PipeChat Digest #1881 - Monday, March 12, 2001
 
Re: A question of priorities
  by <ManderUSA@aol.com>
Re: A question of priorities
  by <DRAWKNOB@aol.com>
Organ Recitals
  by "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com>
Protestant history in U.S. 19th/20th centuries
  by "Alan Freed" <afreed0904@earthlink.net>
welcome
  by "Gary Blevins" <gsblvns@camalott.com>
Re: console standards
  by <support@opensystemsorgans.com>
Re: mixtures
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: mixtures
  by "Karl Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersville.edu>
RE: mixtures
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: A question of priorities
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: console standards( two simultaneous pedalboards) Walker E.F.
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: console standards( two simultaneous pedalboards) Walker E.F.
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: mixtures
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: console standards( two simultaneous pedalboards) Walker E.F.
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: A question of priorities From: <ManderUSA@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:00:13 EST     --part1_9.1230d73f.27de144d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 3/11/2001 7:09:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, Cremona502@cs.com writes:     > Shame on you! If you are going to be liturgical, at least FOLLOW the = dang > rules. Sundays ARE NOT part of Lent and are still to be celebrated as = a > "Little Easter." Today was miserable for me. Our music was so morose > that > I was depressed   This topic has been around before on this list and also on PipOrg-L, and while Bruce is technically correct that, at least some liturgists take on board the idea that each Sunday is a "little Easter" even during Lent, = this is generally tempered by the fact that for most parishioners, Sunday is = their only experience of church during Lent, at least until Holy Week comes = along. Therefore, at least something of Lent needs to be addressed during that weekly meeting. And then, of course, one needs to explain the lectionary readings, which are clearly not "little Easters." And then, of course, it = is all in what you consider "morose." I will play O Mensch bewein, clearly = not Easter in mood or intention, and we will sing "Forty days and forty = nights," and we do subdue somewhat the parts of the Ordinary as sung by the congregation. As postludes, I try to find works that are majestic, but not =   flamboyant. No Widor Toccata during Lent! Many churches, of course, do not =   use the organ for preludes and postludes at all during Lent. I don't find that morose - I find that it drives the messages of Lent home. We do try = to add something a little rich to the Lenten Sundays that is new each year. = Last year, the choir sang the Schubert Sanctus, which has a wonderful effect in =   our place, because the whole congregation is standing around the quite = large altar dais, which is in the center of the mostly round building. The choir = is there as well, and the surround sound is really very moving. This year, we =   taught and now sing during Lent the fine Sanctus from Stuart Forster's Cambridge Mass - Oh dear, that's an (I think) unintended pun - Stuart is = the musician at Christ Church, Cambridge (MASS). Because melodically the work = has small unexpected twists and turns, and took the congregation a bit of = extra time to learn, and because learning it was well worth it, there is an = extra element of joy in that moment in the Mass. (The rector commented to me = that were it something learned without a bit of effort, we would probably be = tired of it by Easter.) Oh, and we do away with censing the altar and everything =   else in sight during Lent - again, delivering a message (about clean air = if nothing else!). I find a quiet beauty in the decidedly Lenten services = during this season - never a morose moment.   