PipeChat Digest #3031 - Sunday, August 11, 2002 Don't Read Between the Lines by "Jim Hailey" <email@example.com> Re: Allen vs. Johannus, etc. etc. etc. by "Paul Valtos" <firstname.lastname@example.org> what we maybe SHOULD be talking about by <email@example.com> Re: Don't Read Between the Lines by "firman1" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Don't Read Between the Lines by <email@example.com> Re: Juels[sp?] by "firman1" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Don't Read Between the Lines by "Stanley Lowkis" <email@example.com> Game Results by "Stanley Lowkis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Game Results by <Icedad@aol.com> Re: what we maybe SHOULD be talking about by "Paul R. Swank" <email@example.com> Re: Game Results by "G. Deboer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: what we maybe SHOULD be talking about by "Richard Schneider" <email@example.com> Trinity, Lansdale by "Shirley" <firstname.lastname@example.org> terraced drawknob consoles by <email@example.com> New Topics by "Chris Tackett" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: terraced drawknob consoles by "Stanley Lowkis" <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: Don't Read Between the Lines From: "Jim Hailey" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:29:58 -0500 Over the past couple of weeks, there has been much debate over Pipe vs. Digital. The last couple of days saw Allen vs Johannus. (intelligence finally prevailed and I stayed out of that one) However, one thing that I have repeatedly read from members on this list is that they are losing battles to people that do not know and understand organs. Even our list administrator just stopped a post concerning various electronics, although it is quite alright to discuss the differences in pipes, even though David has said himself that this is a pipe AND digital list. Now to my point. How in the world can we expect to recruit young organists and perpetuate = an ancient tradition such as organ music in churches, when we cannot get = along long on a list designed to accomplish just that? I have learned a lot from this list. I have probably received as much practical knowledge from this list, as I did at the university from which = I graduated. While I may not necessarily agree with some of you, I certainly have enjoyed the chatting. However, this last couple of weeks have been the pits. I am sure that = David is correct when he wrote that some people have left because of the topics. I think that we would be much better served by limiting our debates to topics that are centered around introducing young people to organ music = and to getting people to actually listen to the preludes instead of talking = over them. Whatcha thank? (If the Fox tours are brought up, please do so only as exposure to music, not that other topic.) Thanks Jim H.
(back) Subject: Re: Allen vs. Johannus, etc. etc. etc. From: "Paul Valtos" <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:15:54 -0400 Dear Bill, Yes Allen did close their factory in Rocky Mountain North or South Carolina. This plant made keyboards and RMI Instruments. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "PipeChat" <email@example.com> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Allen vs. Johannus, etc. etc. etc. > > > Dear List: > > Bud said, > > (2) AFAIK, Allen has one factory, in Macungie, PA, USA which continues > > to operate. Perhaps the person who said Allen has closed one of their > > factories (sic) would like to identify the location of that factory. > > Allen is a publicly traded company and so much of what they do is announced > and in print. This compares to the otherwise closely held companies = which > can say anything through the marketing people despite reality. Hence, to > find out what Allen is "really" doing is easier than for several others that > come to mind. > > Allen is not limited to the "electronic" organ business. In fact, Allen = is > in sound systems, computers, networking and so on. > > As to the "closed" factory, and without checking my facts, Allen has indeed > closed a factory. BUT if memory serves correctly is was for an OLD plant > that helped with very dated synthesizer technology that they sold mostly to > third parties. It is old news and it was not near PA, and not part of = the > core business. > > Wm. G. Chapman > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Administration: mailto:email@example.com > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org >
