PipeChat Digest #2134 - Wednesday, May 30, 2001
 
Re: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and Other Dilemmas
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: ALL READ Re: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and OtherDilemmas
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: Divided Choirs
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com>
Historical fingering, piano technique, et al.
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@access.aic-fl.com>
Psalmody
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: ALL READ Re: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and OtherDilemmas
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@mediaone.net>
Fw: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and Other Dilemmas
  by "VEAGUE" <dutchorgan@svs.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and Other Dilemmas From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:59:09 +0800   Jackson, I think you are missing the point. Organ playing embodies techniques which do not exist in piano playing for obvious reasons. Try legato playing with ascending chords where it is necessary to keep changing fingers, an important art of organ playing particularly in the romantic repertoire. Piano technique will not help there since a sustaining pedal would be used on piano. I have had several young organ students some of whom had piano expertise to grade 5 level and some who had no piano technique at all. The most advanced of these now, and a fine young organist, never touched a piano until he had passed several grades of organ examinations. He was under no disadvantage at all as far as I could detect. One of the first things I had to teach the pianists was that organ technique was vastly different in playing much of the organ repertoire, except period music such as contrapuntal works and so on, where there was no organ legato which required frequent finger changing in order to achieve a smooth legato. The lack of a sustaining pedal also causes some difficulty at first through the need to hold down any note or chord that has to be sustained. This technique is not often used on piano. There are other points too which have to be taught for organ playing which are little or never used on piano. Now I repeat I am not saying that piano technique does not assist in achieving good organ technique. I am saying it is not a "must". To say that you would have to say that Bach, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, and dozens of organ-playing legends could not have good organ technique since they had no pianos. The period does not matter. In fact with the romantic and contemporary repertoire organ technique is sometimes quite different from that used in piano playing. This discussion seems to have started on a merry-go-round with much repetition. I have had my say. It is my opinion and I cannot see any purpose in repeating again what I have said. Finis for me. Bob E.   "Jackson R. Williams II" wrote: > > Bob,again, you need to read my letter which regards > current technical demands as growing out of 19th > century piano repertoire and the fact that all organ > composers of that period were also wonderful pianists. > > So yes, an organist of the 20TH CENTURY must be able > to negotiate the technical demands of repertoire > composed in the past 150 years. We are not and have > not been discussing Bach or his contemporaries. We > have been discussing organ playing of our time. > > So yes, history does bear it out. A firm technical > background in piano is essential and every great > organist of our time will be in agreement. Want > proof? Call David Higgs, Larry Smith, Marilyn Keiser, > Alexander Frey, Gillian Weir, Robert Glasgow, Marilyn > Mason, Richard Morris etc. They all practice piano > and Frey has a full time career on both as do a few > others. Mason once told me she practices piano every > day and Higgs makes his students do the same. You > can't practice scales successfully on an organ as you > can a piano. There is much more to it than simply > pushing down keys. It does separate those of the > highest level. > > --- Bob Elms <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> wrote: > > I don't think anyone is arguing against the claim > > that plenty of piano > > practice may make you a better organist. Any kind of > > keyboard practice > > could achieve that. It is the "must" that worries > > me. I just don't > > agree. If you follow that line of thinking there > > were no good organists > > before the invention of the modern piano, and that > > is an absurdity. > > Bach and his contemporaries would certainly have > > played harpsichord or > > similar as well as the organ but the touch of the > > harpsichord is much > > like the touch of a good tracker organ and nothing > > like the touch of a > > piano. > > Sorry, Jackson, I don't agree and neither does > > history. > > Bob E. > > > > "Jackson R. Williams II" wrote: > > > > > > Well, I disagree,plain and simple. I think piano > > IS a > > > must for an organist. > > > > > > "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 > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.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: ALL READ Re: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and OtherDilemmas From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:02:32 +0800   I have sinned! I wrote my last missive on piano technique, or lack thereof, BEFORE I read the Administrator's suggestion. My apologies, David. Bob Elms.    
