PipeChat Digest #3007 - Sunday, August 4, 2002
 
Re: cost of organs
  by <Steskinner@aol.com>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com>
OFF TOPIC-Microphones and Recording
  by "Paul Soulek" <soulek@frontiernet.net>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net>
ALL READ!! Re: In defense of PIPORG-L
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Test...please ignore
  by <cmys13085@blueyonder.co.uk>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: cost of organs From: <Steskinner@aol.com> Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 19:16:39 EDT     --part1_193.af2dea3.2a7f0fd7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 8/4/2002 12:46:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, quilisma@socal.rr.com writes:     > churches are not going > to award MAJOR contracts to small local builders until they have a > successful track record; and they can't build a successful track record > until SOMEBODY awards them some MAJOR contracts.   My experience was so odd. When Schlicker went out of business, St. Philip =   the Apostle in Pasadena asked our firm for a proposal. We said no = twice--we have no track record, no business rating, nothing except we serviced the tired old Kilgen. They pressured us, and the result was a splendid 2/27. = We found out that since this was a memorial with funds given to the church, = the contract did not have to go through the Chancery Office, where it would = have surely and rightly been denied.   We concluded through this experience that ANYBODY can sell one organ! = It's the next contracts that can be tricky.     Steven Skinner Minister of Music First Presbyterian Church of the Covenant Erie, PA   --part1_193.af2dea3.2a7f0fd7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a message dated = 8/4/2002 12:46:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, quilisma@socal.rr.com = writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">churches are not = going<BR> to award MAJOR contracts to small local builders until they have a<BR> successful track record; and they can't build a successful track = record<BR> until SOMEBODY awards them some MAJOR contracts. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> My experience was so odd.&nbsp; When Schlicker went out of business, St. = Philip the Apostle in Pasadena asked our firm for a proposal.&nbsp; We = said no twice--we have no track record, no business rating, nothing except = we serviced the tired old Kilgen.&nbsp; They pressured us, and the result = was a splendid 2/27.&nbsp; We found out that since this was a memorial = with funds given to the church, the contract did not have to go through = the Chancery Office, where it would have surely and rightly been = denied.<BR> <BR> We concluded through this experience that ANYBODY can sell one = organ!&nbsp; It's the next contracts that can be tricky.<BR> <BR> <BR> Steven Skinner<BR> Minister of Music<BR> First Presbyterian Church of the Covenant<BR> Erie, PA</FONT></HTML>   --part1_193.af2dea3.2a7f0fd7_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:19:28 -0400   Just listen to these things. They sound bad.   Stan   "And the Companies Will Be Bankrupted" ...Maybe, they can try building jukeboxes with synth 32'' s.   "G. Deboer" wrote: > > I am a pipe organ enthusiast, without a doubt, provided the thing is > properly built and installed. And that said, puts most pipe organs in = our > country on a level that leaves a lot to be desired. > Most organists that serve our churches today would rather play a good > electronic than a pipe organ that is out of tune and in disrepair. > Regarding of what you want to call those electric wonders, its a free = world, > call it what you like, but the digital church organ will remain for what = it > is, an excellent replacement for the real thing when there are just not > enough funds. > When it comes to ending the debate, you have the right not to = participate, > but please, do not try to influence others, your opinions are yours = alone. > Discussions pro and con is what keeps us informed of what is going on in = the > organ world, don't try to stifle that. Thanks. >   Chicago Stadium was an egregious example of the nonsense that salespersons from electronic organ companies sell to unwitting consumers.   > > > Someone used the word "electroid" the other day on the List. I hadn't > heard > > that one before, but it's a wonderful expression. Obviously a makeover > from > > the word "android" - something that looks fairly human, and sounds = fairly > > human, and can act fairly human, but just isn't and never can be.   I didn't see that particular posting: please cc: me a copy   Let's call the Digitals "Orgettes" and end the debate. Stan    
