PipeChat Digest #3022 - Thursday, August 8, 2002
 
Re: the pricing of pipe organs (long)
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: replacing speakers
  by "Dennis Goward" <dlgoward@qwest.net>
Robert Noehren
  by <tmbovard@earthlink.net>
Re: "Shot" speakers
  by <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net>
Re: "Shot" speakers
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
Re: Robert Noehren
  by "Mack" <mack02445@mindspring.com>
My Humble Appologies to the Entire List
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com>
Re: replacing speakers.
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
more on the builders vs. committees vs. churches thread
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: "Shot" speakers
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
"shot" speakers
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: "shot" speakers
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
My solution to:  The "trouble" with pipe organs?
  by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com>
Re: replacing speakers
  by "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net>
Re: My Humble Appologies to the Entire List
  by <Chicaleee@aol.com>
Re: The "trouble" with pipe organs?
  by "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net>
Re: Gravissima
  by "Douglas Morgan" <aeolian_skinner@yahoo.com>
Re: Gravissima
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Re: Gravissima
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
 

(back) Subject: Re: the pricing of pipe organs (long) From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:03:00 -0700       Panning wrote: > > >I cannot speak for the other builders you contacted but in fairness: = one > >needs to realize that in order to accurately and intelligently PRICE an > >organ project, one has to virtually DESIGN the entire project, > >top-to-bottom before doing the take-offs for pricing. > > I won't reiterate Richard Schneider's other excellent points, but I > will add a few additional thoughts. > > Would these same business people that sit on organ committees think > it reasonable to ask an architect to completely design their new > house before selecting him/her as their architect? And furthermore, > to guarantee its cost?   No, but isn't that somewhat different? The architect DESIGNS, the contractor BUILDS; in the case of an organ, except for drawing the stoplist, which is (as Sebastian has often pointed out to us) a MINOR part of the whole process, the organ-builder BOTH designs AND builds.   We went through a long and arduous process to select the ARCHITECT for the new church; once selected, yes, he was paid for his work as it went along, including the little detour we took with the young "DUH! what's an APSE?" architect assigned to us at one point, who ALSO said (in the hearing of the rector and the full building committee)   "OH, YOU DON'T WANT A PIPE ORGAN! THEY'RE TOO EXPENSIVE! YOU SHOULD GO HEAR THE XYZ ELECTRONIC ORGAN IN ST. ABC'S IN SAN DIEGO ... IT ONLY COST THEM $50K!"   At which point, Yr Humble Servant cleared his throat, stood up, and said,   "Young MAN! If I want a steam CALLIOPE in the west gallery, YOUR job is to provide the water pipes and the structural support for the steam boiler. It is NOT your job to tell us what kind of musical instrument we require in our church. Here are the load and electrical requirements for the pipe organ; SEE THAT THEY ARE FULFILLED."   He had the organ console just about every place imaginable EXCEPT where it needed to be (centered in front of the choir) ... the concept of organist/choirmaster was QUITE beyond him.   On account of those things, and also on account of the fact that he kept drawing us protestant chancels, despite detailed sketches and memos from the Rector, he was shortly thereafter replaced.       > > To get around this hurdle, especially with organs that are part of > building projects, we frequently work with a "design retainer", which > contracts our services to design the organ, work with the architect > and other design professionals, and prepare presentation drawings > that can be used to sell the project to the congregation. If the > project doesn't go ahead, we have been compensated for our efforts > and the institution has received valuable advice regarding the > preparation of the building for the installation of the organ. If the > project does go ahead, the retainer fee is deducted from the organ's > down payment.   OK, we DID do a two-stage contract with Holtkamp, BUT ... Holtkamp was SELECTED on the basis of the rather detailed tender which he (and the other two bidders as well) submitted; THEN we signed a DESIGN CONTRACT, which gets us the blueprints of the organ and a visual for fund-raising, and yes, we paid for that, up front. The DESIGN CONTRACT also contains a three-year deadline for signing the CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, but THAT was mostly to keep the CHURCH'S feet to the fire. > > Performance bonds are another thing. Many reputable but smaller > builders cannot obtain them, and it's not because they are poor organ > builders or rotten businessmen. It's because, incomparison with other > more "normal" businesses, the value of the projects undertaken are > generally so high relative to the net worth of the business. This is > not unique to organ building: many fine smaller contractors are in > the same boat. They may build a small factory or church for > $1,000,000, but what contractor has $1M in the bank to self-bond or > $1M in tools and equipment? The majority of the building's cost is in > the labor required to build it, and unlike assets such as machinery > or real estate, labor does nothing to improve a business's balance > sheet other than (hopefully) to add some cash through the profit > accrued on each hour worked.   