PipeChat Digest #2208 - Saturday, July 7, 2001
 
Re: stoplists and the literature
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
The Carnegie Five Manual Instrument
  by <ManderUSA@aol.com>
Re: stoplists and the literature
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
thaxted
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: thaxted
  by "Stanley E Yoder" <syoder+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Re: being content - was - well, I guess it WON'T
  by "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com>
Re: stoplists and the literature
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: stoplists and the literature
  by "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: stoplists and the literature From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 16:12:56 -0700     --------------9EB949E7DDAA52AAEC733042 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Cremona502@cs.com wrote:   > My question here is if the concept of the American Classic organ > necessarily > requires it to have the stops necessary to play "all" of the > literature, or > rather is supposed to be a composit instrument that can do justice to > all of > the literature by combining the resources of the complete instrument, > sharing > a 16 reed among all divisions, combining the swell and choir/positive > to make > a French positif, etc. I have seldom seen an American Classic > instrument > that was as complete as Bud suggests (although it would be nice). > Most > American Classic instruments I've seen, especially A-S, followed > Harrison's > concept of no Great reeds, full principal chorus on the Great only, > Swell > chorus consisting of 4' and Mixture, and Choir/Positiv of 2' and > possibly a > mixture. Additionally, most reeds were in the Swell, with only a > Krummhorn > on the Positiv. The Pedal division was basically a Principal 16 8 > unit, > Bourdon 16 - 8 unit, a 4' principal, a mixture, and a 16 reed. > Please > correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to have been the accepted > design for > an American Classic instrument which would "play all the literature," > even > following this pattern to fairly large instruments. > > This is the American Classic concept that I grew up around. > Electronic > manufacturers followed this concept, as well, even without the > restrictions > of space.   That indeed was/is the common conception ... I love GDH's organs, but I DON'T think they embody an instrument that can do justice to most of the literature.   In the argument about the proposed changes to St. Mark's, Philadelphia, it was mentioned that, except for a 16' Krumhorn, EVERY SINGLE REED on that organ is a CHORUS TRUMPET.   Now, my question is this: exactly WHAT organ literature requires a battery of chorus trumpets to the exclusion of all else, and is not this a deficiency in design, no matter HOW reverently we regard GDH's instruments?   EVERY historical style of organ-building (except the Italian) has a chorus reed of SOME sort on the Great. I understand Harrison's reasons for building the reedless Great, but are they valid from the standpoint of the LITERATURE?   The "augmented" Pedal was built because of restrictions of space and money, but I don't think Harrison (or anybody else, for that matter) regarded it as the norm, or ideal. When the money and space was there, even E.M. Skinner built substantial independent Pedal organs, even during the depths of the orchestral movement.   My point as regards digital instruments was this: THEY *don't* have the restrictions of space and money; why do they then stay with a design style that was dictated by those things, and is also (now) widely regarded as inadequate or incomplete? Instead of expanding the stoplist to include more of the things needed, they seem to multiply celestes and flavours of stopped flutes and gadgets instead. A digital organ of 75-100 stops SHOULD have a full 8'-based principal chorus, open and stopped flutes, strings, Cornets composed and decomposed, and chorus reeds in every manual division, surely. Virtually NONE of them DO.   Cheers,   Bud   --------------9EB949E7DDAA52AAEC733042 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Cremona502@cs.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=3DCITE><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>My = question here is if the concept of the American Classic organ = necessarily</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>requires it to have the stops necessary to play "all" of the literature, or</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>rather is supposed to = be a composit instrument that can do justice to all of</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>the literature by combining the resources of the complete instrument, sharing</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>a 16 reed among all = divisions, combining the swell and choir/positive to make</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>a French positif, = etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I have seldom seen an American Classic instrument</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>that was as complete as Bud suggests (although it would be nice).