(back) Subject: Re: Divided Choirs From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:23:42 -0500   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0438_01C0E93E.0A666220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   Our church choir, S7, A3,T2,B2 is not really large enough to divide, but = =3D we still attempt the cantoris/decani antiphonal style of psalm singing =3D (to Anglican chant) by having the choir and congregation sing alternate = =3D verses. The choir sings in harmony and the congregation in unison. =3D After we introduced this practice, we discovered that in the =3D introduction to the Hymnal of 1916, T. Tertius Noble suggested that =3D small churches (ours has just over 200 members) should sing the psalms =3D antiphonally between choir and congregation in this way, though he =3D advocated both choir and congregation should sing in unison. We find =3D this method works extremely well in our church, and the congregation =3D sings the psalm as well as they sing the hymns. We do, however, find it = =3D necessary to print out the pointing in the service leaflet. =3D20   John Speller, St. Mark's Episcopal Church, St. Louis, Mo.   ----- Original Message -----=3D20 From: ManderUSA@aol.com=3D20 To: pipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:10 PM Subject: Divided Choirs     ManderUSA pontificates: There is a long tradition of the divided choir = =3D   (complete SATB choirs on both sides) in the Anglican cathedral =3D tradition,=3D20 which serves the basic parallel nature of the Psalms usually sung to =3D Anglican=3D20 Chant. <Decani> and <Cantoris> sides alternate the verses of the =3D Psalms,=3D20 based on the parallel poetic scheme of the chosen Psalms   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0438_01C0E93E.0A666220 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D3D"text/html; charset=3D3Dwindows-1252" =3D http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Our church choir, S7, A3,T2,B2 is not = =3D really large=3D20 enough to divide, but we still attempt the cantoris/decani antiphonal =3D style of=3D20 psalm singing (to Anglican chant) by having the choir and congregation =3D sing=3D20 alternate verses.&nbsp; The choir sings in&nbsp;harmony and the =3D congregation in=3D20 unison.&nbsp; After we introduced this practice, we discovered that in =3D the=3D20 introduction to the Hymnal of 1916, T. Tertius Noble suggested that =3D small=3D20 churches (ours has just over 200 members) should sing the psalms =3D antiphonally=3D20 between choir and congregation in this way, though he advocated&nbsp; =3D both choir=3D20 and congregation should sing in unison.&nbsp; We find this method = works=3D20 extremely well in our church, and the congregation sings the psalm as =3D well as=3D20 they sing the hymns.&nbsp; We do, however, find it necessary to print =3D out the=3D20 pointing in the service leaflet.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>John Speller,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>St. Mark's Episcopal =3D Church,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>St. Louis, Mo.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: = =3D 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV=3D20 style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =3D black"><B>From:</B>=3D20 <A href=3D3D"mailto:ManderUSA@aol.com"=3D20 title=3D3DManderUSA@aol.com>ManderUSA@aol.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=3D20 href=3D3D"mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org"=3D20 title=3D3Dpipechat@pipechat.org>pipechat@pipechat.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 29, 2001 =3D 8:10 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Divided Choirs</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT color=3D3D#000000 =3D face=3D3DArial=3D20 lang=3D3D0 size=3D3D2 FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF">ManderUSA pontificates: = There =3D is a long=3D20 tradition of the divided choir <BR>(complete SATB choirs on both =3D sides) in the=3D20 Anglican cathedral tradition, <BR>which serves the basic parallel =3D nature of=3D20 the Psalms usually sung to Anglican <BR>Chant. &lt;Decani&gt; and=3D20 &lt;Cantoris&gt; sides alternate the verses of the Psalms, <BR>based =3D on the=3D20 parallel poetic scheme of the chosen=3D20 Psalms</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0438_01C0E93E.0A666220--    
(back) Subject: Historical fingering, piano technique, et al. From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@access.aic-fl.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:38:16 -0500   I was interested in the factual discussions of the various techniques, theories and schools of thought, but the weighing in opinion-wise re = whether piano training was necessary sounded too much like the pipes vs. = electronics debate. Thanks to those who shared the information - I enjoyed it.   Glenda Sutton        