Well, our building was about a $5M project; and there was a HORRENDOUS penalty clause that required everything BUT sacrificing the contractor's first-born at sunset on Pentecost Eve if the building wasn't ready for occupancy ON Pentecost. It was ready (grin). > > We are discovering new wrinkles in obtaining performance bonds. > Insurers have become hesitant to write performance bonds for objects > with an artistic element: who's to say when an art object is done? > And with something like an organ, what builder of any reputation has > so free a schedule that they can step in to complete a project on the > original schedule if the original company fails? We also had a > bonding company that refused to write a bond for an installation in > New York City post 9/11. > > We have completed two projects left unfinished by the financial > collapse of the original builders (Phelps and Schudi), and one can't > blame those churches for exercising due diligence. On the other hand, > I have no doubt that the *unreasonable* demands of pointy-headed > business types that take up space on some organ committees is > contributing to the decline of the pipe organ, both in numbers and in > quality, that we all publicly lament here. > > John A. Panning > Lake City, Iowa > > Now, now, John ... don't bite the hands that feed you (grin). My folks don't just take up space ... they're VERY supportive of me, the music ministry, AND the pipe organ; they're ALSO likely to be the major DONORS for the pipe organ. For instance, they WANTED to know the difference between a pitman chest, a slider chest, and an electro-mechanical chest, and what the implications were, both price-wise, AND regarding the sound AND the longevity of the organ.   I'm a musician; I've WORKED for an organ-builder; I UNDERSTAND the arguments. But "special pleading" (as the RCs say) isn't going to get you anywhere with bottom-line business CEO types ... their response is going to be, "business is business, and THIS is how you CONDUCT business, if you want MY business."   From the responses to this thread, perhaps we ARE hitting on at least ONE major problem in the industry. And not the LEAST of it is communication among builders, organists, and lay-people.   In the end, perhaps, our project came down to personalities and history as much as anything ... I went to Oberlin in the 1960s; I was active as an organist in Cleveland after that; my acquaintance with Holtkamp spans three generations.   BUT ... Chris Holtkamp put out the most EFFORT of the three bidders ... he came to see us; he spent several hours with me, the Rector, and the committee; we pulled all the pipe-trays out of storage for him; he examined the Moller pipes in detail, and took the scales of each rank at all the Cs; he then informed us that since they were of sound construction, and had only been rough-voiced (surprise!), they could be re-used as part of the Swell and Pedal.   In the end, the church committed to a substantially LARGER project (43 stops over three manuals and pedals, to be built in two stages) than they started OUT with (15-20 stops over two manuals and pedals, with no preparation for enlargement when the larger church is built), BECAUSE Chris presented that course of action as the most LOGICAL, given our somewhat unusual circumstances (pipe organ wanted for interim church NOW; larger church due in 10-20 years).   I have one final comment: if a builder is aesthetically and emotionally committed to building in one tonal style, with one style of chest and action, that's fine. If he's also committed to NEVER re-using used pipework for any reason, that's fine too. BUT DON'T SAY YOU WILL DO SOMETHING AND THEN COMMENCE TO HEDGE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD.   I stated from the outset that I wanted a Victorian English organ for accompanying the high Anglican choral service ... no equivocation, no desire for an all-purpose organ ... it has to do THAT, first and foremost ... whatever ELSE it ends up being able to do is peripheral. I also stated from the outset that the project REQUIRED re-using 11 ranks of pipes from a 1966 Moller. That was a condition of submitting a tender.   IF upon examination all three bidders had determined that a rank was TOTALLY unsuitable for use ANYWHERE in the new organ, that would have been another matter. Nobody was particularly HAPPY with the strangulated/herniated waterfowl Moller Swell Trompette, but as I pointed out, they will have the opportunity to replace it (and anything ELSE) in Stage Two; and, as it turned out, the acoustics of the interim church are VERY forgiving. It will probably sound SPECTACULAR (grin).   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: replacing speakers From: "Dennis Goward" <dlgoward@qwest.net> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:20:33 -0700   Subject: replacing speakers. From: "jon bertschinger" <jonberts@magiccablepc.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:28:27 -0500   It's a shame we don't have to do that with our pipes. Organbuilders could make a fortune replacing "worn out" pipes.   -------------------------------------------------   Not really a fair statement: a speaker to replace the typical 8" speaker = in an organ can be had for far less than the cost of a rank of pipes, and is available from many sources. I have an organ that has 46 individual speakers. I replaced or reconditioned all of them for under $300.   For the record, I have seen pipes that needed replacement -- pipes that = had collapsed on themselves because of poor construction. Certainly rare, but happens.   D          
