PipeChat Digest #2199 - Thursday, July 5, 2001
 
Re: Miking of cantors and choirs -- long rant!!!
  by <LLWheels@aol.com>
analog vs digital
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall
  by "Jeffery Korns" <jakorns@home.com>
Re: Miking of cantors and choirs -- long rant!!!
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
RE: Miking of cantors and choirs
  by "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@arkansas.net>
Re: Miking of cantors and choirs
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: Miking of cantors and choirs
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Yon's Messa dei Pastori
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Daniel
  by "DanielW Hopkins" <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca>
How Many Ranks in the National Cathedral Organ?
  by <ScottFop@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Miking of cantors and choirs -- long rant!!! From: <LLWheels@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:57:00 EDT     --part1_e2.171b6ae5.28763cac_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 7/5/2001 1:08:27 PM Central Daylight Time, Carlo Peitronero writes:     > Choirs shouldn't be miked at all, unless they're singing from a rear > balcony, and even then. The Choir from St. Patrick's Basilica (here in > Montreal) sings from the rear balcony, and there are mics up there for = them. > Without the mics, they wouldn't be heard very well. Cantors/leaders of = song > should sing/lead into mics. > >   Wow does this topic ever push my buttons!!! And.... although Roman = Catholics seem to have perfected the Sacrament of the Microphone, they do not have = an exclusive franchise on it! Protestants are right behind them. RCs with big-barn buildings have a possible excuse for amplification -- but most of =   them wouldn't need it if they wouldn't put damned carpeting all over their =   terrazo floors, and if they'd teach their lectors and priests to project a =   little rather than mumbling into a microphone which is in dire danger of being swallowed.   I attended a Christmas concert here in Milwaukee by a well-known musician with a professional choir of 16-20 who sang from the rear gallery of an enormous granite barn of a church, and HE MIKED THEM!!! It was totally unnecessary and absolutely ruined the choral tone and ensemble. I walked = out half-way through the first section of the program.   Just last Saturday I attended a "musicale" in a medium-to-smallish RC building which, in spite of the fact that the chancel is carpeted, still = has wonderful acoustics. As an organbuilder/friend of mine says. "A f**t would =   sound good in that room" The room was small enough that someone speaking = in a normal conversational tone - if the room was quiet - could easily be heard = by everyone not deaf. If someone merely projected a little, even the = near-deaf could hear in that room. Every possible sound was miked thru a very tiyy-sounding system. At one point in the middle of the program, the sound =   system stopped working for a few minutes and I was certain that my prayers =   had been answered. During this period, the recitalist SHOUTED (much too loudly) at us as though he expected we were dead. I have upper-end age-related hearing-loss and tinitus, and I had no trouble whatsoever = hearing him when he spoke in his normal voice. Unfortunately, someone fixed the = sound system and the program continued.   What irks me even more is all of the medium-sized to smallish churches who =   seem to have microphone-envy and insist on miking any-and-everything = whether it needs it or not -- and most of the time it doesn't. Some use the excuse = of sound-devices for the hearing-impaired, or recording the service, but this =   does not justify making the rest of us suffer the sound. I have yet to = hear a sound-system, no matter how good or expensive, that does not alter the = timbre of the voice to some extent, and usually not for the better. Perhaps it is =   POSSIBLE to adjust one so that it does not, but I've never heard one and doubt I will in my lifetime.   Even in my own well-educated parish, a medium-sized room with very nice resonance and very little reverberation, I have a constant battle with parishoners and parents who regularly plead "Why don't you mike the children's choir so we can hear them better?" I WANT to say - You could = hear them just fine if you'd shut-up and really listen for a change - or - they =   are children, they are not supposed to sound like Brunhilde! What I do = say, over and over and over, is that the children must learn to project their sound, and miking them prevents their learning this. Just be patient, you will hear them a little better each time. I still get asked after every children's choir performance.   No wonder so many churches are satisfied with the sound that comes from electronic speakers on their organs - everything else comes from a speaker = - its only natural to them that the organ should too. I believe that the these issues - sound systems for everything and everybody, and speakers vs pipes = in churches - are inexorably tied to each other. Perhaps, in our electronic = age, people are so used to recorded music and speech, that live performance is unknown to many of them. If we substituted people lip-synching and played recorded music and sermons, would anyone notice? I have my doubts. Or perhaps, the rock-band phenomonon of competing to see (hear) who is = loudest, while the bend-members themselves go deaf, has so thouroughly invaded our culture that we have forgotten just how wonderful acoustic music can = sound.   