&nbsp;&nbsp; Most</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>American Classic = instruments I've seen, especially A-S, followed Harrison's</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>concept of no Great = reeds, full principal chorus on the Great only, Swell</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>chorus consisting of 4' and Mixture, and Choir/Positiv of 2' and possibly a</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>mixture.&nbsp;&nbsp; = Additionally, most reeds were in the Swell, with only a Krummhorn</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>on the = Positiv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Pedal division was basically a Principal 16 8 unit,</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>Bourdon 16 - 8 unit, a = 4' principal, a mixture, and a 16 reed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; = Please</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>correct me if I'm = wrong, but this seems to have been the accepted design for</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>an American Classic = instrument which would "play all the literature," even</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>following this pattern = to fairly large instruments.</font></font> <p><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>This is the American = Classic concept that I grew up around.&nbsp;&nbsp; Electronic</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>manufacturers followed = this concept, as well, even without the restrictions</font></font> <br><font face=3D"arial,helvetica"><font size=3D-1>of = space.</font></font></blockquote> That indeed was/is the common conception ... I love GDH's organs, but I DON'T think they embody an instrument that can do justice to most of the literature. <p>In the argument about the proposed changes to St. Mark's, Philadelphia, it was mentioned that, except for a 16' Krumhorn, EVERY SINGLE REED on that organ is a CHORUS TRUMPET. <p>Now, my question is this: exactly WHAT organ literature requires a = battery of chorus trumpets to the exclusion of all else, and is not this a = deficiency in design, no matter HOW reverently we regard GDH's instruments? <p>EVERY historical style of organ-building (except the Italian) has a chorus reed of SOME sort on the Great. I understand Harrison's reasons for building the reedless Great, but are they valid from the standpoint of the LITERATURE? <p>The "augmented" Pedal was built because of restrictions of space and money, but I don't think Harrison (or anybody else, for that matter) = regarded it as the norm, or ideal. When the money and space was there, even E.M. Skinner built substantial independent Pedal organs, even during the depths of the orchestral movement. <p>My point as regards digital instruments was this: THEY *don't* have the restrictions of space and money; why do they then stay with a design style that was dictated by those things, and is also (now) widely regarded as inadequate or incomplete? Instead of expanding the stoplist to include more of the things needed, they seem to multiply celestes and flavours of stopped flutes and gadgets instead. A digital organ of 75-100 stops SHOULD have a full 8'-based principal chorus, open and stopped flutes, strings, Cornets composed and decomposed, and chorus reeds in every manual division, surely. Virtually NONE of them DO. <p>Cheers, <p>Bud</html>   --------------9EB949E7DDAA52AAEC733042--    
(back) Subject: The Carnegie Five Manual Instrument From: <ManderUSA@aol.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 19:43:17 EDT     --part1_e4.1777c741.2878f895_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 7/7/2001 3:02:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, organist@total.net writes:     > Now with all > the digital advancements, we can look back on it and snicker. When it = was > new, no one in > their right mind could say it wasn't a fabulous organ. >   Well, I have occasionally been in my right mind, and I may be one of not = too many on the list that actually played the thing, and I have to say that, = at least to me, it was anything but fabulous, whatever it might look like on paper or sound like on a recording. I played a number of opera organ parts = on it when I was working for Opera Orchestra of New York, and the first one I =   did was the fullest and loudest one, for the Lalo <Le Roi D'Ys.> I had a number of friends in the audience, thanks to my entitlement of comps, and = as awful as the thing sounded to me at the console, that much worse did it = sound to them in that wonderful hall, to the point that many thought it a desecration of the great place. I also heard Cochereau play on it once = (was that the dedication, I wonder), and the general talk at intermission was about how artificial and unpleasant the thing sounded. My old friend Alan = Van Zoeren designed the console for Rodgers, and I think I benefited from = comps on that occasion. I believe I got my money's worth!   