitch but can nonetheless sense "key colour" in pieces I hear for = the >first time and for which I have never seen the score.   Again, I believe that this has more to do with musico-sociological factors. Trumpet tunes are almost always in D-major, so I'll write mine in D too. Because of this, the key of D acquires a certain "color" or "flavor" in = our minds. But if I played my trumpet tune one half-step higher for a listener who was musically literate, but did not possess absolute pitch and had no access to the score or a pitch reference before the performance, would he or she detect that the piece had the key flavor of E-flat? I don't think so. He or she would catch the generally festive nature of the piece, and would probably be surprised to know that it *wasn't* in D.   As a person who has been blessed/cursed with absolute pitch (a friend says it's like a Christmas toy whose batteries refuse to die), the idea that keys have a character is something I think about everytime I hear a piece of music, because perceiving its key only reinforces in my mind what sort of music goes with that key. After a lot of thought, I'm convinced that = our perception of key flavor is more a result of this association than any physical/acoustical perception.   John A. Panning Lake City, Iowa      
(back) Subject: RE: Miking of cantors and choirs From: "Dan Gawthrop" <Gawthrop@dunstanhouse.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:32:49 -0400   > Cantors/leaders of song > should sing/lead into mics.   These should, of course, be real microphones, not digital substitutes.   Real microphones last much longer: there are no digital mics more than a = few years old, but real microphones dating back to the earliest days of radio are still around, pumping out tunes of bygone eras.   Real microphones sound better: no digital substitute can possibly hope to accurately reproduce the highly complex vibratos and hopelessly confused upper partials of an over-aged undertrained cantor in full voice.   Real microphones are more versatile: Unlike limited digital mics in which everything is boiled down to either a one or a zero, real microphones = convey the full range of human emotions from A to B.   Real microphones actually cost LESS, when you factor in their longevity: although you may spend less for a digital mic at the outset, what will you spend to replace it in a few years when the digits begin leaking? All = those ones and zeros aren't free you know...or at least the ones aren't.   Demand the real thing!   :-)   Dan Gawthrop    
(back) Subject: Re: Miking of cantors and choirs From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:23:42 -0700   Heavens! What did the ancients DO without microphones?   Well, FIRST of all, they built churches with the acoustics of CHURCHES, = rather than padded cells.   When preaching became popular, they built pulpits against stone walls, = with sounding boards above them.   They CHANTED the readings, because the chant carried better than the = spoken word.   They put the choirs in barrel apses behind the altar, in some places = (notably France) ... a natural amplifier and sound projector. Those that didn't, = put 'em in the west gallery (English parish churches) against ANOTHER stone wall; English cathedrals and collegiate churches built their east-end Great = Quires large enough to accommodate the ordinary Sunday congregations, so there = was no problem hearing the choir, or anybody else.   Old St. Mary's Church in Cincinnati was built in 1841 ... hardwood floors, = no carpet, unpadded pews, plaster walls and ceiling. It seated 1000 = downstairs, and 200 in the galleries. We had a west gallery mixed choir that averaged = around 16; the men's ritual choir down front averaged maybe 6-12 at most; sometimes = it was just two or four chanters.   NOTHING was miked. Period. Not the priest at the altar, not the deacon and sub-deacon at the lecturns, not the preacher at the great elevated = hourglass pulpit-with-sounding-board, and CERTAINLY not the choirs. Even with the = Pastor's THICK Bavarian accent, he could be CLEARLY understood (in Latin, German OR English) in every corner of the church; the choirs could FILL the place = with sound, when that was called for. A string quartet in the west gallery = sounded like a full chamber orchestra (THAT saved us LOTS of money on feast days) (grin).   ALL of the great buildings for sound, sacred and secular, were built = BEFORE acoustics became a science.   I read a VERY interesting article awhile back that put forth the idea that = the microphone actually DISTANCES the person at the mike from the audience, by interpolating a kind of disembodiment between the natural sound source and = the listener.   If amplified sound HAS to be used because of the acoustical deficiencies = of the building, it MUST be VERY sophisticated, and have a TRAINED, PROFESSIONAL operator ... simply flipping on the PA system and hoping for the best = doesn't cut it. Neither does a $1500 sound system. IF we NEED one in our main = church, the BUDGET for it will be $10K-$15K; but if they do what they're SUPPOSED = to do, we won't need it at all.   Cheers,   Bud, who sang SOLO daily High Masses in great cavernous RC churches for = MANY years WITHOUT a mike    