(back) Subject: OFF TOPIC-Microphones and Recording From: "Paul Soulek" <soulek@frontiernet.net> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:04:32 -0500   I'm sure some of you have dealt with the topic of microphones for your church's television broadcast. We recently began running our worship service on cable access television. We need a different microphone to record the congregation/organ. This isn't a high-budget thing, but just about anything would be better than the 1970-era Radio Shack microphone that we have now LOL. What would you recommend getting for a brand (and possibly model number) of a mic that could handle picking up the congregational singing and the organ decently. We don't need anything professional, just so you can hear the people sing and the organ play. We have a balcony, by the way, and the microphone is mounted on the side of the balcony (so it can get the full blast from the people singing while not being drowned out by the organ). There is only one microphone that picks up sound, plus the wireless that the pastor wears. Please reply off-list.   Thank you! Paul Soulek  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:46:08 +1200   Can't, sorry. I never keep any postings, mine or anyone else's, unless = it's really necessary, so don't remember the origin of that wonderful new word electroid.   >> Most organists that serve our churches today would rather play a good >> electronic than a pipe organ that is out of tune and in disrepair.   Why does this have to be the only alternative: either a good electronic or = a pipe organ that is out of tune and in disrepair? What is wrong with a = modest well-maintained and well-tuned organ as a contrast? I'd much rather play a = 5 or 6rk unit organ than a large electronic.   I look at the wonderful little organ I put in a church when I was Vicar there years ago. Till I came, there was a reed organ followed by a Farfisa electronic thingie. In 1986 I got a Compton 2rk unit from the 1950s and added two 2nd-hand straight ranks to it. Too, I threw out the Swell box. = The organ is in the rear gallery of a reverberant church that is just 56ft by 34ft wide, roof ridge 31ft up, side walls 25ft high. The church is of concrete block, the floor of quarry tiles on concrete and the roof of 1.5" thick timber. The organ has this scheme: The basis is a 2rk unit Compton from England, c1957) GREAT 16 Bourdon (extn 8ft, in zinc) 8 Open Diapason (1-12 haskelled) 8 Rohr Gedackt (all zinc) 8 Dulciana (1-12 borrowed; rest c1875) 4 Principal (extn) 2 Fifteenth (extn) 8 Oboe (CC, 1872)   SWELL (though unencl.) 8 Open Diapason (from Great) 8 Rohr Gedackt (from Great) 4 Rohr Flute (extn) 2 Piccolo (extn; top 12 in common with Great 2ft)   PEDAL 16 Bourdon (from Great) 8 Bass Flute (from Great) 8 Oboe (from Great)   COUPLERS SwGt GtPed   no accessories at all.   I'd much rather play this than the horrible 10-year-old Allen in the = present church where I attend now and frequently play for services. The little = pipe organ cost the parish NZ$2,000 (yes, $2,000) installed in 1986. The Allen cost NZ$24,000 in 1988. Every pipe in the organ is a musical instrument. = In the Allen, many stops are barely useable. The Allen has something like = this, in addition to some 25 "alterable" stops, many couplers and 36 thumb pistons, etc.etc.   GREAT 8 Open Diapason 8 Gedackt 8 Flute Celeste II 4 Principal 4 Koppel Flute 2 15th .. IV Mixt. 8 Krummhorn   SWELL 16 Gedackt 8 Gedackt 8 String Cel. II 4 Spitzprincipal 4 Koppel 2 2/3 Nazard 2 Block Flute 1 3/5 Tierce .. IV Mixt. 16 Dble Trpt 8 Trpt 4 Clarion   PEDAL 16 Major Bass 16 Bourdon 16 Minor Bdn 8 Octave 8 Bass Flute 4 Octave . IV Mixt. 16 Posaune   Yeah, sure, the latter looks far better but it isn't tonally, being far = far worse. Too, I never use a solitary piston on the thing, so those are useless. And most of the alterable stops are not nice or frequently don't work. And the console is not of the RCO standard measurements I'm used to, and there are all sorts of other things like midi connections, crescendo pedal, encl.Great pedal, multi-position transpostion switch, luminous Sw.ped. indicators, and so on that the parish has presumably paid for, and yet has never used and never will. And the Great is always out of tune = with the Swell, so you have to push down a stopkey cancelling the "Romantic tuning" to be able to couple up the manuals and reasonably stay in tune. = And then there are problems about having to put on the stopkeys saying either Console Speakers Off or Distance Speakers Off, and so on. And the speakers have little at the top end, but a real 16ft boom from about FFF down. And the Great Celeste is enclosed on the Swell pedal. And the Pedal reed likewise, and some of the 16ft stuff. And the celestes are both tuned in octaves so rapidly increase in speed of beating as you ascend the scale. = And the mutations beat like hell in the top octaves and there is no way of tuning them. Oh dear, and that's only a small part of it. And other = things, too, like no clips on the music rack to hold music open, a light on the music rack that is covered by the music you put on it, keys that are cheap plastic and have big gaps between them, pedal springs that are too light.....   