PipeChat Digest #2999 - Friday, August 2, 2002
 
RE: Holding mail
  by "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org>
RE: Holding mail
  by "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org>
thank you!
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: thank you!
  by "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net>
of lists and liberties
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: thank you!
  by "John Foss" <harfo32@hotmail.com>
RE: of lists and liberties
  by "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org>
one more, and I'm done
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
RE: one more, and I'm done
  by "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org>
Re: of lists and liberties
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
RE: of lists and liberties
  by "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org>
RE: of lists and liberties
  by "Keith Wannamaker" <Keith@Wannamaker.org>
Re: of lists and liberties
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com>
why I DON'T shut up and go away
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: of lists and liberties
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com>
Re: why I DON'T shut up and go away
  by "Boyd Savage" <boydxvii@yahoo.com>
RTRFM & LIVE 365
  by "Mack" <mack02445@mindspring.com>
Re: RTRFM & LIVE 365
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com>
Re: thank you!
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
IRC REGULAR CHAT
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Congratulations  . . .
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
RE: why I DON'T shut up and go away
  by "Jeff White" <reedstop@prodigy.net>
 

(back) Subject: RE: Holding mail From: "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:10:15 -0400   I just find it this to be the easier way to do it since I usually sign off every weekend to keep the tons of mail from getting into my IN box at work over the weekend. I keep a copy of Requests and click on reply because the address is already there, remove all the extraneous material maintaining either "unsubscribe" or "subscribe pipchat" and send. That's just the conveniently easy method for me since I leave and return to the list so often. Robert Bernardino Colasacco   -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Wechsler [mailto:manderusa@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:04 PM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Holding mail     I am not sure it is necessary to unsubscribe. At least on PipOrg-L, you = can request no mail status, and then when you return, you do not have to go through the subscription precedure all over again.   Malcolm  
(back) Subject: RE: Holding mail From: "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:13:03 -0400   Or you can just have PipeChat forwarded to some other folder you set up = for it to receive pipechat. I'm sure all systems have some such method, no? RBC   -----Original Message----- From: RonSeverin@aol.com [mailto:RonSeverin@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:03 PM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: Holding mail     Here is another trick with AOL and similar type paid venues. Old mail is saved until you completely delete it. This is called f  
(back) Subject: thank you! From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 10:17:03 -0700   Thank you, David and Tim and everybody else who makes this list "go" ...   After reading an administrative post on one of the other lists, I have to wonder in all honesty why otherwise intelligent and responsible adults submit themselves to that kind of ... I can't think of a word offhand. Suffice it to say that it raises all my civil libertarian and free-speech hackles at the very least.   But that's neither here nor there.   Thank you, folks for THIS list!   Cheers,   Bud Clark, BMus Organist/Choirmaster St. Matthew's Anglican Catholic Church Newport Beach California USA    
(back) Subject: Re: thank you! From: "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:09:17 -0400   Dear Pipechatterers,   I have often been reminded of how grateful we are to Tim and Dave for Pipechat, and the opportunity it gives us for perhaps a lighter shade of discussion. I am sorry, however, that the well-earned praise copied at the bottom of this posting has to be part negative comment about "one of the other lists." I presume this message from Prof. Kelzenberg, co-owner of PipOrg-L, must be the offending one.   << I think the quality of PIPORG-L took a serious nose-dive yesterday. = We had an accidental posting which was completely off-topic (and for which the original poster apologized), which then degenerated further into a thread of unfunny one-liners and feeble attempts to make it topical. Likewise, there were other non-substantive (and even non-topical) chit-chat items, some (adding insult to injury) with significant quotations from previous postings! >>   I assume, then, that Mr. Clark does not consider that I am an "otherwise intelligent and responsible adult," quoting from his comments copied = below. I remain committed to and interested in and by PipOrg-L precisely because = of its excellent governance. The crap to solid material ratio remains quite tolerable - how many mailing lists can make that claim?<G>. Mr. = Kelzenberg's posting refers to a silly episode that badly skewed that ratio, and became = a major annoyance, and just simply got in the way. PipOrg-L remains the most powerful source of Organ information and support found anywhere on the Internet. To try to turn its effective management into a civil liberty, = free speech issue is beyond my comprehension. In addition to which, it is a private list. No one is forced to belong to it.   I consider myself blessed to be a part of both lists.   Malcolm Wechsler www.mander-organs.com   ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: "pipechat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: thank you!     > Thank you, David and Tim and everybody else who makes this list "go" ... > > After reading an administrative post on one of the other lists, I have > to wonder in all honesty why otherwise intelligent and responsible > adults submit themselves to that kind of ... I can't think of a word > offhand. Suffice it to say that it raises all my civil libertarian and > free-speech hackles at the very least. > > But that's neither here nor there. > > Thank you, folks for THIS list! > > Cheers, > > Bud Clark, BMus > Organist/Choirmaster > St. Matthew's Anglican Catholic Church > Newport Beach California USA        