(back) Subject: Robert Noehren From: <tmbovard@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:26:19 -0500   Greetings, Pipechatters --   The following sad information appeared this afternoon on Piporg-L -- I = take the liberty of sharing it here for those who would wish to know.   Tim Bovard Pipechat Co-Administrator <admin@pipechat.org> <tmbovard@earthlink.net>   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   >I have just received the sad news of the sudden death this last Saturday = of >Robert Noehren due to a massive stroke. > > >We have all lost a fine and noble man, a great artist, builder, author, >composer and performer. > > >You will be missed Dearest Robert! > > >Edward D. Peterson    
(back) Subject: Re: "Shot" speakers From: <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:29:00 -0400   On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:06:48AM -0700, John Vanderlee wrote: > >My Allen dealer does not insist on, but recommends Allen speakers every > >10-15 years. > > You mean REPLACE them? you've got to be kidding. What "wears" out? >   *shrugs* Sounds silly to me.   Absent any audible defects in the sound, there's no reason to replace them.   If there were, I'd take them to a reputable speaker recone shop, which'd be cheaper than "all new".   I suppse I COULD splurge and replace all the drivers with new JBL's . .      
(back) Subject: Re: "Shot" speakers From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:03:00 -0500   The cones.     ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: Re: "Shot" speakers     > >My Allen dealer does not insist on, but recommends Allen speakers every > >10-15 years. > > You mean REPLACE them? you've got to be kidding. What "wears" out? > > John V > > "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: Robert Noehren From: "Mack" <mack02445@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 20:39:05 -0400     Although I never met Dr. Noehren, he was a classmate of my piano/choir/organ teacher, one of Farnams last class as he died before the year was out at Curtis. Germani finished out his term.   I have heard his views and heard him play via recordings and articles. We have lost a true talent and contributor to your profession.   Mack    
(back) Subject: My Humble Appologies to the Entire List From: "Stanley Lowkis" <nstarfil@attbi.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 21:08:22 -0400   Some organs sound bad - period.   My Cousin Anne was married outdoors in a lower middle class section of Queens, NY on that memorable day in June   The Wedding Planners spent all of the available wedding money on the Organ!!   It was a Dirigible organ!   To this day, I hate dirigibles. ...but they're just a blimp on the radar of the pipe organ world.   A cheap Pun could be: "Are you having a Goodyear?"   Stan my cat is getting sick of the puns so i'll rest for awhile.   BTW, Radio City has a derived 64'. It shakes the house.    
(back) Subject: Re: replacing speakers. From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:08:55 EDT   Dear Jon:   Organists and Organ Builders have a lot in common. Neither one will probably be wealthy. Oh there may be a few exceptions, but not many. We were placed on this earth to warm other hearts, drawn to it like moths to a flame. Many times we are not even noticed for our work, nor compensated for what we are really worth, but there is an Accountant taking full note of what we do, laying up for us treasures in heaven.   We need to remember that the next time we feel down about something. There is a loving presence looking down and taking full note of = everything, delighting in our small accomplishments, wiping the tears away, and watching, listening.   Ron Severin  
(back) Subject: more on the builders vs. committees vs. churches thread From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:29:58 -0700   It strikes me that part of the problem is also that most churches have need of an organ-builder once in a lifetime, if THAT. And the time is mostly past where churches could return to the original builder who built their organ 75-100 years ago ... Moller is gone, Skinner is gone, Schlicker is gone, Hook & Hastings is gone, just to mention a FEW. Offhand I can only think of Austin, Holtkamp, Schantz and Wicks who fall into that category ... perhaps there are others.   So the selection of a builder IS really "a shot in the dark" for MOST churches, UNLESS the organist is conservatory-trained and/or knows what he or she is DOING.   Might it not be wise to do more advertising in church periodicals and church papers, and less in organists' magazines? Even in the Episcopal church, which is historically one of the largest and most stable markets for pipe organs, there are only one or two pipe organ ads in The Church Annual OR the various weekly or monthly periodicals.   