(back) Subject: Psalmody From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:13:31 -0700     --------------6A3D5CB2532B36CF120DB776 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   We do our Anglican chant Psalms thus: choir (S3-A2-T2-B3) in harmony vs. congregation in unison; we do the Gregorian Psalms either chanters vs. everybody (at Evensong), or the men and women of the choir AND congregation vs. each other (at Mass), even though the women DO end up singing "I am a worm and no man" in Psalm 22 (grinning, ducking).   I've stopped writing out the Psalms in full, for the most part ... I wrote them out in full long enough WITH the pointing AND the notes that now everybody can sing from just the pointing without the notes. And I use a very primitive pointing for the Anglican chants ... as long as I stick to speech rhythm (and virtually no double notes on single syllables), all they need is an underline on the syllable where they are to leave the reciting note ... the rest seems to fall into place naturally ... and this in a congregation that had NEVER sung Psalms until four years ago. We just kept at it ... and since I use the same system for the Gregorian tones, they don't much care which we use; they can do either.   I DO stick to eight Anglican single chants and the simplest versions of the eight Gregorian tones. They match up in tonality; if I'm feeling frisky, I have the choir sing the Anglican chant in harmony and the congregation sing the Gregorian Chant in unison (grin).   If anybody's interested, here are the pairings (numbers refer to the 1940, of course) (grin):   Tone 1 (f-g- reciting note "a", finalis "d") - Blow in d minor, #670 Tone 2 (f-g- reciting note "B flat", finalis "g") - Dupius in g minor, #650 Tone 3 (c-d - reciting note "e" ... we use the ancient version, finalis "d") - Crotch in d minor, #618 Tone 4 (d-f- reciting note "g" ... we use the ancient version, finalis "d") - Croft in g minor, #617 Tone 5 (c-e- reciting note "g", finalis "c") - Goodson in C, #609 (grin)   Tone 6 (f-g- reciting note "a", finalis "f") - Russell in F, #645 Tone 7 (f#-g - reciting note "a" ... the Sarum/Palmer version, finalis "g") - Turton in G, #623 Tone 8 (f-g- reciting note "B flat", finalis "f") - Tallis in B flat, #665   Cheers,   Bud-By-The-Beach   "John L. Speller" wrote:   > Our church choir, S7, A3,T2,B2 is not really large enough to divide, > but we still attempt the cantoris/decani antiphonal style of psalm > singing (to Anglican chant) by having the choir and congregation sing > alternate verses. The choir sings in harmony and the congregation in > unison. After we introduced this practice, we discovered that in the > introduction to the Hymnal of 1916, T. Tertius Noble suggested that > small churches (ours has just over 200 members) should sing the psalms > antiphonally between choir and congregation in this way, though he > advocated both choir and congregation should sing in unison. We find > this method works extremely well in our church, and the congregation > sings the psalm as well as they sing the hymns. We do, however, find > it necessary to print out the pointing in the service leaflet. John > Speller,St. Mark's Episcopal Church,St. Louis, Mo. ----- Original > Message ----- > > From: ManderUSA@aol.com > To: pipechat@pipechat.org > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:10 PM > Subject: Divided Choirs > ManderUSA pontificates: There is a long tradition of the > divided choir > (complete SATB choirs on both sides) in the Anglican > cathedral tradition, > which serves the basic parallel nature of the Psalms usually > sung to Anglican > Chant. <Decani> and <Cantoris> sides alternate the verses of > the Psalms, > based on the parallel poetic scheme of the chosen Psalms >   --------------6A3D5CB2532B36CF120DB776 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> We do our Anglican chant Psalms thus: choir (S3-A2-T2-B3) in harmony vs. congregation in unison; we do the Gregorian Psalms either chanters vs. everybody (at Evensong), or the men and women of the choir AND = congregation vs. each other (at Mass), even though the women DO end up singing "I am a worm and no man" in Psalm 22 (grinning, ducking). <p>I've stopped writing out the Psalms in full, for the most part ... I wrote them out in full long enough WITH the pointing AND the notes that now everybody can sing from just the pointing without the notes. And I use a very primitive pointing for the Anglican chants ... as long as I stick to speech rhythm (and virtually no double notes on single = syllables), all they need is an underline on the syllable where they are to leave the reciting note ... the rest seems to fall into place naturally ... and this in a congregation that had NEVER sung Psalms until four years ago. We just kept at it ... and since I use the same system for the Gregorian tones, they don't much