(back) Subject: Re: Miking of cantors and choirs From: <TEvans1032@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:44:47 EDT     --part1_66.112448da.28761daf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 7/5/01 2:24:05 PM Central Daylight Time, quilisma@socal.rr.com writes:   The few times I cantored while at Concordia Seward, at St. Johns across = the street, I never used a mike. Its about an 1,100 seat room.   Travis   > Bud, who sang SOLO daily High Masses in great cavernous RC churches for = MANY > years WITHOUT a mike >       --part1_66.112448da.28761daf_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a message dated = 7/5/01 2:24:05 PM Central Daylight Time, <BR>quilisma@socal.rr.com writes: <BR> <BR>The few times I cantored while at Concordia Seward, at St. Johns = across the <BR>street, I never used a mike. &nbsp;Its about an 1,100 seat room. <BR> <BR>Travis <BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Bud, who sang SOLO = daily High Masses in great cavernous RC churches for MANY <BR>years WITHOUT a mike <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR></FONT></HTML>   --part1_66.112448da.28761daf_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:18:47 -0400   anyone know what happened to the 5-manual Rodgers organ that Virgil Fox designed for Carnegie Hall back in 1974?   Carlo    
(back) Subject: Re: Rodgers (Question to list) From: "Colin Hulme" <colin_hulme@lineone.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:31:20 +0100   Sir,   Please wash your mouth out with soap. Do you not realise that the organ is a great instrument dedicated to boring as many people as possible (apart from other organists that is) and that frivolity has no place in any buiding or forum dedicated to it?   Ducking for cover, Cheers, Colin   Stanley Lowkis wrote: > > Bruce made the observation: > > "If I'm not mistaken, this is a question for an instrument for personal > use. > It could be a fun thread if you can pull your heads out of your churches > and > use your imaginations. It might even be interesting to see what type = of > 20-25 stop instruments people would like to have." > > These organs exist!! > > ...They are called "WurliTzers"!!!! > > Stan > > "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: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:43:05 -0700   It got parted out ... I think. I remember seeing ads for pieces of it from a dude in Hillsboro, Oregon. Maybe it was the speakers and/or the electronics, but not the console. It's been awhile ... I don't remember. But I don't think it was five manuals, was it?   Cheers,   Bud   Carlo Pietroniro wrote:   > anyone know what happened to the 5-manual Rodgers organ that Virgil Fox > designed for Carnegie Hall back in 1974? > > Carlo > > "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: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:48:01 -0400   oh it was indeed a 5-manual. According to the literature I have, it was = the world's first 5-manual electronic organ, and Virgil helped design it. That was just 2 years after Diane helped design the 5-manual Ruffatti at CRPC, which was (at the time) the largest European-built pipe organ in the south (whatever that means). I wonder if Fox felt a bit jealous, thus helping design an organ himself.........not to be out done by a woman!!!   Carlo    
(back) Subject: Re: Rodgers (Question to list) comments about period-specific versus eclectic tr From: <RMaryman@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:50:08 EDT   In a message dated 7/4/01 1:56:11 PM EST, jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com = writes:   > > . The American Classic, supposed do-all, > > organs are beautiful in > > their own right, but they CANNOT render music of all > > periods in a > > satisfactory way. > > I think it is more the player who renders the music in > a satisfactory way. Of course it is the player who renders the music in a satisfactory = way...MY Choice of an eclecctic (read American Classic) pipe organ design _in stead = of a period specific design - is that in many church situations, the eclectic =   design >IMHO< allows a wider spectrum of music to be performed in a satisfactory (to the congregation, who pays for these instruments after = all) manner. I am NOT opposed to period-specific organs in academic situations =   where it benefits the students to learn on authentic(ly) designed irgans, = but you rarely find a college with the financial where-withall to purchase numerous pipe organs. Maybe Oberlin and Eastman and a FEWS select others, = but many colleges struggle with the decision to buy just ONE pipe organ (especially given the shrinking enrollment of Organ majors, and music = majors in general).   I can recount a recital recently given recently on a very well-made North-German Baroque organ here in my area, built by a highly regarded builder that you ALL would recognize the name of. The main piece on the program was by Franck (the Choral Nr 3). while the organist gave a = wonderful playing of the piece, it DID NOT work musically on that organ. The = character of the organ did not match what you would expect to hear in this = particular piece, even with some interesting attempts to register the piece, the = organ DOES NOT have the resources to perform that piece. In fairness, to the builder, in the evensong that followed, the hymns were =   well accompanied, the Postlude (A Bach fugue) was WONDERFUL!! but some of = the music of the evensong was programatically WAYY out of style for that = organ.  