I've also noticed that the ELECTRONIC makers are usually out in FORCE as exhibitors at denominational national conventions. Granted, even a small pipe organ is harder to move and set up than an electronic substitute, but might it not be a wise investment to HAVE a small portable organ that COULD be shown at church conventions? Couldn't this be an undertaking of one of the builders' guilds, rather than an individual builder?   There is a large RC church down in San Diego that until recently had NEVER paid for an organ ... it has very spacious acoustics, and over the years the electronics people were HAPPY to put a demonstrator into the place ... first Conn, then Baldwin, then Rodgers, as dealers shifted allegiances (grin) ... just so people could hear their organs demonstrated in those spectacular acoustics.   I know THAT isn't possible for pipe organ builders, for the most part, but that's what we're UP against ... not to mention virtual acoustics and all the OTHER toys.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: "Shot" speakers From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:56:33 -0500   You don't have to replace with all new. They make a kit which includes cones and rings and the speakers are rebuilt.   Jim H. ----- Original Message ----- From: <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:29 PM Subject: Re: "Shot" speakers     > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:06:48AM -0700, John Vanderlee wrote: > > >My Allen dealer does not insist on, but recommends Allen speakers = every > > >10-15 years. > > > > You mean REPLACE them? you've got to be kidding. What "wears" out? > > > > *shrugs* Sounds silly to me. > > Absent any audible defects in the sound, there's no reason to replace > them. > > If there were, I'd take them to a reputable speaker recone shop, which'd > be cheaper than "all new". > > I suppse I COULD splurge and replace all the drivers with new JBL's . . > > > > "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: "shot" speakers From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:40:00 -0700   In this part of the world (Southern California), the closer you are to the ocean OR the desert, the more often speakers need surrounds and/or cones replaced.   When they pulled the old Hammond tone cabinet out of St. Stephen's Episcopal in Beaumont CA (on the edge of the desert) to put in the new Allen, the Hammond cones were literally crumbling ... the cabinet was high on the back wall, near the peak of the roof, and the church wasn't air-conditioned until recent years.   There's a 20-year-old Rodgers installation down in San Diego, AWAY from the water, that's about due to have at least SOME of its speakers replaced/reconed.   Our 197? Allen 301-C is DEFINITELY due for some new speakers/surrounds .... buzz, rattle, distort.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: "shot" speakers From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:12:33 -0500   Bud,   We had an Allen 301C that went 20 years on a set of speakers. We replaced the speakers and amps and there was a noticed improvement.   We are replacing this organ with a 281. The 6 year old speakers will be = put in the antiphonal. They should be good for another 9-10 years. But, we learned the hard way on the 301 and will have the speakers rebuilt every = few years.   Jim H. ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: "pipechat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 8:40 PM Subject: "shot" speakers     > Our 197? Allen 301-C is DEFINITELY due for some new speakers/surrounds > ... buzz, rattle, distort. > > Cheers, > > Bud > > > "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: My solution to: The "trouble" with pipe organs? From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:00:25 EDT   We recently downsized from 2600 to 1400 Sq. ft. Retirement does that to folks...   One of the space saving measures that I pursued was to sell my Yamaha U1 upright piano. In its place I purchased a Yamaha keyboard which includes three types of piano sounds and four types of organ sounds. Ithus I = finally got an "organ sound" in my home.   No pedals but my imagination will take care of that small problem!   Musically, Stan Krider  
(back) Subject: Re: replacing speakers From: "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:12:21 -0500     Dennis Goward wrote in response to Jon Bertschinger's crack:   > > It's a shame we don't have to do that with our pipes. > > Organbuilders could make a fortune replacing "worn out" pipes.   > Not really a fair statement: a speaker to replace the typical 8" speak= er in > an organ can be had for far less than the cost of a rank of pipes,=20 <snip>=20   I have seen pipes that needed replacement -- pipes that had > collapsed on themselves because of poor construction. =20   A couple of anecdotes:   1) Some of the Zinc that was being produced in the 1960's and 1970's was of such inferior quality that pipes would "WILT" and self-destruct. I take care of a M=F6ller organ from 1970 that when we first found it, was speaking one octave above its natural pitch because all of the languids on the pipes had sagged to the point where they overblew an octave!! No kidding!   This was a M=F6ller organ.   