(back) Subject: what we maybe SHOULD be talking about From: <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:44:06 -0700 While I think comparisons OF the various electronic substitutes SHOULD be limited to PROVABLE technical things, like sampling rates, etc. and PROBABLY DO belong more properly over on the E-ORG list(s) (aren't there separate Allen, Rodgers, and "other" lists in addition to E-ORG itself?), I DON'T think the content of THIS list should be as sharply limited as Jim proposes. We ARE our own worst enemies (as Seb Gluck has noted more than once), but not precisely or primarily for the reason(s) JIM puts forward. Now, let me preface what I'm going to say by saying THIS: the list-owners (who are pipe organ builders) and those of us who are professional organists and organ consultants are ALWAYS HAPPY to answer ANY legitimate question regarding the pipe organ, no matter how basic or simple that question may be. In addition, David Scribner and I and several others have a fair amount of knowledge of older analog electronics and Hammonds. While there ARE lists for those, we'll also be happy to answer questions in those areas to the best of our ability, and if WE don't know, we probably know who DOES. That said, it has been demonstrated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that a LOT of organists take LITTLE or NO INTEREST in how their instrument is put together, and/or what makes it tick. "It's my job to PLAY it" is a common comment. Aside from most pianists (is that where we get it?), I can't think of ANYONE else who CAN'T make simple repairs and/or tune their instruments. Harpsichordists can tune and cut quills at the very LEAST. Woodwind players can voice their reeds; string players can deal with re-stringing; and so forth. Not EVERYONE is going to work in a major urban center with an organ technician a phone call away ... for most of my life I've worked in churches that were either remote enough or poor enough that I had to do most of my own repairs, whether to pipes OR electronics. But quite aside from THAT, knowledge of organ-building is REQUIRED in order to DESIGN an organ. ANYBODY can draw a stop-list. That is NOT "designing an organ." How many know (or care) about: pipe scales composition of mixtures wind pressure windchest design key action design stop action design the different kinds of reed shallots the different kinds of reed resonators and boots the composition of pipe-metal the difference between stopped, pierced-stopper, chimney and soldered-cap flutes (and why it MATTERS) WHY mutations should be independent, and why their being "tuned true" MATTERS WHY unification is generally bad, and what can be done to make it LESS so WHY 19th century American organs can serve as a guide to building in "dead" acoustics Etc., etc., etc. I'm guilty of yammering about church politics too much, but I'm also a full-time church musician ... church politics SERIOUSLY impact my LIFE. But I'll shut up about THAT, if others will ASK QUESTIONS and take up some of THESE areas that we ALL need to know more about. There ARE knowledgeable organ-builders on here, and these AREN'T trade secrets. Yeah, some of it may be kinda BORING (grin) ... so were the multiplication tables ... but it's not when you find yourself with an organ with a breaking-glass cymbal mixture over top of a sewer pipe scale Phonon Diapason and don't know what to DO about it (chuckle). Cheers, Bud, who knows a LOT LESS than he SHOULD
(back) Subject: Re: Don't Read Between the Lines From: "firman1" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:03:54 -0500 Hello ...this is supposed to be PIPECHAT ... NOT electrochat . PLEASE end discussions concerning electronic substitutes . B.A.F.
(back) Subject: Re: Don't Read Between the Lines From: <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:10:04 -0700 Uh, I'm not a list-owner, but if you read the guidelines, allowed discussion includes pipe, electronic, reed and whatever OTHER kinds of organs there are. Cheers, Bud firman1 wrote: > > Hello ...this is supposed to be PIPECHAT ... NOT electrochat . PLEASE = end > discussions concerning electronic substitutes . B.A.F. > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Administration: mailto:email@example.com > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
(back) Subject: Re: Juels[sp?] From: "firman1" <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:10:02 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=3D_NextPart_000_006A_01C240B2.4AA21DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Allen/johanus.... both are nothing more than ELECTRONIC SUBSTITUTES . =3D please refrain from this . I want to hear and discuss PIPE ORGANS , not = =3D ELECTRONIC WANNA BEE'S . B.A.F. ------=3D_NextPart_000_006A_01C240B2.4AA21DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Allen/johanus.... both are nothing = more =3D than=3D20 ELECTRONIC SUBSTITUTES . please refrain from this . I want to hear and =3D discuss=3D20 PIPE ORGANS , not ELECTRONIC WANNA BEE'S . =3D B.A.F.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=3D_NextPart_000_006A_01C240B2.4AA21DD0--
(back) Subject: Re: Don't Read Between the Lines From: "Stanley Lowkis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:23:03 -0400 email@example.com wrote: > > Uh, I'm not a list-owner, but if you read the guidelines, allowed > discussion includes pipe, electronic, reed and whatever OTHER kinds of > organs there are. > > Cheers, > > Bud > > firman1 wrote: > > > > Hello ...this is supposed to be PIPECHAT ... NOT electrochat . PLEASE = end > > discussions concerning electronic substitutes . B.A.F. > > If most "OrgeTTes" sound bad to an educated ear, just blame it on a lack of technology in speakers. WARNING: The small Trackers are out to get'ya! signed, Stan leisurely sitting at the console of the 8 manual Wurlitzer in my living room. "Where is middle 'C'?"