Lenten Cheers,   Malcolm   --part1_9.1230d73f.27de144d_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 3/11/2001 7:09:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>Cremona502@cs.com writes: <BR> <BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Shame on you! = &nbsp;&nbsp;If you are going to be liturgical, at least FOLLOW the dang <BR>rules. &nbsp;&nbsp;Sundays ARE NOT part of Lent and are still to be = celebrated as a <BR>"Little Easter." &nbsp;&nbsp;Today was miserable for me. &nbsp;Our = music was so morose <BR>that <BR>I was depressed </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>This topic has been around before on this list and also on PipOrg-L, = and <BR>while Bruce is technically correct that, at least some liturgists take = on <BR>board the idea that each Sunday is a "little Easter" even during Lent, = this <BR>is generally tempered by the fact that for most parishioners, Sunday = is their <BR>only experience of church during Lent, at least until Holy Week comes = along. <BR>Therefore, at least something of Lent needs to be addressed during = that <BR>weekly meeting. And then, of course, one needs to explain the = lectionary <BR>readings, which are clearly not "little Easters." And then, of course, = it is <BR>all in what you consider "morose." I will play O Mensch bewein, = clearly not <BR>Easter in mood or intention, and we will sing "Forty days and forty = nights," <BR>and we do subdue somewhat the parts of the Ordinary as sung by the <BR>congregation. As postludes, I try to find works that are majestic, but = not <BR>flamboyant. No Widor Toccata during Lent! Many churches, of course, do = not <BR>use the organ for preludes and postludes at all during Lent. I don't = find <BR>that morose - I find that it drives the messages of Lent home. We do = try to <BR>add something a little rich to the Lenten Sundays that is new each = year. Last <BR>year, the choir sang the Schubert Sanctus, which has a wonderful = effect in <BR>our place, because the whole congregation is standing around the quite = large <BR>altar dais, which is in the center of the mostly round building. The = choir is <BR>there as well, and the surround sound is really very moving. This = year, we <BR>taught and now sing during Lent the fine Sanctus from Stuart Forster's =   <BR>Cambridge Mass - Oh dear, that's an (I think) unintended pun - Stuart = is the <BR>musician at Christ Church, Cambridge (MASS). Because melodically the = work has <BR>small unexpected twists and turns, and took the congregation a bit of = extra <BR>time to learn, and because learning it was well worth it, there is an = extra <BR>element of joy in that moment in the Mass. (The rector commented to me = that <BR>were it something learned without a bit of effort, we would probably = be tired <BR>of it by Easter.) Oh, and we do away with censing the altar and = everything <BR>else in sight during Lent - again, delivering a message (about clean = air if <BR>nothing else!). I find a quiet beauty in the decidedly Lenten services = during <BR>this season - never a morose moment. <BR> <BR>Lenten Cheers, <BR> <BR>Malcolm &nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></HTML>   --part1_9.1230d73f.27de144d_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: A question of priorities From: <DRAWKNOB@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:21:50 EST   In a message dated 3/11/01 10:39:12 PM Central Standard Time, Wurlibird1@aol.com writes:   << In fact, I don't even know what they united with >>   If memory serves me correctly didn't the United Methodist Church come from = a merging of the United Brethren Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church?   John  
(back) Subject: Organ Recitals From: "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:09:07 -0500   Three upcoming pipe organ recitals at All Saints Episcopal Church, 10 Irving St., corner Pleasant St., Worcester MA (Pleasant St. is now a = 2-way street from Main St.) Aeolian-Skinner Opus 909, 1933, 123 ranks   Sunday 5pm March 18, Mark Dwyer, Church of the Advent, Boston Sunday 4:30pm March 25, Randolph James, new Organist/ChoirMaster All Saints, with 5pm Evensong, Men & Boys Choir Sunday 5pm April 1, Brad Hughley, Atlanta GA   Judy Ollikkala  
(back) Subject: Protestant history in U.S. 19th/20th centuries From: "Alan Freed" <afreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:58:25 -0500   Such confusion.   The United Methodist Church was formed in 1968 by the union of The = Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren Church. The EUB had been = formed in 1946 with the merger of the Evangelical Church and the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.   The United Church of Christ was constituted in 1957 by representatives of the Congregational Christian Churches and of the Evangelicl and Reformed Church. The Congregationalists date back to the Calvinist Puritans and Separatists. The Christian Churches date from the 18th century. Those = two formed in CCC in 1931. The German Reformed organized in the U.S. in 1793. The Prussian Union of 1817 produced the United Evangelical Church, many members of which came to America and in 1840 formed the German Evangelical Church Society in the West; in 1877 they became the German Evangelical = Synod of North merica. In 1934 this Synod merged with the German Reformed (see above) as the E&R Church.   