No less than the renowned recently demised Schlicker Organ Company had this same problem with the zinc pipes they had in their instruments.   This wasn't the fault of the builders. It was the fault of the European zinc that everyone was buying.   2) Speaking of making a living replacing pipes: I once got a call from a lady who said that "she wanted the tubes on her organ replaced." We tried to explain to her that we only service pipe organs, to which she replied: "Oh, then it's my PIPES that need replacing!!"   Having never met this person, I'd be willing to bet money on what her hair color was. Apologies in advance to anyone who happens to fit that description.   Faithfully,=20 -- =20 Richard Schneider, PRES/CEO SCHNEIDER PIPE ORGANS, Inc. Pipe Organ Builders 41-43 Johnston St./P.O. Box 137 Kenney, IL 61749-0137 (217) 944-2454 VOX (217) 944-2527 FAX mailto:arp@schneiderpipeorgans.com SHOP EMAIL mailto:arp@starband.net SHOP SATELLITE EMAIL mailto:arpschneider@starband.net HOME OFFICE EMAIL http://www.schneiderpipeorgans.com WEB PAGE URL    
(back) Subject: Re: My Humble Appologies to the Entire List From: <Chicaleee@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:42:39 EDT     --part1_43.f9b3510.2a8342af_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   No apology needed, at least from me. I enjoyed your post. Lee   --part1_43.f9b3510.2a8342af_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>No apology needed, at = least from me. &nbsp;I enjoyed your post. &nbsp;Lee</FONT></HTML>   --part1_43.f9b3510.2a8342af_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: The "trouble" with pipe organs? From: "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:55:54 -0500     Jim Hailey wrote: > Maybe you should read our Administrator's definition of this list before = you > blast me.   Actually, Jim, I really wasn't trying to blast you. As the administrator himself has said, the argument between pipe and pipeless is one that only makes ones hackles and defenses raise to the fore. What I was simply suggesting is that if you feel the folks that happen to love pipe organs are hopelessly bewildered, then rather than frustrating yourself and others of us so beguiled and misguided, then maybe one of the electronic lists, and there are many, might be a place where you'd be happier, while those of us who feel it a Divine Calling to be building pipe organs to the Glory of God discuss things like Drawknob layouts and things that matter, at least: to us.   I see in the Bible that when the Temple of God that there never seemed to be the desire for the expedient, but rather to do the highest and best for God, and I suppose that's how some of us interpret the placement of pipe organs, rather than something attempting to emulate same. And so far as the money is concerned: there was so much offered by the people that the people appointed to take the collections for the Temple work told them they had to STOP GIVING! And they grumbled against taxes back then too.   Go figure.   With all best wishes from:   -- Richard Schneider, PRES/CEO SCHNEIDER PIPE ORGANS, Inc. Pipe Organ Builders 41-43 Johnston St./P.O. Box 137 Kenney, IL 61749-0137 (217) 944-2454 VOX (217) 944-2527 FAX mailto:arp@schneiderpipeorgans.com SHOP EMAIL mailto:arp@starband.net SHOP SATELLITE EMAIL mailto:arpschneider@starband.net HOME OFFICE EMAIL http://www.schneiderpipeorgans.com WEB PAGE URL    
(back) Subject: Re: Gravissima From: "Douglas Morgan" <aeolian_skinner@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:11:43 -0700 (PDT)   A flute stop certainly could be voiced if the scale were big enough, but why bother?   Building such a stop would be a horrible waste of wood and money. A pitch that low would be absolutely useless in playing any kind of music, and the cost would be astronomical.   Talk about organs being priced at $30,000 per stop, you certainly wouldn't get one of those for $30,000!   D. Keith Morgan     --- Ross & Lynda Wards <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >Usually an acoustic stop derived from the 32'. They > are rare. There are > >maybe three organs in the world with the real thing > as far as reeds go(one > >of them is Sydney Town Hall). I cannot think of a > flue 64' offhand at all, > >although I did read about one > > Sorry, you are wrong here. There are only two 64ft > stops in the world, not > three. One is the wooden Diaphone at Atlantic City. > The other is the 1890s > Hill wooden Trombone in Sydney Town Hall. There have > been no others, and > there never will be (I'm sure I'm right in > predicting that). Anything else > that claims to be a proper 64ft is lying. > Voicers may correct me, but I'm certain it's > impossible to voice a 64ft > flue. > > 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 >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Gravissima From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:04:34 -0500   On 8/7/02 3:09 PM, COLASACCO, ROBERT wrote:   > I couldn't for the life of me imagine even hearing it to be able to tune > it!! > RBC   Do electronic tuners go that low?!   Russ    
(back) Subject: Re: Gravissima From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:59:08 -0500   On 8/7/02 3:30 PM, Ross & Lynda Wards wrote:   > There have been no others, and > there never will be (I'm sure I'm right in predicting that).   Hi Ross, I thought I had heard that the Wanamaker folks were planning a 64'. Anyone know if that's actually so?   TTFN, Russ