(back) Subject: of lists and liberties From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:31:31 -0700   It remains beyond my comprehension how ANY organ list can propose to promote the cause of the pipe organ and/or organ music, and yet at the same time exclude ANY mention of ANY aspect of the practice of church or temple music. Yet this is precisely what both piporg-1 and piporgue propose to do.   Yet the number of organ students in academic institutions continues in free-fall, as does the number of professors of organ required to teach them. A recent article placed the number of college organ students at something like 500 nationwide; I cannot speak to the decline in academic POSITIONS, except at the two institutions with which I am the most familiar: Oberlin Conservatory and Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music.   Oberlin in the 1960s had FOUR full-time organ teachers: Fenner Douglass, Haskell Thomson, David Boe and Garth Peacock. Today they have one full-time (Haskell Thomson, who is retiring shortly) and two part time: David Boe and James Christie.   Cincinnati in the 1970s had THREE full-time organ teachers: Wayne Fisher, Roberta Gary and David Mulbury, and two part-time adjunct instructors: Gerre Hancock and Haldan Tomkins. Today they have one: Roberta Gary.   There are two points to be made here:   (1) Academic positions for organist are drying up at an alarming rate. There weren't THAT many to BEGIN with.   (2) IF students of the organ are going to make a living as professional organists, they're going to do it in churches and temples. And if THAT is so, then all the associated issues are VERY important (nay, VITAL) to organists.   If SOMETHING isn't done to reverse this trend, we will find ourselves in the position of musicologists, who go to school to get advanced degrees so they can teach other musicologists, who in turn go to school to get advanced degrees so THEY can teach OTHER musicologists, etc.   The strict academic approach to the organ ALL but killed it in the 1960s .... those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.   If the above-mentioned lists propose to be organ-BUILDING lists, then that is SOMEWHAT another matter. But even in THAT regard I have to share a comment by a well-respected builder: "We are FINALLY learning that what will play the LITERATURE will not NECESSARILY play the church service."   We recently went through the builder selection process ... those who weren't interested in coming and hearing a service, or talking about the function of the organ IN our service, were summarily dropped from consideration. So even BUILDERS can't be TOTALLY absolved from being at least COGNIZANT of what goes on in the churches where they build.   Bud Clark    
(back) Subject: Re: thank you! From: "John Foss" <harfo32@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:35:21 +0000   Dear list As probably the only member of the list resident in Greece I would like to =   add my vote of thanks to that of Bud Clark. The list owners do a great = job. It keeps me in touch wiht the organ loft - a touch I would sadly miss if = it were not for this contact. Incidentally on the matter of pipe org-L I received an email in somewhat severe terms - much as I might address one = of my recalcitrant students - stating that I had been removed from the list. When I asked why, I was told that it was due to my server returning all my =   mail "not known at this address". I haven't had this trouble anywhere else = - i.e. pipe chat and second touch - is there a different server = configuration at Pipe org=3DL? David Kelzenberg said I could re-apply without any formalities, providing that he didn't have the same problem - I have a friend coming over from England next week to check out my system and will, = I hope, rejoin after this. I do have trouble with Internet Explorer - it = keeps telling me it has to close down due to an error, and this may be the problem. I find both lists full of interest, and though a bit inclined to wander off topic from time to time - don't we all - they contain an unrivalled wealth of knowledge and a forum for discussion on the organ world. Particularly the controversy! John Foss http://www.geocities.com/harfo32/JohnFossathome.html         _________________________________________________________________ Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com    
(back) Subject: RE: of lists and liberties From: "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:38:37 -0400   This message, I assume, refers as does Malcolm's previous, to something = that was started on some other list called PipOrg-L? Am I wrong. Well, we're = not all--that is, I'm not--on that other or any other organ list and would either appreciate hearing the whole story or ask that this just be kept to the other lists!! Really, what purpose does it serve to bring it here if = not the whole story. Robert Bernardino Colasacco PS I certainly have no problem with any organ list that wants to exclude church and religious service talk. I can elaborate but I'd rather wait = until the whole story is brought here so I can see what it's really about.   -----Original Message----- From: quilisma@socal.rr.com [mailto:quilisma@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:32 PM To: pipechat Subject: of lists and liberties     It remains beyond my comprehension how ANY organ list can propose to promote the cause of the pipe organ and/or organ music, and yet at the same time exclude ANY mention of ANY aspect of the practice of church or temple music. Yet this is precisely what both piporg-1 and piporgue propose to do.  