I don't have a solution, but I am surely open to suggestions. Does this bother anyone but Scott, Carlo and me?   I'm not really finished with my rant, but will stop here to take a deep breath and a Zoloft.   Larry L. Wheelock Organist Conductor Composer Kenwood United Methodist Church Milwaukee, WI Austin Organ Co. Opus 1628, 1928 III/55       --part1_e2.171b6ae5.28763cac_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Univers" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 7/5/2001 1:08:27 PM Central = Daylight Time, Carlo <BR>Peitronero writes: <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Choirs shouldn't = be miked at all, unless they're singing from a rear <BR>balcony, and even then. The Choir from St. Patrick's Basilica (here in <BR>Montreal) sings from the rear balcony, and there are mics up there for = them. <BR>Without the mics, they wouldn't be heard very well. Cantors/leaders of = song <BR>should sing/lead into mics. <BR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Univers" LANG=3D"0"> <BR>Wow does this topic ever push my buttons!!! And.... although Roman = Catholics <BR>seem to have perfected the Sacrament of the Microphone, they do not = have an <BR>exclusive franchise on it! Protestants are right behind them. RCs with =   <BR>big-barn buildings have a possible excuse for amplification -- but = most of <BR>them wouldn't need it if they wouldn't put damned carpeting all over = their <BR>terrazo floors, and if they'd teach their lectors and priests to = project a <BR>little rather than mumbling into a microphone which is in dire danger = of <BR>being swallowed. <BR> <BR>I attended a Christmas concert here in Milwaukee by a well-known = musician <BR>with a professional choir of 16-20 who sang from the rear gallery of = an <BR>enormous granite barn of a church, and HE MIKED THEM!!! It was totally =   <BR>unnecessary and absolutely ruined the choral tone and ensemble. I = walked out <BR>half-way through the first section of the program. <BR> <BR>Just last Saturday I attended a "musicale" in a medium-to-smallish RC <BR>building which, in spite of the fact that the chancel is carpeted, = still has <BR>wonderful acoustics. As an organbuilder/friend of mine says. "A f**t = would <BR>sound good in that room" The room was small enough that someone = speaking in a <BR>normal conversational tone - if the room was quiet - could easily be = heard by <BR>everyone not deaf. If someone merely projected a little, even the = near-deaf <BR>could hear in that room. Every possible sound was miked thru a very <BR>tiyy-sounding system. At one point in the middle of the program, the = sound <BR>system stopped working for a few minutes and I was certain that my = prayers <BR>had been answered. During this period, the recitalist SHOUTED (much = too <BR>loudly) at us as though he expected we were dead. I have upper-end <BR>age-related hearing-loss and tinitus, and I had no trouble whatsoever = hearing <BR>him when he spoke in his normal voice. Unfortunately, someone fixed = the sound <BR>system and the program continued. <BR> <BR>What irks me even more is all of the medium-sized to smallish churches = who <BR>seem to have microphone-envy and insist on miking any-and-everything = whether <BR>it needs it or not -- and most of the time it doesn't. Some use the = excuse of <BR>sound-devices for the hearing-impaired, or recording the service, but = this <BR>does not justify making the rest of us suffer the sound. I have yet to = hear a <BR>sound-system, no matter how good or expensive, that does not alter the = timbre <BR>of the voice to some extent, and usually not for the better. Perhaps = it is <BR>POSSIBLE to adjust one so that it does not, but I've never heard one = and <BR>doubt I will in my lifetime. <BR> <BR>Even in my own well-educated parish, a medium-sized room with very = nice <BR>resonance and very little reverberation, I have a constant battle with =   <BR>parishoners and parents who regularly plead "Why don't you mike the <BR>children's choir so we can hear them better?" I WANT to say - You = could hear <BR>them just fine if you'd shut-up and really listen for a change - or - = they <BR>are children, they are not supposed to sound like Brunhilde! What I do = say, <BR>over and over and over, is that the children must learn to project = their <BR>sound, and miking them prevents their learning this. Just be patient, = you <BR>will hear them a little better each time. I still get asked after = every <BR>children's choir performance. <BR> <BR>No wonder so many churches are satisfied with the sound that comes = from <BR>electronic speakers on their organs - everything else comes from a = speaker - <BR>its only natural to them that the organ should too. I believe that the = these <BR>issues - sound systems for everything and everybody, and speakers vs = pipes in <BR>churches - are inexorably tied to each other. Perhaps, in our = electronic age, <BR>people are so used to recorded music and speech, that live performance = is <BR>unknown to many of them. If we substituted people lip-synching and = played <BR>recorded music and sermons, would anyone notice? I have my doubts. Or <BR>perhaps, the rock-band &nbsp;phenomonon of competing to see (hear) who = is loudest, <BR>while the bend-members themselves go deaf, has so thouroughly invaded = our <BR>culture that we have forgotten just how wonderful acoustic music can = sound. <BR> <BR>I don't have a solution, but I am surely open to suggestions. Does = this <BR>bother anyone but Scott, Carlo and me? <BR> <BR>I'm not really finished with my rant, but will stop here to take a = deep <BR>breath and a Zoloft. <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Univers" LANG=3D"0">Larry L. Wheelock <BR>Organist <BR>Conductor <BR>Composer <BR>Kenwood United Methodist Church <BR>Milwaukee, WI <BR>Austin Organ Co. Opus 1628, 1928 III/55</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" = SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Bimini" LANG=3D"0"> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#ff0000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Bimini" LANG=3D"0"> <BR></FONT></HTML>   --part1_e2.171b6ae5.28763cac_boundary--  