While I may be speaking from a well-known bias, I am at least speaking = from personal experience, which may or may not count for something!   Saturday Night Cheers,   Malcolm Wechsler www.mander-organs.com     --part1_e4.1777c741.2878f895_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT = SIZE=3D2>In a message dated 7/7/2001 3:02:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <BR>organist@total.net writes: <BR> <BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Now with all <BR>the digital advancements, we can look back on it and snicker. When it = was <BR>new, no one in <BR>their right mind could say it wasn't a fabulous organ. <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> <BR>Well, I have occasionally been in my right mind, and I may be one of = not too <BR>many on the list that actually played the thing, and I have to say = that, at <BR>least to me, it was anything but fabulous, whatever it might look like = on <BR>paper or sound like on a recording. I played a number of opera organ = parts on <BR>it when I was working for Opera Orchestra of New York, and the first = one I <BR>did was the fullest and loudest one, for the Lalo &lt;Le Roi D'Ys.&gt; = I had a <BR>number of friends in the audience, thanks to my entitlement of comps, = and as <BR>awful as the thing sounded to me at the console, that much worse did = it sound <BR>to them in that wonderful hall, to the point that many thought it a <BR>desecration of the great place. I also heard Cochereau play on it once = (was <BR>that the dedication, I wonder), and the general talk at intermission = was <BR>about how artificial and unpleasant the thing sounded. My old friend = Alan Van <BR>Zoeren designed the console for Rodgers, and I think I benefited from = comps <BR>on that occasion. I believe I got my money's worth! <BR> <BR>While I may be speaking from a well-known bias, I am at least speaking = from <BR>personal experience, which may or may not count for something! <BR> <BR>Saturday Night Cheers, <BR> <BR>Malcolm Wechsler <BR>www.mander-organs.com <BR> <BR> </FONT></HTML>   --part1_e4.1777c741.2878f895_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: stoplists and the literature From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 08:17:42 +0800   Perhaps Bud could explain why the organ I play can handle the French literature very well, and also Bach, plus the English classical school, and modern works, and yet it is an extension organ with only one chorus reed, no cornets and only two manuals. Bud, you can travel from one town to another in very comfortable circumstances in a $15 000 motor vehicle. You can also travel in a $200 000 motor vehicle. Yet both will get there and the person in the cheap car won't know the difference.   If all you describe is essential for the playing of the French literature there are very few organs in my country which could handle it. Yet that is obviously absurd, since very satisfying interpretations of that literature are being played regularly on our organs by world famous organists. Dame Gillian Weir and others of world fame have played Messiaen, Widor, Liszt, Reubke and others of like ilk on my instrument and obviously enjoyed doing it. I think we should get back to earth. Why should we need five manuals and 250 ranks to interpret the works of any school of organ music? Simple. We don't! Broken record? Bud you said it! You don't seem to have been listening to others with a different opinion to yours. Pardon me for saying that. Bob Elms.     > Bud wrote: > > <<I feel like a broken record here, but if you ARE going to design an > eclectic "American Classic" organ (pipe OR digital), then GO TO THE > ORGAN LITERATURE, and see what you can REASONABLY encompass in one > instrument without violating good taste or sound organ-building > practice. > (snip) > Three independent principal choruses plus mixture: Great, Positive and > Pedal. > (snip) > The BIGGEST omission I see in most large digital AND pipe organs as > far as playing French baroque music is the lack of the all-important > Nasard, Tierce AND Cornet in EVERY division, and the Gros Nasard and = Gros Tierce on the Great Organ. > (snip) > French romantic music requires a full complement of CHORUS reeds at > 16-8-4 in EVERY manual division ... > (snip) > ... and the "four fonds" ... (snip) at LEAST four 8' stops > (principal, open/harmonic/double flute, string, stopped flute) in every > division,>>    
(back) Subject: thaxted From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:38:17 -0400   I put this on one of the lists I'm on, and I thought I'd offer it to = everyone. I scanned the hymn "Thaxted" out of one of my hymnals, set to the words "O God = Beyond All Praising". If anyone'd like a copy, let me know.   c.p.    