And yet the wee organ I installed so cheaply goes from year to year = without a fault in spite of its old wiring, needs to be tuned only once every 18 months or so, and (as I said above) has every pipe as a musical instrument that does exactly what you want it to, with perfectly adequate volume for = a maximum congregation of 150.   Sure, the wee organ won't play classic French perfectly, nor anything else perfectly either, but nor will the Allen. The pipe organ's 8 4 2 on the Great, just one extension rank, is a finer and richer sound than the = Allen's supposed 7 rks. Too, the ancient Oboe, with its gritty rich sound, is a better sound than the five reeds on the Allen. And there is the wonderful velvety non-stringy Dulciana. And the chimney flute with its almost reed-like upper harmonics voiced into it yet warmth of the first harmonic = as well.   Can anybody guess the point I'm making?   Am I offending anyone?   Ross        
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 20:27:30 -0500   Dear Stan,   I have no idea what is in Chicago Stadium, but you are not likely to hear any Bach performed on a Baroque voiced digital there either, do we ?. In the last few weeks since I've been a member, Pipe organs always seem to be discussed in a positive manner, when the majority of Pipe organ = organists play on very mediocre instruments that are in dire need of repair. Where = is the positive in that?   In the same discussions, electronics are always in the negative. Yes, I've listened to several makes, and some are very bad, some are also mediocre, and then we have a very few that are astounding in the realism they produce. It is not a good thing to lump all electronic organs in the same basket, = no more than we would do that with pipe organs. You need to discover what else is out there, don't just go by the common garden variety A and R names. The best of the other digitals, by design, really do rival the pipe organ. If you're interested to know more, Email me privately. Thanks.   Gary   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 7:19 PM Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02     > Just listen to these things. > They sound bad. > > Stan > > "And the Companies Will Be Bankrupted" > ..Maybe, they can try building jukeboxes with > synth 32'' s. > > "G. Deboer" wrote: > > > > I am a pipe organ enthusiast, without a doubt, provided the thing is > > properly built and installed. And that said, puts most pipe organs in our > > country on a level that leaves a lot to be desired. > > Most organists that serve our churches today would rather play a good > > electronic than a pipe organ that is out of tune and in disrepair. > > Regarding of what you want to call those electric wonders, its a free world, > > call it what you like, but the digital church organ will remain for = what it > > is, an excellent replacement for the real thing when there are just = not > > enough funds. > > When it comes to ending the debate, you have the right not to participate, > > but please, do not try to influence others, your opinions are yours alone. > > Discussions pro and con is what keeps us informed of what is going on = in the > > organ world, don't try to stifle that. Thanks. > > > > Chicago Stadium was an egregious example of the nonsense that = salespersons > from electronic organ companies sell to unwitting consumers. > > > > > > Someone used the word "electroid" the other day on the List. I = hadn't > > heard > > > that one before, but it's a wonderful expression. Obviously a = makeover > > from > > > the word "android" - something that looks fairly human, and sounds fairly > > > human, and can act fairly human, but just isn't and never can be. > > I didn't see that particular posting: please cc: me a copy > > Let's call the Digitals "Orgettes" and end the debate. > Stan > > > "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: ALL READ!! Re: In defense of PIPORG-L From: "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 20:29:15 -0500   OK Folks - ENOUGH!!!   In all actuality, the discussion of policies of another list have no place here. Each list has its own rules and weither you agree with them or not if you are part of that list you need to follow the rules! If you are not part of the list then you shouldn't be bothered by the rules.   