(back) Subject: analog vs digital From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:20:07 -0400   I know digital organs use samples from real pipes to get their remarkable sound, but how did these early electronic organs work. Was there sampling back then too?   Carlo    
(back) Subject: Re: Rodgers Organ at Carnegie Hall From: "Jeffery Korns" <jakorns@home.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:24:36 -0500   A few years back(mid '80s) in the Theatre Organ Jounal, there was an = article on the 5 manual Rodgers (unfortunately I can't find it now- so I don't remember if it was Virgil's or Carnegie's, I think it was Carnegie's). = The organ was installed in Japan at a music hall in Kyoto- after being rebuilt by Rodgers. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> To: "Pipe Chat" <pipechat@pipechat.org>   > 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: Miking of cantors and choirs -- long rant!!! From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:24:46 -0400   at our church, the choir isn't miked. My God, we're 111 voices! The last thing we need is to have the choir miked <G>. The pulpit has a mic, and so does the lectern........that's it for us in the mic department. Oh, and = the celebrant has a cordless on him too, but that's because we don't want a = mic on the altar. For our concert series, we sometimes use more.   Carlo    
(back) Subject: RE: Miking of cantors and choirs From: "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@arkansas.net> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:25:13 -0500   At 02:32 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Dan quoted Carlo and added: >> Cantors/leaders of song >> should sing/lead into mics. > >These should, of course, be real microphones, not digital substitutes.   <snipping some *great* stuff>   >Demand the real thing! > >:-)   HI, everyone --   I know I'm not supposed to do this <g>, but......   <BWWAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!>   Thanks, Dan, for a good laugh!! (and watch out for those loose digits leaking out of those old mics of yours -- the damn things are slippery on = a hard surfaced floor, and the FDA has not yet ruled on their toxicity = toward small animals and children)   Still chuckling,   Tim      
(back) Subject: Re: Miking of cantors and choirs From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:28:30 -0400   okay, did I miss something here? Why is Tim laughing like a hyena?   Carlo    
(back) Subject: Re: Miking of cantors and choirs From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:45:44 -0700     --------------0D78E80BABDBEAA584EDCE39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   I just woke up ...   I thought we were MILKING cantors and choirs.   (the mental image was unbelievable, not to mention unprintable)   BWWAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!   (as below, to quote one of my favorite organ-builders) ...   Cheers,   A Very SLEEPY Bud-By-The-Beach       Tim Bovard wrote:   > At 02:32 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Dan quoted Carlo and added: > >> Cantors/leaders of song > >> should sing/lead into mics. > > > >These should, of course, be real microphones, not digital substitutes. > > <snipping some *great* stuff> > > >Demand the real thing! > > > >:-) > > HI, everyone -- > > I know I'm not supposed to do this <g>, but...... > > <BWWAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!> > > Thanks, Dan, for a good laugh!! (and watch out for those loose digits > leaking out of those old mics of yours -- the damn things are slippery = on a > hard surfaced floor, and the FDA has not yet ruled on their toxicity = toward > small animals and children) > > Still chuckling, > > Tim > > "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   --------------0D78E80BABDBEAA584EDCE39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> I just woke up ... <p>I thought we were <b>MILKING</b><i> </i>cantors and choirs. <p>(the mental image was unbelievable, not to mention unprintable) <p><b><i>BWWAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!</i></b><b><i></i></b> <p>(as below, to quote one of my favorite organ-builders) ... <p>Cheers, <p>A Very SLEEPY Bud-By-The-Beach <br>&nbsp; <br>&nbsp; <p>Tim Bovard wrote: <blockquote TYPE=3DCITE>At 02:32 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Dan quoted Carlo and = added: <br>>> Cantors/leaders of song <br>>> should sing/lead into mics. <br>> <br>>These should, of course, be real microphones, not digital = substitutes. <p>&lt;snipping some *great* stuff> <p>>Demand the real thing! <br>> <br>>:-) <p>HI, everyone -- <p>I know I'm not supposed to do this &lt;g>, but...... <p>&lt;BWWAAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!> <p>Thanks, Dan, for a good laugh!!&nbsp; (and watch out for those loose digits <br>leaking out of those old mics of yours -- the damn things are slippery on a <br>hard surfaced floor, and the FDA has not yet ruled on their toxicity toward <br>small animals and children) <p>Still chuckling, <p>Tim <p>"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" <br>PipeChat:&nbsp; A&nbsp; discussion List for pipe/digital organs &amp; related topics <br>HOMEPAGE : <a = href=3D"http://www.pipechat.org">http://www.pipechat.org</a> <br>List: <a = href=3D"mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org">mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org</a> <br>Administration:&nbsp; <a = href=3D"mailto:admin@pipechat.org">mailto:admin@pipechat.org</a> <br>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:&nbsp; <a = href=3D"mailto:requests@pipechat.org">mailto:requests@pipechat.org</a></blo= ckquote> </html>   --------------0D78E80BABDBEAA584EDCE39--    