care which we use; they can do either. <p>I DO stick to eight Anglican single chants and the simplest versions of the eight Gregorian tones. They match up in tonality; if I'm feeling frisky, I have the choir sing the Anglican chant in harmony and the = congregation sing the Gregorian Chant in unison (grin). <p>If anybody's interested, here are the pairings (numbers refer to the 1940, of course) (grin): <p>Tone 1 (f-g- reciting note "a", finalis "d") - Blow in d minor, #670 <br>Tone 2 (f-g- reciting note "B flat", finalis "g") - Dupius in g minor, #650 <br>Tone 3 (c-d - reciting note "e" ... we use the ancient version, = finalis "d") - Crotch in d minor, #618 <br>Tone 4 (d-f- reciting note "g" ... we use the ancient version, finalis "d") - Croft in g minor, #617 <br>Tone 5 (c-e- reciting note "g", finalis "c") - Goodson in C, #609 = (grin) <br>Tone 6 (f-g- reciting note "a", finalis "f") - Russell in F, #645 <br>Tone 7 (f#-g - reciting note "a" ... the Sarum/Palmer version, finalis "g") - Turton in G, #623 <br>Tone 8 (f-g- reciting note "B flat", finalis "f") - Tallis in B flat, #665 <p>Cheers, <p>Bud-By-The-Beach <p>"John L. Speller" wrote: <blockquote TYPE=3DCITE><style></style> <font face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D-1>Our church choir, S7, A3,T2,B2 is not really large enough to divide, but we still attempt the cantoris/decani antiphonal style of psalm singing (to Anglican chant) by having the choir and congregation sing alternate = verses.&nbsp; The choir sings in harmony and the congregation in unison.&nbsp; After we introduced this practice, we discovered that in the introduction to the Hymnal of 1916, T. Tertius Noble suggested that small churches (ours has just over 200 members) should sing the psalms antiphonally between choir and congregation in this way, though he advocated&nbsp; both choir and congregation should sing in unison.&nbsp; We find this method works extremely well in our church, and the congregation sings the psalm as well as they sing the hymns.&nbsp; We do, however, find it necessary to print out the pointing in the service leaflet.</font></font>&nbsp;<font = face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D-1>John Speller,</font></font><font face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D-1>St. Mark's = Episcopal Church,</font></font><font face=3D"Arial"><font size=3D-1>St. Louis, = Mo.</font></font>&nbsp;&nbsp;----- Original Message ----- <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <div style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><b>From:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:ManderUSA@aol.com" = title=3D"ManderUSA@aol.com">ManderUSA@aol.com</a></div>   <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a = href=3D"mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org" = title=3D"pipechat@pipechat.org">pipechat@pipechat.org</a></div>   <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:10 = PM</div>   <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Divided Choirs</div> &nbsp;<font face=3D"Arial"><font color=3D"#000000"><font = size=3D-1>ManderUSA pontificates: There is a long tradition of the divided choir</font></font></font> <br><font face=3D"Arial"><font color=3D"#000000"><font size=3D-1>(complete = SATB choirs on both sides) in the Anglican cathedral = tradition,</font></font></font> <br><font face=3D"Arial"><font color=3D"#000000"><font size=3D-1>which = serves the basic parallel nature of the Psalms usually sung to = Anglican</font></font></font> <br><font face=3D"Arial"><font color=3D"#000000"><font size=3D-1>Chant. = &lt;Decani> and &lt;Cantoris> sides alternate the verses of the = Psalms,</font></font></font> <br><font face=3D"Arial"><font color=3D"#000000"><font size=3D-1>based on = the parallel poetic scheme of the chosen = Psalms</font></font></font></blockquote> </blockquote>   </body> </html>   --------------6A3D5CB2532B36CF120DB776--    
(back) Subject: Re: ALL READ Re: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and OtherDilemmas From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:24:10 -0400       Bob Elms wrote: > > I have sinned! I wrote my last missive on piano technique, or lack > thereof, BEFORE I read the Administrator's suggestion. My apologies, > David. > Bob Elms.   Bob, Fortunately, several of we, your list friends intervened with the list owners and they stopped the black helicopter mission to Australia.   So, be not afraid..   ...of course "Chopsticks" with exquisite sublety of touch can be very effective in piano recitals and is a   <COPTER BLADES OVERHEAD>   Aieeeee!  
(back) Subject: Fw: Easy Bach, Historical Fingering and Other Dilemmas From: "VEAGUE" <dutchorgan@svs.net> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:45:43 -0500         > Maybe there's a Wurlitzer in your future Carlo, heaven forbid. :-) Mike > > .......and what's wrong with WurliTzer?   Rick >