(back) Subject: one more, and I'm done From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:49:35 -0700   John made my point without realizing it.   NONE of my friends or acquaintances speak to me in that manner.   My EMPLOYER (try as he might) does not get away with speaking to me in that manner.   TRADESPEOPLE with whom I deal do not speak to me in that manner ... and if they DO, I take my business elsewhere.   Cheers,   Bud Clark    
(back) Subject: RE: one more, and I'm done From: "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:48:24 -0400   As long as this is going to continue on this list would you at least = explain what's going on? Hell-o? RBC   -----Original Message----- From: quilisma@socal.rr.com [mailto:quilisma@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:50 PM To: pipechat Subject: one more, and I'm done     John made my point without realizing it.   NONE of my friends or acquaintances speak to me in that manner.   My EMPLOYER (try as he might) does not get away with speaking to me in that manner.   TRADESPEOPLE with whom I deal do not speak to me in that manner ... and if they DO, I take my business elsewhere.   Cheers,   Bud Clark     "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: of lists and liberties From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:52:03 -0700   Well, it's very simple Robert ... you see, I was BANNED from posting on pipeARGUE *because* I brought it up. So unless it's brought over here, the discussion is rather one-sided (chuckle).   I know what you're going to say ... if I had it to do over again, I'd probably get a degree in English and teach and never set FOOT in a church OR lay hands on a pipe organ.   Playing for church for fifty years tends to DO that to you.   Cheers,   Bud   "COLASACCO, ROBERT" wrote: > > This message, I assume, refers as does Malcolm's previous, to something = that > was started on some other list called PipOrg-L? Am I wrong. Well, we're = not > all--that is, I'm not--on that other or any other organ list and would > either appreciate hearing the whole story or ask that this just be kept = to > the other lists!! Really, what purpose does it serve to bring it here if = not > the whole story. > Robert Bernardino Colasacco > PS I certainly have no problem with any organ list that wants to exclude > church and religious service talk. I can elaborate but I'd rather wait = until > the whole story is brought here so I can see what it's really about. > > -----Original Message----- > From: quilisma@socal.rr.com [mailto:quilisma@socal.rr.com] > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:32 PM > To: pipechat > Subject: of lists and liberties > > It remains beyond my comprehension how ANY organ list can propose to > promote the cause of the pipe organ and/or organ music, and yet at the > same time exclude ANY mention of ANY aspect of the practice of church or > temple music. Yet this is precisely what both piporg-1 and piporgue > propose to do. > > "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: of lists and liberties From: "COLASACCO, ROBERT" <RCOLASACCO@popcouncil.org> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:01:51 -0400   Oh. I don't know anything about pipeARGUE ( I guess your characaturization of something else?) or what their rules are. But anyone who would ban you must be evil. Is one not allowed to discuss church stuff there? Is that = what you brought up? And I woudln't say what you mentioned you think I'd say. Somehow I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland. Oh well, I just play ignorant. Play ignorant, get it? Ha, ha, ha. Don't get your blood pressure up. RBC   -=3D=3D=3D Well, it's very simple Robert ... you see, I was BANNED from posting on pipeARGUE *because* I brought it up. So unless it's brought over here, the discussion is rather one-sided (chuckle).   I know what you're going to say ... if I had it to do over again, I'd probably get a degree in English and teach and never set FOOT in a church OR lay hands on a pipe organ.  
(back) Subject: RE: of lists and liberties From: "Keith Wannamaker" <Keith@Wannamaker.org> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:13:58 -0500   Ok, you were banned by a single posting that those mean list owners didn't like? Wow, must have been some post.   Don't get so upset. It's a private list. Instead of complaining, why not just start your own list?   Keith   | -----Original Message----- | From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of | quilisma@socal.rr.com | Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:52 PM | To: PipeChat | Subject: Re: of lists and liberties | | | Well, it's very simple Robert ... you see, I was BANNED from posting on | pipeARGUE *because* I brought it up. So unless it's brought over here, | the discussion is rather one-sided (chuckle).    