(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 07:41:52 +0800   I can't believe this. To me some keys have a richer sound than others, and it seems that some composers have written music in those keys quite deiberately, else why write in different keys at all? Note the love of writing in keys of Db major and Gb major on the parts of some of the writers of popular hymns in the 19th Century ("It is well with my soul" as an example). When I started teaching school the music superintendent had a scale he used with the classes. It was based on the tonic solfa but, where there was doh, reh, me, etc. he had something like the words, bright, happy, sad, droopy, etc. (those are not the actual words, I can't remember them now), according to the characteristic mood of the key.It made sense to my ears. Unequal temperament was unknown in this country. Everything was in equal temperament, and still is in 99.5% of our organs, so temperament has nothing to do with it. I agree with Jackson. Bob Elms.   Panning wrote: > > Jackson R. Williams II writes: 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. > > 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. >    
(back) Subject: Yon's Messa dei Pastori From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:01:45 -0700       Stephen Barker wrote:   > 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?   Unfortunately, yes (grin).   > 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?   Yes, but a colleague recently explained to me how to make them into = Encapsulated Post Script files, so people can print them out WITHOUT having Sibelius. I = THINK they can be transferred as Scorch files so they can be PLAYED, but I'm = still learning about THAT.   > > > Steve > Canterbury UK >   We don't do the Gloria in excelsis (since we ALWAYS sing Scottish Chant) = ... I've done Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.   But I'll do it up for you with the "ice-cream committee" text if you like, Stephen, providing I can find a COPY of it ... I normally don't allow = those misbegotten committee-generated Mass texts into my house (grin) ... Oh, = that's right, I've got a copy of "The Book of Many Errors" (the current American = BCP) around here somewhere ... I think it's holding up the corner of a couch, = or something (chuckle).   I REALLY got carried away this morning and orchestrated the piece for = flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and double bass, since I have most of those = instruments available in the parish. I have no idea where I'll PUT them all in the = present chapel (take out the back pew?), but I'll manage it SOMEHOW (grin). = Playing it back on Sibelius, the orchestration makes it sound much more = renaissance-ish / west gallery band-ish. Now if I just knew how to write a running bassoon / double bass part (grin).   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Daniel From: "DanielW Hopkins" <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:02:03 -0300   Hey , Just getting around to sending emails again. Its been so long that I = have been away from my computer,that I forget where stuff is on it. I had a great time at the OHS convention, Anyone who wasnt there was = missing a fun time. I made many friends and many good memories there. I may make it on chat tomorrow, but I will be gone on Monday and wont be = online probly till Aug 3 Pipechat.   P.S. If Joseph McCabe is reading this, Please send me an email. I cant find = your Email Address    
(back) Subject: How Many Ranks in the National Cathedral Organ? From: <ScottFop@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:36:13 EDT     --part1_61.10141964.287661fd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en   Does anyone know the current rank count of the National Cathedral organ = in=3D20 Washington, DC?   SCOTT F. FOPPIANO, Principal Organist and Director of Music and Liturgy THE NATIONAL SHRINE OF THE LITTLE FLOWER, Royal Oak, MI (Geo. Kilgen & Son, St. Louis, MO, Opus 5180, 1933) =3DE2=3D80=3D9CCantantibus organis Caecilia Domino decantabat dicens, fiat cor meum immaculatum ut non confundar.=3DE2=3D80=3D9D     --part1_61.10141964.287661fd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en   <HTML><FONT FACE=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3D2>Does anyone know = the curr=3D ent rank count of the National Cathedral organ in=3D20 <BR>Washington, DC? <BR> <BR><B>SCOTT F. FOPPIANO</B>, Principal Organist and Director of Music and = L=3D iturgy <BR>THE NATIONAL SHRINE OF THE LITTLE FLOWER, Royal Oak, MI <BR>(Geo. Kilgen &amp; Son, St. Louis, MO, Opus 5180, 1933) <BR><I>=3DE2=3D80=3D9CCantantibus organis Caecilia Domino decantabat = dicens, <BR>fiat cor meum immaculatum ut non confundar.=3DE2=3D80=3D9D</I> <BR></FONT></HTML>   --part1_61.10141964.287661fd_boundary--