PipeChat Digest #3002 - Saturday, August 3, 2002
 
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "Owen Cannon" <owencannon@mac.com>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net>
Re: of lists and liberties
  by "Margo Dillard" <dillardm@airmail.net>
Re: of lists and liberties
  by <Wurlibird1@aol.com>
Re: of lists and liberties
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
Margo's comments
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Cost of Pipe Organs
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Prices of New Organs
  by "jon bertschinger" <jonberts@magiccablepc.com>
Re: Prices of New Organs
  by <OrganMD@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "Owen Cannon" <owencannon@mac.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:23:42 -0700   I think its a fabulous example of a troll (troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet [or Mailing List] designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling") from _The Art of Trolling_ http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html   It's semi-on topic, reading this may help clear up the very signal to ratio which I am polluting :)     Ray Ahrens wrote: > Please please please let Lynn's message pass without comment!!!! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* l2nn@juno.com > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:22 AM > *To:* pipechat@pipechat.org > *Subject:* Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 > > New electronic organs are being quoted and bought at churches which > cannot afford a new pipe organ. I don't think Bach would have = turned > down a 4 manual Renaissance Allen. I know most organists look down = on > digitals but I think they are the wave of the future. > > Lynn Finegan > San Francisco Bay area > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 04:00:01 -0500 "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > writes: > > PipeChat Digest #3000 - Saturday, August 3, 2002 > > > > Jeff's question about cost > > by <quilisma@socal.rr.com> > > > > > > > =
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:51:00 -0500   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0010_01C23AFD.2EE3E7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   Why the no comment bit, are you afraid of the digitals ? In many instances a well designed digital is superior to a pipe organ =3D when placed in the proper acoustical environment.   ----- Original Message -----=3D20 From: Ray Ahrens=3D20 To: PipeChat=3D20 Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:48 PM Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02     Please please please let Lynn's message pass without comment!!!!   ----- Original Message ----- From: l2nn@juno.com Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:22 AM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02   New electronic organs are being quoted and bought at churches which cannot afford a new pipe organ. I don't think Bach would have =3D turned down a 4 manual Renaissance Allen. I know most organists look down = =3D on digitals but I think they are the wave of the future.   Lynn Finegan San Francisco Bay area   On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 04:00:01 -0500 "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> writes: > PipeChat Digest #3000 - Saturday, August 3, 2002 >=3D20 > Jeff's question about cost > by <quilisma@socal.rr.com> >=3D20 >=3D20 > =3D
(back) Subject: Re: of lists and liberties From: "Margo Dillard" <dillardm@airmail.net> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 15:22:59 -0500   I see no reason for there to suddenly be a list-bashing thread - = especially by those who aren't even subscribers of the other lists and don't know what = has been discussed there. Apparently this began because someone mentioned = appreciating the freedom to discuss church politics, humor, etc on this list - and that = is a good thing. And it is in the stated guidelines of the list.   Piporg-L does not forbid discussion of church MUSIC. It does forbid = discussion of theology, religious arguments, church politics, etc. However, the = recent thread that the list owner asked to stop had nothing to do with the = church. A subscriber accidentally posted a message regarding a telescope for sale = that had nothing whatsoever to do with music or the organ. Although she apologized immediately - a lengthy thread has ensued. One or two humorous off-topic = remarks is one thing. I think the list owner is well within their rights to put a = stop to a week's worth - just as the list owner here stopped the incessant = argument and obscene name calling that took place on this list a short time ago. = Piporg-L does have more restictions in subject matter - but that was true at the = list's creation and has never changed - that is its purpose. Orgue-L was created = by a small group of organ builders to discuss organ building only. That is its purpose. Just as there is a Hammond list and an electronic list.   We have multiple lists with multiple purposes by definition. I think it = is inappropriate for people on one list to make fun of another list. If you = don't want to talk about its subject matter - don't join. This list is supposed = to have a no flame rule. I think that should include people on other lists = and those list owners.   I haven't joined a clarinet list because I don't care to discuss or read = about clarinets - and I suspect if I did join one and talked about organs and = church music all the time they would properly ask me to leave. Join the lists = that fit the type of discussion you want to have and don't criticize those who want = to talk about something else.   Excuse the diatribe - I just couldn't stand it anymore. This horse is a = dead as pipes vs. electronics.   Margo    