As for the mysterious UME, I'm as much in the dark as the rest of you. Never heard of it.   Alan   > From: mike <mike3247@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:55:05 -0500 > To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Subject: Re: A question of priorities > > "Mike Gettelman" wrote: > > They united with the Congregationals in the late sixties, early = seventies as > I recall. > > Wurlibird1@aol.com wrote: > >> Jerry in Seattle inquires: >> >>> What is a UME church? I thought I knew most of the abbreviations, but = not >>> this one.<< >> >> Jerry, it should be UMe, not all upper case, and stands for United = Methodist. >> It is often seen as UMC. I am just the organist/choir director and not = up >> much on Methodist history. In fact, I don't even know what they united = with >> <g>. >> >> Jim >> >> "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 >    
(back) Subject: welcome From: "Gary Blevins" <gsblvns@camalott.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:54:48 -0600   Hello Cindy, Welcome to the list and Good Luck with the organ lessons! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cindy Adams" <clavinova98@yahoo.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:47 PM Subject: New to List     > Hi- > > I am new to this list. Don't know if you all allow > beginners here!:-) > > Last week I had a life-changing experience. My church > organist asked me to help tune the hugh pipe organ in > our church. When we were through (2 hours and 45 > minutes later) I got to play the organ and the rest is > history! > > I have wanted to play that organ for a year > since I joined this particular church and I got my > wish. I commented to the organist that I could not > believe it was me making that sound and he said maybe > I should take lessons then! > > He also told me that I could play the church's organ > ANY TIME I WANTED TO. I will probably start lessons > this week or next...so here I am! > > The organ is a KEATES-Geissler (sp?) and is ll years > old. It has five manuals and a GREAT sound! > > I know I will have a lot of questions. Here is my > first > one: > > Does anyone know where I can order the organ book, > "Majesty and Praise" by John Innes? Thanks. > > Looking forward to learning a lot on this list. I > might > add that I am a piano teacher of 20 plus years so it's > not like I have to start at the very beginning! > > Cindy > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Cindy > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > "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: console standards From: <support@opensystemsorgans.com> Date: 12 Mar 2001 10:32:38 -0800   One question that keeps popping into my mind about where this topic = started (straight pedalboards) is that if you want people to learn both = arrangements, why not equip pedagogical organs like Oberlin's with = detachable pedalboards? They're clumsy, of course. You wouldnt' swap = them often, particularly on a tracker. But it sure seems less painful = than agonizing over which way to go for once and forever.   On Sun, 11 March 2001, Cremona502@cs.com wrote:   > <BR>Is this like closing the swell shades at the end of a toccata or = fugue???   It's more like turning off the blower before you put your head down on the = keys to take a sermon nap.   This is getting off topic, and I had decided to let it fade, but since = more than one person seems to be listening and I might get some valuable = advice ... I'd raise the flaps if I were doing touch-and-goes, and = shouldn't I raise the flaps early on a really gusty day, precisely because = doing so raises the stall speed? What about in airplanes with low wing = loading, like the Super Cub? CFIs please respond off-list.   In any case, as far as console design is concerned, it doesn't matter = whether a non-standard arrangement of swell shoes causes you to blow a = loud passage or a soft passage (or whether a nonstandard arrangement of = levers causes you to drop an airplane onto a taxiway instead of a runway). = It's still embarassing and avoidable, either through standardization or = extra training. Standardization is preferable, but since we won't have it = in pedalboards until we repeal history, I can't understand the argument = against flexibility and training of organists.   Dick      