(back) Subject: Re: of lists and liberties From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:32:12 -0400       quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > > I know what you're going to say ... if I had it to do over again, I'd > probably get a degree in English and teach and never set FOOT in a > church OR lay hands on a pipe organ.   "Laying hands on a pipe organ, or 'Hans' will not cure the ills of the afflicted instrument". It has been rumored that a kick on a 16' can sometimes bring = it into tune. "Hans" was frequently laid on a pipe organ and is today known = as..   [fill in the blank]   I had Liberty priviledge in the U.S. Navy. "English Literature" is all-inclusive.   There is no Liberty in the currently Supercilious Washington. Beware when a U.S. President says any sentence beginning with the words: "If I was a Dictator.."   They're being watched.. Look at the expressions on their faces.   rambling, Stan Thank you for your indulgence, list members    
(back) Subject: why I DON'T shut up and go away From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:46:40 -0700   It seems to me that the entire business ... organ-playing, pipe-organ building ... is teetering on the brink of extinction.   There were LESS than ONE HUNDRED new pipe organs reported in the journals last year.   Does anyone else remember when The Diapason used to devote ONE issue a year to two-manual organs? The other eleven months, they didn't bother to REPORT anything smaller than new three, four and five-manual organs. NOW it's the THREE manual organ that's remarkable.   It seems to me that there are two courses of action one can take: head in the sand (or the library, or wherever), or an activist role in which one attempts to effect change.   I'm used to criticism ... there's a certain segment of the organist population that goes absolutely BALLISTIC whenever I suggest that the AGO should become a REAL union with REAL benefits and protections for its members, or that the so-called "Rector's Pleasure" canon in the Episcopal church (which basically gives the Rector all BUT the power of life and death over "his" musicians) should be repealed.   People have a vested interest in the status quo. That's understandable. But there's a tendency on ALL these lists when something REALLY controversial comes up that REALLY affects us as professional musicians to try and stifle it and/or make it go away.   For example: some (many?) organists are members of a certain identifiable minority. That minority is OFTEN discriminated against in the churches; membership in that minority is grounds for dismissal in some churches. Just TRY discussing THAT, OR writing a letter to the editor of TAO about it. Fortunately the owners of THIS list and the owners of the Diapason are more open-minded. And the AGO's statement concerning it is a paper tiger at BEST.   I was told to shut up about THAT and go start my own list, and I DID ... but what good does it do to discuss it ONLY among members of a given minority? WE'RE of one mind about it, more or less ... the churches are dead-wrong ... but nobody ELSE is going to change their minds about it or take any positive ACTION unless they're at least exposed to the DISCUSSION.   So saying "take it to another forum" doesn't really accomplish anything.   Cheers,   Bud Clark    
(back) Subject: Re: of lists and liberties From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:43:55 -0400   PIPORG-L has its policies.   If I formed STAN-L as an internet list, I would have my policies. Please, out of respect look at and appreciate the treasure of organ info. there in those archives.   Ask your question.   Stan   http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/archives/piporg-l.html   "COLASACCO, ROBERT" wrote: > > Oh. I don't know anything about pipeARGUE ( I guess your = characaturization > of something else?) or what their rules are. But anyone who would ban = you > must be evil. Is one not allowed to discuss church stuff there? Is that = what > you brought up? And I woudln't say what you mentioned you think I'd say. > Somehow I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland. Oh well, I just play > ignorant. Play ignorant, get it? Ha, ha, ha. > Don't get your blood pressure up. > RBC > > -=3D=3D=3D > Well, it's very simple Robert ... you see, I was BANNED from posting on > pipeARGUE *because* I brought it up. So unless it's brought over here, > the discussion is rather one-sided (chuckle). > > I know what you're going to say ... if I had it to do over again, I'd > probably get a degree in English and teach and never set FOOT in a > church OR lay hands on a pipe organ.    