(back) Subject: Re: of lists and liberties From: <Wurlibird1@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:42:29 EDT   Margo Dillard writes:   >This horse is a dead as pipes vs. electronics. <<   Oh Lord. Hopefully this is not kindling for this topic to be chased = again. I know it wasn't your intent, Margo. It just seems that semiannually we = must flog this rug. I have been keeping score over the last two years. No winners. So why play?   Your post contains many good points with which I agree.   Best wishes, Jim Pitts  
(back) Subject: Re: of lists and liberties From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:06:44 -0500     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margo Dillard" <dillardm@airmail.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Re: of lists and liberties     But, Margo, what do you really think?   Jim H. > > > "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: Margo's comments From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:58:58 -0700   Fine; but I am an ORGANIST and piporg-1 is an ORGAN list; the question I asked (and the one that got me banned) had nothing to DO with church politics and whatever the other banned topics were that she listed. It was the same question I raised on here:   WHENCE ORGAN-BUILDING AND THE STUDY OF ORGAN IF *NOT* IN THE CHURCHES (and temples)?   Asking that question prompted a PUBLIC statement from Ben Chi that I needed an "attitude adjustment", and the withdrawal of posting privileges.   I am a libertarian; I value intellectual freedom over just about anything else. I find both the statement AND the subsequent action to be offensive in the extreme from every possible point of view, but, as I am "silenced" on piporg-1, I have no recourse but to discuss it over here.   The recent rebuke of the list by the other piporg-1 listowner, in language *I* would reserve for use with recalcitrant choirboys of about age TWELVE, served to remind me that arrogance and high-handedness is NOT reserved to the Rev'd Clergy.   Kindest regards,   Raymond H. "Bud" Clark, BMus    
(back) Subject: Re: Cost of Pipe Organs From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 16:45:01 -0500   On 8/3/02 12:48 PM, Bud wrote:   >>> In 2002, a rank of pipes runs anywhere from $10K t0 $30K, depending >>> on >>> the rank and the builder; an organ of the same size as the one >>> above >>> (approx. 30 ranks) can cost anywhere from $300K to $900K. >>> >>> $10K won't buy you much of a car today; Orange County CA is an >>> expensive >>> area, but $300K is the average cost of a three-bedroom house.   You're indeed in an expensive area. Here in Winnipeg, the 30 rank organ still costs $300-$900k (US$), equivalent to $450-$1350k (Can$). But my suburban, very nice indeed 6 bedroom home on 1/2 acre lot would sell for only $150k (Can$), equivalent to about $100k (US$). With this kind of cost comparison, the price of pipe organs seems completely out of reach, indeed out of touch with reality, to the average church-goer.     >> >>> >>> If anything, the price of pipe organs has gone DOWN slightly because >>> the >>> big houses with their factories and large overheads are mostly gone >>> ... >>> the ones who have survived have scaled back accordingly. >>> >>> Values and priorities have to be taken into account as well ... in >>> my >>> own parish, which is not poor, SOME of the people (who live in >>> multi-million-dollar homes) go into cardiac ARREST at the IDEA of >>> spending $300K-$500K for a pipe organ for their CHURCH.   The pipe organ cannot exist indefinitely on just folks who live in multi-million dollar homes. And if those truly rich people aren't willing = to finance pipe organs, just think of the average church-goer who really is = the one who has to pay the freight. How do I convince that person that a 30 = rank pipe organ is a good value when it could cost TEN TIMES the price of their house!!! This is a very real problem for today's builders who I know are passing along real costs as opposed to inflating their profits - although this is admirable, it leaves them very little room to reduce prices in a meaningful way.   Cheers, Russ Greene    
(back) Subject: Prices of New Organs From: "jon bertschinger" <jonberts@magiccablepc.com> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 16:52:02 -0500   Ok folks...I'm surprised that no one had anything sassy to say to my post. What's more, I'm surprised that Churches and people are willing to pay what some companies are charging...just because of a "name"?   It's kinda like Gucci on the side of the bag...it isn't any better, it just costs more.     My thought on organ pricing.     jon bertschinger  
(back) Subject: Re: Prices of New Organs From: <OrganMD@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:17:08 EDT     --part1_70.20b61682.2a7db064_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Hi Jon and list......   While I agree that there are examples in our industry of over priced = "Gucci bag" types of organs, there are also many cases where spending more to = have a builder of fine reputation, would have been money well spent.   Bill Hesterman   --part1_70.20b61682.2a7db064_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3>Hi Jon and = list......<BR> <BR> While I agree that there are examples in our industry of over priced = "Gucci bag" types of organs, there are also many cases where spending more = to have a builder of fine reputation, would have been money well = spent.<BR> <BR> Bill Hesterman</FONT></HTML>   --part1_70.20b61682.2a7db064_boundary--