(back) Subject: Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall From: "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:26:28 -0700 (PDT)   Didn't one of those twin V manual Rodgers go to some old movie palace = turned concert hall??     --- Carlo Pietroniro <organist@total.net> wrote: > oh it was indeed a 5-manual. According to the literature I have, it was = the > world's first 5-manual electronic organ, and Virgil helped design it. = That > was just 2 years after Diane helped design the 5-manual Ruffatti at = CRPC, > which was (at the time) the largest European-built pipe organ in the = south > (whatever that means). I wonder if Fox felt a bit jealous, thus helping > design an organ himself.........not to be out done by a woman!!! > > Carlo > > > "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 >     =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Randy Terry Minister of Music, Organist & Choirmaster The Episcopal Church of St. Peter Redwood City, California www.stpetersrwc.org   __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall From: <RMaryman@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:29:13 EDT   In a message dated 7/5/01 3:48:31 PM EST, organist@total.net writes:   > oh it was indeed a 5-manual. According to the literature I have, it was = the > world's first 5-manual electronic organ, and Virgil helped design it.   <SNIP>   I wonder if Fox felt a bit jealous, > design an organ himself.........not to be out done by a woman!!! > The Carnegie Hall (NYC) Rodegers WAS indeed a 5-decker. It had a (more-or-less) twin sister (brother?) which VF used to tour with.   I heard Virgil at one certain venue over a period of years with each = various incarnation of the rodgers "touring" organ...the "Black Beauty" (which was =   also used by Ted Worth) and later the "Royal Five"...and still later with = the 4-manual Allen Custom.     I DO NOT WANT TO STIR UP A FLAME WAR or start another Brand A versus brand = R war. this is just MY personal observation >>ONLY<<...   I found that the Rodgers 3-manual Touring organ (the "Black Beauty" which =   was the second 3-manual incarnation) to be the most favourable sounding in =   that venue (Which ewas an outdoor amphitheatre with a covered stage and = part of the seating area covered as well, NO reverberation and NO resonance whatsoever. The Allen just didn't hold up by comparison. Same place, same =   conditions, NOT the same musical results...IMHO!!!   Rick in VA  
(back) Subject: Re: I'm just an old softy (X-posted) From: "Stephen Barker" <steve@ststephenscanterbury.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:40:23 +0100   That sounds like an interesting project - unfortunately (with regards to what you're doing) we use the more modern ICTT (?) texts (Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to His people on earth...) so I won't be able to = use the music - unless I was to do the same thing. Are these popular in the USA?   I would certainly be interested in seeing a copy when you've done it = though. I presume from you postings that you use Sibelius. I too use this program if it makes transfering files any easier?   Steve Canterbury UK   ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: "+mailing list, ANGLICAN-MUSIC" <anglican-music@list.stsams.org>; "organchat" <organchat@egroups.com>; "pipechat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:30 AM Subject: I'm just an old softy (X-posted)     > I started typesetting the Yon "Messa dei Pastori" in '28 Prayer Book > English tonight for Christmas ... what a flood of memories THAT brought > back ... St. Mary's RC Church, Lorain, OH, 1962 (the first time I ever > heard it); Holy Rosary RC Church, Cleveland, OH, 1963-1968 ... I guess > my roommate took it to St. James Episcopal Church on 55th Street > sometime around then, where it has become a Christmas tradition (THEY > get to sing it in LATIN; I don't); I must have lost it when I moved to > Cincinnati ... I don't ever remember doing it at Old St. Mary's RC > there. Thanks to the organist at St. James, I recovered a copy of the > Latin original recently. > > If anybody wants a simple, tuneful Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei for SATB > (maybe for Christmas MORNING, when everybody's EXHAUSTED), you're > welcome to it ... it's in the public domain. I think I'm going to > transpose it down some and make a congregational part, just to keep the > Rector happy (grin). > > Cheers, > > Bud > > > "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 > > >