(back) Subject: Re: mixtures From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:41:20 -0800   At 03:58 PM 3/11/2001 -0800, BuuD-by-the-Beach wrote: >Most mixtures are simply excruciating high-pitched noise to 90% of >non-organists, whether the mixture in question be good, bad or >indifferent from the organ-builder's standpoint.<snip>   M=F6ller went nuts with them in the '60s, shrieking and overbearing mixtures= =20 and upperwork seem to preoccupy them a great deal, as they tried being=20 "trendy". Before the whole gamut of mixtures is thrown into the compactor= =20 (again...remember, this happened once before a scant 100 years ago), we=20 should most probably examine their "riason d'=EAtre" vis =E0 vis what= happened=20 to them in the not-to-distant past.   The "medievals", not have having reliable wind of any significant pressure= =20 at hand, knew empirically what Fletcher and Munson at Bell Labs found out=20 scientifically in the 1920's ... that by adding more harmonic content to a= =20 given tone, the listener perceives it as being "louder", while the sound=20 pressure level actually varies very little. This is due to the=20 non-linearity of the human ear, both in frequency response and in=20 non-linearity in terms of power detection at various frequencies. The=20 ear's failings in terms of frequency response became documented as the=20 "Fletcher-Munson curve". Without going into extended analysis, one could=20 say that adding more upperwork and harmonic content makes a tone, even at=20 the same sound pressure level, sound "louder" to the listener.   Surely, Schnitger and Silbermann knew this well, and created finely crafted= =20 vertical choruses based upon these empirical findings. They really had no= =20 other choice, due to the crude winding systems of the times ... they HAD to= =20 use that upperwork to get peoples' attention! However, it one analyzes the= =20 fine blending characteristics of these ancient choruses, one finds that, at= =20 least on the Hauptwerk, that the upperwork is an adjunct to the base pitch= =20 register, not a separate tonal entity entirely. Of course, in the other=20 traditional germanic divisions, based on 2' pitch or 4', the whole pitch=20 register moves UP one or two octaves, again capitalizing on the effect that= =20 "higher sounds louder", thus saving large amounts of hard-fought-for=20 wind. This was an expedient of the times, NOT borne out by musical=20 necessity, but because of physical limitations placed upon the builder by=20 the manually raised wind available at the time.   Fast forward, if you will, to 1900, when a radical departure dictated that= =20 new, high pressure wind, reliably supplied by gas, electric or water=20 motors, could produce stops of theretofore unheard of acoustical power and= =20 harmonic content. It was then thought that such little frills as upperwork= =20 were no longer needed, as the large and loud harmonic trains of strings and= =20 reeds would do their job, and still be grounded in pitch where the music is= =20 written ... at unison. This sounded good on paper, but not on practice, as= =20 murky gobs of loud, hooting tone then were created, making counterpoint all= =20 but impossible. Vertical choruses were abandoned for collections of=20 orchestral tonality. Indeed, many of Skinner's earlier works more=20 resembled an attempt at a toned-down Hope-Jones 'unit orchestra" than=20 anything else, minus the nefarious unification. The plena of such an organ= =20 is predictably a loud mash of unison tone, which masks any identification=20 by the ear of individual pitches played.   Advancements in acoustic science at Bell Labs and other institutions in the= =20 ensuing decades bore out the reason for the "murky" phenomena. The human=20 ear progressively gets worse in terms of pitch identification as pitch=20 decreases in frequency. Thus, faced with an overbearing load of unison=20 tone, compounded by "ensemble" effect of many ranks not being exactly in=20 tune, let alone phase, the ear becomes tired of doing something it's not=20 good at doing ... affixing accurate, immediate pitch identification to the= =20 notes being heard. I've played enough Skinners (and contemporary M=F6llers= =20 and Austins and all the rest) to have heard this first hand ... loud, yes=20 .... good? Well .... Thus, the medievals' rational for having mixtures=20 as a pitch corroborating device was finally justified after some rather=20 bitter experiences without them. It should be noted that the "Willis=20 organ" of England never disposed of mixtures but on the smallest organs.   