(back) Subject: Re: thaxted From: "Stanley E Yoder" <syoder+@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:55:35 -0400 (EDT)   Excerpts from mail: 7-Jul-101 thaxted by "Carlo Pietroniro"@total > I put this on one of the lists I'm on, and I thought I'd offer it to everyone. I > scanned > the hymn "Thaxted" out of one of my hymnals, set to the words "O God Beyond All > Praising". > If anyone'd like a copy, let me know. >   Take care: the text is copyright 1982 by Hope Publishing. Don't know whether the Holst-derived tune is copyrighted or public domain.   Stan Yoder Pittsburgh  
(back) Subject: Re: being content - was - well, I guess it WON'T From: "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 17:57:41 -0700 (PDT)   --- Cremona502@cs.com wrote:   > randyterryus@yahoo.com writes: > > > What we are ending up with is a very respectable 18 rank organ with a > > COMPLETE 13 rank swell > > division, a one stop pedal (16' Subbass) and a 4 rank great (8' & 4' > > Principals, and 8' and 4' > > flutes.) > > And the stoplist is..............?   Bruce, I have several versions. I will send you the "current" one using = the present Klann console w/ some second hand resiner relays - but we have a fund going to = completely redo the console and switching systems with Peterson, OR, purchase a larger used console (3 or = 4 man) and do the same. All that of course is up in the air. All this info is at my work computer = so I will send it to you tomorrow privately as I know many people will have heard me go on about = the project before!     =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: stoplists and the literature From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 18:07:46 -0700       Bob Elms wrote:   > Perhaps Bud could explain why the organ I play can handle the French > literature very well, and also Bach, plus the English classical school, > and modern works, and yet it is an extension organ with only one > chorus reed, no cornets and only two manuals. > Bud, you can travel from one town to another in very comfortable > circumstances in a $15 000 motor vehicle. You can also travel in a $200 > 000 motor vehicle. Yet both will get there and the person in the cheap > car won't know the difference. > > If all you describe is essential for the playing of the French > literature there are very few organs in my country which could handle > it. Yet that is obviously absurd, since very satisfying interpretations > of that literature are being played regularly on our organs by world > famous organists. Dame Gillian Weir and others of world fame have played > Messiaen, Widor, Liszt, Reubke and others of like ilk on my instrument > and obviously enjoyed doing it. > I think we should get back to earth. Why should we need five manuals and > 250 ranks to interpret the works of any school of organ music? Simple. > We don't! > Broken record? Bud you said it! You don't seem to have been listening to > others with a different opinion to yours. Pardon me for saying that. > Bob Elms. >   Bob, I think you missed my MAIN point (grin): why design DIGITAL organs of = 100 stops or more (which is becoming common in the U.S. these days) that DON'T include all the = elements I spoke about?   As to needing 250 ranks, I think YOU weren't listening (chuckle) ... = that's PRECISELY what I've been saying. NO organ FOR WHICH LITERATURE HAS BEEN WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY is over 100 = stops (St. Sulpice grew to 102 AFTER Widor retired).   The VAST majority of the literature can be encompassed by a three-manual = organ of 30-50 stops; a great DEAL of it can be played on a two-manual organ of 20 stops (which is what we're = getting); ENOUGH of it for the average village church's purposes can be played on a ONE-manual organ, = with or without pedals.   THAT wasn't the argument I put forward. *I* was questioning the design = practices of electronic organ makers who build large instruments, with a dig thrown in at the somewhat = misplaced reverence we have for G. Donald Harrison's "American Classic" instruments in this country.   I will play French baroque music on an organ without nazards, tierces and = cornets IF the reeds are bright enough and strong enough in the treble, as long as they aren't cast-iron = English cornopeans (grin), and/or if the flutes without mutations and cornets have enough brightness and = character; I will play Back on an organ without mixtures, providing that the principal choruses have enough = harmonic development, and/or it's an old romantic organ with 73-note chests so the super-coupler works to the top = of the keyboard; I have successfully played Vierne on an all-unenclosed neo-baroque Schlicker in a good room; I = wouldn't attempt THAT in a dead room (grin). I WON'T attempt most Messiaen in acoustically dead American = churches, particularly those with neo-baroque organs of ANY nationality.   I think the ears and good taste have to be the ultimate arbiters.   I wasn't decrying small organs; I was decrying poorly-designed LARGE = organs.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: stoplists and the literature From: "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT)   I am sure to get my butt burned for saying this, but I have played on many = WONDERFUL large organs, especially since moving to the San Francisco area, and I remember after = returning from Grace Cathedral one day thinking, "you know, I'd just as soon play the = instrument at my present church (once all the work is finished) as that. That is not to say that our = instrument is as good as Grace's, it is just that I am beginning to like smaller organs that are = very well voiced. Some unification is fine if it makes sense and doesn't clutter up the basic = specification.   I am at a 250 member church and we don't have money to go out and hire the = finest organbuilder to replace our instrument with the latest fad, but when we are done (we DO = have acoustics!) it will sound as good as most anything south of The City save a few jewels. I = agree with Bud, 20 well voiced/blended/planned ranks or stops can be made to do just about = everything fairly convincingly. I wanted to turn our organ into an "English" style, but the organbuilder = helping us always listened with a kind smile, and produces things that are clearly on the = "warm" side of American Classic. He is a smart man!   =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/