Personally, i find this topic very uncomfortable for a couple of reasons. Number One is that I have been a member of the PIPORG-L list since shortly after its inception. That list started in January of 1993 - my, 10 years already - and I joined the list several months later. And i have been a very happy member of that list all these years although I wish the discussions were more on the order of the ones way back then. I'm sure some of the other long-time subscribers to that list would agree.   When I joined that list i agreed to the rules and guidelines and have followed those rules ever since. And over the years I have become friends with the owners. I really don't like them being "bashed" for their policies over here. And one of them is a subscriber to this list - I really wonder what he must be thinking reading these posts.   Secondly, I don't want this list or my policies "bashed" on another list. That has happened and it made me very uncomfortable. Tim and I try to be liberal in our policies in administering the list but there are times we do have to step in as all list owners/administrators have to do on occasion. After one of my Administrative postings I found some discussion on another list about it that made me very uncomfortable. Basically, remember these lists are a "dictatorship" <G> They set-up the list, they set the guidelines and rules and they administer the their list as they see fit.   One other comment about several comments about people being removed from the PIPORG-L due to mail bouncing. That list is about twice the size of this one - actually a little over twice the size. The list owners have the policy on that list of removing someone right away when their mail starts bouncing, at least that is what i am gathering by the comments. On this list I wait a bit before removing people due to bouncing mail, usually I do it over the weekend when I have a bit more time to try and figure out why the mail is bouncing. The bounce messages don't always give a reason that a person's mail cannot be delivered so I send a private message to that address to get the reason that someone's mail bounces. I realize that by waiting a few days if the mail is not going through because of a network glitch it usually straightens itself out before I have to deal with it. But then that is MY way - other administrators have different policies.   One final comment, if you have read this far. Let's drop the Pipe Organ vs Electronic instrument discussion. it comes around every few months and it always ends up being a big war that neither side wins. Let's leave it at that   Happy PipeChatting   David -- **************************************** David Scribner Owner / Co-Administrator PipeChat   http://www.pipechat.org mailto:admin@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:40:05 -0500   At 10:27 PM 8/3/02 -0400, you wrote: .. 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. Whether Bach would have turned down a digital in favor of a pipe organ is = a discussion which could go on forever. One food for thought...many of the pipe organs that Bach played are still playing...that is something that a digital could not duplicate....thirty years seems to be the life span of most electronics. They were designed and built in the age of planned obsolescence, and it would be foolish to expect them to last several = lifetimes.   jch    
(back) Subject: Test...please ignore From: <cmys13085@blueyonder.co.uk> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 02:49:27 +0100       Test  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:10:42 -0500   No, you are not offending anyone, other than perhaps the Allen company. Why is it when people talk digital the name Allen always comes up. Allen is but the beginning of the digital organ world, most others have progressed well beyond that and some sound nearly like the pipe organ. The point you are really making is that your small pipe organ is very good for your congregation of about 150. And I'm happy it works for you. But what is a church to do with about 400 members showing up every Sunday = in a large sanctuary ? A 60 stop pipe organ at 20K per stop is out of the question. This is more $ than the whole building was constructed for = about 12 years ago. A quality digital has its place, definitely.   