Thus, reason would dictate that the ideal, if there is such a thing, lies=20 somewhere between the two extremes. G. Donald Harrison, staring in=20 1930, was a voice of such reason, taking a bit from the old, a bit from=20 the more recent, trying to achieve a "middle ground" that could better (if= =20 not perfectly) render literature of various schools. Upper work, including= =20 the long-gone mixtures, reappeared, making rapid pitch identification=20 again possible, but also comparatively high pressure reeds and other=20 unisons were still available to do what they did best ... provide acoustic= =20 power readily available. However, many decry Harrison's work as being too= =20 much of a potpourri, satisfying no particular musical school. Other=20 builders became somewhat more acute in their reintroduction of upperwork,=20 notably Holtkamp, whose glass-cutting mixtures sound sparkling and clean=20 upon first audition, but tire the ear quickly if overused.   M=F6ller, the "Chevrolet" of pipe organs, jumped on a Holtkampish bandwagon= =20 of incisive, overbearing upperwork in many of its larger organs. More than= =20 any other reason, they probably did this to distinguish themselves from=20 =C6olian-Skinner and Austin. The things could cut as much glass as=20 Holtkamps, and possibly more so, due to pencil thin scaling and too low=20 cut-up. Thus, not a "retro" organ was created, but a whole new instrument= =20 of undesirably out of balance pitch registers. Add to these shriekers the= =20 too-thin scales of M=F6ller's unison flues, and things got rather BRIGHT=20 really fast!   All this is well and good, but doesn't really state where the mixture (and= =20 corresponding single-rank upper work) should lie in a workable, flexible=20 specification. I'd opine that mixtures are a necessity in a loud plena of= =20 counterpoint, including choral and congregational accompaniemnt, IF they're= =20 in proper proportion to the underlying foundational voices below them. In= =20 a smallish building with a smallish organ, such at the proposed=20 reconstituted M=F6ller for the new St. Matt's-by-the-Condo Farm, I would=20 think it'd be quite enough to have but one mixture ... "adjustable", as it= =20 were, by being in the swell box. But I'd sure like to have at least=20 ONE! Couplers make its appearance on both manuals (and pedal) an easy job,= =20 and "duplexing" ("triplexing?") of mixture isn't as musically injurious as= =20 it is to unison and octave stops. Thus, I'd say a II or III rank=20 quint-based mixture of suitable scale and cut up probably SHOULD be=20 included in the specification, even if it means leaving out a unison=20 "gadget" or two. Properly voiced, a mixture can do much to make the=20 smallish two manual organ "larger" aurally.   DeserTBoB    
(back) Subject: Re: mixtures From: "Karl Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersville.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:53:47 -0500   We should not forget how wonderful and successful the mid-century Hook mixtures were -- are!! -- when related to the nature of 8', 4' and 2' = tone.   Successful mixtures make unnecessary and even foolish that horrible error of so much organ design, the use of super couplers to create brilliance artificially. Organs without super couplers can then be scaled and voiced so as to make the top registers clear, incisive and BEAUTIFUL, all the while avoiding the schrieking sounds we got in America in the = 1960's et al. Caville-Coll knew that; so did Walcker and Sauer; and so did the Hooks. So do a number of modern Ameircan tracker builders whose tone is bright, lively, clear and still beautiful.   Thus, I am always thankful for HIGH-pitched mixtures that, however, blend well with lower pitches on the manual in question. I find it of doubtful value to put great store in mixtures that soon break back into = the pitch range already covered by the 2' and soon even the 4' principal = ranks. The money and the voicing work can be put to much better use with mixutres of higher pitch; yet they need not shriek!!!   Cordially,   Karl E. Moyer Lancaster PA    
(back) Subject: RE: mixtures From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:56:38 -0800   At 12:48 AM 3/12/2001 +0000, you wrote: >Harrison & Harrison included in a good number of their organs in the = first >half of the 20th century, a Harmonics stop - normally 17:19:b21:22<snip>   An example of English logic...line up the harmonics, all in a tidy row. Fifth, sixth, seventh (!) and eighth. The difference here is that = it winds up not sounding as a mixture at all, but more (as I think H&H intended) a bouquet of ranks equally supporting the partials of the unison. I've only heard one example of this exact stop, and it imparted a =   very "reedy" effect to the flue ensemble, almost making a fine synthetic trompette. Successful? I'd say so, but it sure was NOT a "mixture", in the classic sense! The seventh harmonic can be a real bugger to tune properly, also. I use the seventh to cross check octave tuning on pianos (eliminating the usual "spread octave" problem), and it takes a lot of ear =   training to properly find the seventh and count beats to it. It's pretty dissonant from Equal Temper, but not nearly so much as the eleventh!   DeserTBoB    