(back) Subject: Re: why I DON'T shut up and go away From: "Boyd Savage" <boydxvii@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT)   --- quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: > So saying "take it to another forum" doesn't really accomplish anything.   Bud, I couldn't agree with you more. It's always heartening to hear that = there are still people willing to fight the good fight.   Boyd       __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: RTRFM & LIVE 365 From: "Mack" <mack02445@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:49:55 -0400   I WROTE TO LIVE365 AND THIS IS THEIR ANSWER TO THE "FEE"   Mack   Summary: RTR FM Suggested Solution: At 08/02/2002 03:27 PM we wrote -   Due to the royalty fees impsed by the Librarian of Congress on web radio. Live365 is not forced to charge a royalty fee of $5 for all broadcasts. This fee is to help cover this new royalty fee. All stations that do not pay this fee have restricted access and can only be listened to by preferred members.   As a listener, you can sign up for preferred membership and be able to listen to all station regardless of the restrictions as well as be able to listen without any pop up, banner, or audio ads. You can also attempt to contact the broadcaster of the station/stations that you like to listen to and encourage them to pay the royalty fee and remove the restriction from their station.   As a broadcaster, you can sign up to pay the royalty fee and remove the restriction from your broadcast.   You can find out more about the royalty fee at the following address:   http://www.live365.com/info/royaltyfaq-listener.html      
(back) Subject: Re: RTRFM & LIVE 365 From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:45:34 -0400   The 'fee' is real. All of us recite together in Unison,   Yada yada yada.   Don't listen to them and they will disappear! Pity, there is a paucity of theatre organ music on radio. RTRFM has squandered their opportunity.   listen to this again: http://www.rtrfm.com.au/live.ra   They're History! Arrogant B***t***s.     Shame on them.   Stan Lowkis Is RTRFM the Aussie 'enron' of radio?         Mack wrote: > > I WROTE TO LIVE365 AND THIS IS THEIR ANSWER TO THE "FEE" > > Mack > > Summary: RTR FM > Suggested Solution: > At 08/02/2002 03:27 PM we wrote - > > Due to the royalty fees impsed by the Librarian of Congress on web > radio. Live365 is not forced to charge a royalty fee of $5 for all > broadcasts. This fee is to help cover this new royalty fee. All > stations that do not pay this fee have restricted access and can > only be listened to by preferred members. > > As a listener, you can sign up for preferred membership and be able > to listen to all station regardless of the restrictions as well as > be able to listen without any pop up, banner, or audio ads. You can > also attempt to contact the broadcaster of the station/stations that > you like to listen to and encourage them to pay the royalty fee and > remove the restriction from their station. > > As a broadcaster, you can sign up to pay the royalty fee and remove > the restriction from your broadcast. > > You can find out more about the royalty fee at the following > address: > > http://www.live365.com/info/royaltyfaq-listener.html    
(back) Subject: Re: thank you! From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:32:51 -0500       John Foss reported about being dropped from the PIPORG-L list: :   > When I asked why, I was told that it was due to my server returning all = my > mail "not known at this address". I haven't had this trouble anywhere = else - > i.e. pipe chat and second touch - is there a different server = configuration > at Pipe org=3DL?   the same thing happened to me; I promptly resubscribed. I think that the = list owner at PIPORG is just a bit more sensitive to bounced messages than = certain other owners. I do, from time to time (couple of times a year) get an = automated message from another server that a message has been bounced, so I suspect = that it happens a bit more often than most of us are aware.   I promptly (within a matter of hours) resubscribed to PIPORG, and was immediately fully reinstated.   ns    
(back) Subject: IRC REGULAR CHAT From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:52:35 -0700   is now. Come and join us! Directions on pipechat homepage.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Congratulations . . . From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:18:02 -0500   To two dear friends and former listmates at PIPORG-L (I do not know if they are also on this list) for having their likenesses found in this month's issue of The American Organist. Both Stephen Roberts and Steve Lawson, along with photos, can be found in the chapter news. In fact, it is heartening to me to read the chapter news and see that there are active, progressive chapters out there. My own chapter has pretty much limited itself to getting together to eat and chat a few times per year (I miss you, David Scribner), and I've yet to hear from the chapter to the east of me about my inquiries almost a year and six months ago about a dual membership so that I could keep abreast of what's going on organically around me.   Congratulations on your accomplishments, Steve and Steve - keep those fingers and toes moving.   A somewhat discouraged and aging (God, not another birthday!)   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com          
(back) Subject: RE: why I DON'T shut up and go away From: "Jeff White" <reedstop@prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:26:31 -0500   > It seems to me that the entire business ... organ-playing, pipe-organ > building ... is teetering on the brink of extinction.   I disagree, and I think a trend reversal may be on its way. = Unfortunately, it may take a decade or two.   > There were LESS than ONE HUNDRED new pipe organs reported in the > journals last year.   Could this possibly be because of cost? I'm really wondering, thinking on this statement. The church I played for left 3 ranks prepared because of the new building and funds growing short. This was in 1986. Today, I wonder how many parishes can afford it. I know, I know, if it's to be = done, there's a way, but....sometimes practicality opts for other things other than the organ, which is seen more as a luxury. How sad!   Jeff