Gary   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 8:46 PM Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02     > Can't, sorry. I never keep any postings, mine or anyone else's, unless it's > really necessary, so don't remember the origin of that wonderful new = word > electroid. > > >> Most organists that serve our churches today would rather play a good > >> electronic than a pipe organ that is out of tune and in disrepair. > > Why does this have to be the only alternative: either a good electronic = or a > pipe organ that is out of tune and in disrepair? What is wrong with a modest > well-maintained and well-tuned organ as a contrast? I'd much rather play = a 5 > or 6rk unit organ than a large electronic. > > I look at the wonderful little organ I put in a church when I was Vicar > there years ago. Till I came, there was a reed organ followed by a = Farfisa > electronic thingie. In 1986 I got a Compton 2rk unit from the 1950s and > added two 2nd-hand straight ranks to it. Too, I threw out the Swell box. The > organ is in the rear gallery of a reverberant church that is just 56ft = by > 34ft wide, roof ridge 31ft up, side walls 25ft high. The church is of > concrete block, the floor of quarry tiles on concrete and the roof of = 1.5" > thick timber. The organ has this scheme: The basis is a 2rk unit Compton > from England, c1957) > GREAT > 16 Bourdon (extn 8ft, in zinc) > 8 Open Diapason (1-12 haskelled) > 8 Rohr Gedackt (all zinc) > 8 Dulciana (1-12 borrowed; rest c1875) > 4 Principal (extn) > 2 Fifteenth (extn) > 8 Oboe (CC, 1872) > > SWELL (though unencl.) > 8 Open Diapason (from Great) > 8 Rohr Gedackt (from Great) > 4 Rohr Flute (extn) > 2 Piccolo (extn; top 12 in common with Great 2ft) > > PEDAL > 16 Bourdon (from Great) > 8 Bass Flute (from Great) > 8 Oboe (from Great) > > COUPLERS > SwGt GtPed > > no accessories at all. > > I'd much rather play this than the horrible 10-year-old Allen in the present > church where I attend now and frequently play for services. The little pipe > organ cost the parish NZ$2,000 (yes, $2,000) installed in 1986. The = Allen > cost NZ$24,000 in 1988. Every pipe in the organ is a musical instrument. In > the Allen, many stops are barely useable. The Allen has something like this, > in addition to some 25 "alterable" stops, many couplers and 36 thumb > pistons, etc.etc. > > GREAT > 8 Open Diapason > 8 Gedackt > 8 Flute Celeste II > 4 Principal > 4 Koppel Flute > 2 15th > . IV Mixt. > 8 Krummhorn > > SWELL > 16 Gedackt > 8 Gedackt > 8 String Cel. II > 4 Spitzprincipal > 4 Koppel > 2 2/3 Nazard > 2 Block Flute > 1 3/5 Tierce > . IV Mixt. > 16 Dble Trpt > 8 Trpt > 4 Clarion > > PEDAL > 16 Major Bass > 16 Bourdon > 16 Minor Bdn > 8 Octave > 8 Bass Flute > 4 Octave > . IV Mixt. > 16 Posaune > > Yeah, sure, the latter looks far better but it isn't tonally, being far far > worse. Too, I never use a solitary piston on the thing, so those are > useless. And most of the alterable stops are not nice or frequently = don't > work. And the console is not of the RCO standard measurements I'm used = to, > and there are all sorts of other things like midi connections, crescendo > pedal, encl.Great pedal, multi-position transpostion switch, luminous > Sw.ped. indicators, and so on that the parish has presumably paid for, = and > yet has never used and never will. And the Great is always out of tune with > the Swell, so you have to push down a stopkey cancelling the "Romantic > tuning" to be able to couple up the manuals and reasonably stay in tune. And > then there are problems about having to put on the stopkeys saying = either > Console Speakers Off or Distance Speakers Off, and so on. And the = speakers > have little at the top end, but a real 16ft boom from about FFF down. = And > the Great Celeste is enclosed on the Swell pedal. And the Pedal reed > likewise, and some of the 16ft stuff. And the celestes are both tuned in > octaves so rapidly increase in speed of beating as you ascend the scale. And > the mutations beat like hell in the top octaves and there is no way of > tuning them. Oh dear, and that's only a small part of it. And other things, > too, like no clips on the music rack to hold music open, a light on the > music rack that is covered by the music you put on it, keys that are = cheap > plastic and have big gaps between them, pedal springs that are too > light..... > > And yet the wee organ I installed so cheaply goes from year to year without > a fault in spite of its old wiring, needs to be tuned only once every 18 > months or so, and (as I said above) has every pipe as a musical = instrument > that does exactly what you want it to, with perfectly adequate volume = for a > maximum congregation of 150. > > Sure, the wee organ won't play classic French perfectly, nor anything = else > perfectly either, but nor will the Allen. The pipe organ's 8 4 2 on the > Great, just one extension rank, is a finer and richer sound than the Allen's > supposed 7 rks. Too, the ancient Oboe, with its gritty rich sound, is a > better sound than the five reeds on the Allen. And there is the = wonderful > velvety non-stringy Dulciana. And the chimney flute with its almost > reed-like upper harmonics voiced into it yet warmth of the first = harmonic as > well. > > Can anybody guess the point I'm making? > > Am I offending anyone? > > Ross > > > > > "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 >