(back) Subject: Re: A question of priorities From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:24 -0800   At 12:55 AM 3/12/2001 -0500, you wrote: >They united with the Congregationals in the late sixties, early seventies = as >I recall.<snip>   Wrong. The Congos just did a merger, and are now the "UCC" something-or-another. The Methodists merged with the United Bretheren in around 1968 to become "United Methodists"...UMe.   Always interesting watching American Protestantism. Mergers and splinter groups galore! Fortunately, the Southern Baptists just lost Texas...this can ONLY be "a good thing"!   DeserTBoB    
(back) Subject: Re: console standards( two simultaneous pedalboards) Walker E.F. From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:14:09 EST   Hi List:   In The Organist Book of Days by AGO in the July section is pictured a four manual console with two pedal boards. You could have an AGO pedalboard on the floor and a flat one raised above the first one as pictured here. Walcker only built five of these beauties. The last one was blown up in 1944 in an allied bombing raid over Stuttgart's Stiftskirche. It was quite a contraption, but maybe that would keep most organists happy. You wouldn't have to quarrell about flat and concave anymore, just provide one of each at the same time! :))   Just trying to help! :))   Ron Severin  
(back) Subject: Re: console standards( two simultaneous pedalboards) Walker E.F. From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:26:29 -0800   Yeah, Ron, but I'm SURE the purists would object ... the "kleine" = pedal-board (aside from being at an IMPOSSIBLE angle to play, unless you played it = with your KNEES or ... (not gonna go THERE) (grin), looks for all the world = like those old Lowry (?) organs that had 25 spinet pedals (grin).   Cheers,   Bud   RonSeverin@aol.com wrote:   > Hi List: > > In The Organist Book of Days by AGO in the July section is pictured > a four manual console with two pedal boards. You could have an AGO > pedalboard on the floor and a flat one raised above the first one as > pictured here. Walcker only built five of these beauties. The last one = was > blown up in 1944 in an allied bombing raid over Stuttgart's = Stiftskirche. > It was quite a contraption, but maybe that would keep most organists > happy. You wouldn't have to quarrell about flat and concave anymore, > just provide one of each at the same time! :)) > > Just trying to help! :)) > > Ron Severin > > "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: mixtures From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:28:24 -0800   At 01:53 PM 3/12/2001 -0500, you wrote: > Successful mixtures make unnecessary and even foolish that horrible >error of so much organ design, the use of super couplers to create >brilliance artificially.<snip>   Possibly one of the most misused appliances of the modern organ, supercouplers HAD to be used on many of the unison-laden "groaners" of the =   early 20th century to get any identifiable pitch out of those things! Of course, I was always taught NEVER to use the supercoupler, except to "move =   things around" for solo usage (thus making that 16' Fagotto a slightly different 8' Trumpet), and the like...certainly NEVER to move the chorus = of a modern organ "up a notch"!   G. Donald Harrison was all too aware of this abuse, and purposely "dulled" =   his principal choruses on the Great to prevent his organs from being "shrieky" when the supercoupler was in use. This was probably a large error on his part, and should have been taken care of by proper = "retraining".   DeserTboB    
(back) Subject: Re: console standards( two simultaneous pedalboards) Walker E.F. From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:33:13 EST   Hi Bud these were an interesting curiosity, but like the south, It could rise again, perhaps? Purist or not it would give some organists something to do with their "other" foot! :))   Ron   PS perhaps those bombs did us a wonderful favor, or some American organists might still find a use for a second one! :))