(back) Subject: Game Results From: "Stanley Lowkis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:38:22 -0400 The Annual Pipes - Electrontrics Game; as usual, ended in a victory for the "Pipes". They Stood Victorious in the Loft. Stan 'no speakers were injured in this incident'
(back) Subject: Re: Game Results From: <Icedad@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:55:51 EDT --part1_a4.2a46b400.2a872c37_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not very nice!!! --part1_a4.2a46b400.2a872c37_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" = FACE=3D"Times New Roman" LANG=3D"0">Not very nice!!!</FONT></HTML> --part1_a4.2a46b400.2a872c37_boundary--
(back) Subject: Re: what we maybe SHOULD be talking about From: "Paul R. Swank" <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:00:28 -0400 Bud has suggested that we talk about what we know in answering questions from the less-experienced ones of us. I agree (to a large extent) with this idea. Just think of the years of experience we have in reserve by the members of this list. Many of us have been through the gamut of events from pumping old reed organs while trying to direct the choir from across the chancel to helping = a church select one of the largest , most-expensive assets it will = probably ever purchase. We have climbed rickety ladders up the side of bathroom walls to get to organ chambers to remove a ciphering pipe during the sermon, so the = service can continue. We have played around that oboe pipe that sounds so badly out-of sorts = that day. This reservoir of basic experiences should be taken advantage of by the newer-comers of our esteemed profession. Paul R. Swank Organist/Choirmaster (Retired)
(back) Subject: Re: Game Results From: "G. Deboer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:49:00 -0500 It is exactly nonsense like this that makes me want to leave the list. Most of the folks that are so pro pipeorgan in reality do not know what a proper pipe organ is even supposed to sound like. Most only have a reference to the instruments in their local churches, = where the vast majority of installations are poor, voicing and acoustically speaking, that very few respecting professional organists want to perform = or record on them. Proper pipeorgan construction had already been perfected 200 or more years ago, Schnitger, Silbermann, Muller, etc. and all organists want to play those. What happened to all the inferior stuff built between then and now. ? Is it a lack of funds, lack of skills, lack of knowing how to built sanctuaries, superior metallurgy in the old days, better woods, people = that really cared ? I sometimes don't know, I do know that most folks are oooohing and = aaaahing over the European sounds of the old tracker. If so, why are we not = building that type as opposed to the ones tucked away in holes in the wall as if = the builder is ashamed to show his handy work. I look through the AGO magazine and see a nice church with a good looking organ case just newly installed at a cost of 1.5 million dollars, then I = buy the CD with a well-known performer playing the thing and I am dumbstruck = by how terrible it sounds. No acoustical properties to the sanctuary at all, screeching mixtures, blaring reeds and wonder why it got built at all. Honestly, an all fake digital (including the acoustics) costing $100K = would have been a better buy and produced a more pleasing tone. I do not want to re-start the pipe vs elec. argument over again, but = today's quality digitals, regardless of who makes them, are often superior than = most pipeorgans I've come across in North American churches. My philosophy has always been, if you can't build things correctly it is better not to build it at all, and that goes for pipe organs too. Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanley Lowkis" <email@example.com> To: "PipeChat" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: Game Results > The Annual Pipes - Electrontrics Game; as usual, ended in a victory > for the "Pipes". > > They Stood Victorious in the Loft. > > Stan > 'no speakers were injured in this incident' > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:email@example.com > Administration: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:email@example.com >
(back) Subject: Re: what we maybe SHOULD be talking about From: "Richard Schneider" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:30:54 -0500 email@example.com wrote: <major snippage re: electronics> > But quite aside from THAT, knowledge of organ-building is REQUIRED in > order to DESIGN an organ. ANYBODY can draw a stop-list. That is NOT > "designing an organ." > How many know (or care) about: > pipe scales > composition of mixtures > wind pressure > windchest design > key action design > stop action design > Etc., etc., etc. > But I'll shut up about THAT, if others will ASK QUESTIONS and take up > some of THESE areas that we ALL need to know more about. There ARE > knowledgeable organ-builders on here, and these AREN'T trade secrets. Someplace in the middle of last weeks "discussions" I asked the list for their input about their thoughts on drawknob layout on TERRACED Consoles. Know how many responses I got? Two. And one of those from a builder-friend who I also wrote DIRECTLY with the question. Good dialogue too. The other was from a person who said (in so many words): "I don't frankly give a damn. So long as the organ has combination pistons, it really doesn't matter!" Well, quite frankly: I DO give a damn, and I'd think the rest of you jokers would also. How about it? Shall we try again?? Faithfully, -- 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:firstname.lastname@example.org SHOP EMAIL mailto:email@example.com SHOP SATELLITE EMAIL mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org HOME OFFICE EMAIL http://www.schneiderpipeorgans.com WEB PAGE URL
(back) Subject: Trinity, Lansdale From: "Shirley" <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 01:33:37 -0400 OK, need a new topic? How about this one: For those who were at the Philly AGO convention and went to hear Cherry Rhodes at Trinity Lutheran in Lansdale, I'd be interested in hearing your opinions of her concert and about the organ. --Shirley
(back) Subject: terraced drawknob consoles From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:55:05 -0700 OK, I have an OPINION (grin): The big Rieger in DC doesn't have terraced DRAWKNOBS, and its stop controls are somewhat unique, BUT ... it DID have a very logical stop layout which COULD be applied to a terraced drawknob console thusly: LEFT JAMB top row: Swell strings, reeds, Cornet and tremulant second row: Swell flutes and mutations third row: Swell principals and mixture(s) fourth row: Pedal strings (if there are any) and reeds fifth row: Pedal flutes sixth row: Pedal principals and mixture(s) RIGHT JAMB - this would depend on whether the Great was the middle manual or the bottom manual. Assuming the Great is in the middle: top row: Great strings, reeds, Cornet, and tremulant (if there is one) second row: Great flutes and mutations third row: Great principals and mixture(s) fourth row: Choir strings, reeds, Cornet and tremulant fifth row: Choir flutes and mutations sixth row: Choir principals and mixture(s) If the Great were on the bottom manual, then the Choir stops would be above the Great stops. The slightly angled jambs of Hook & Hastings consoles are VERY easy to deal with and confortable to play, and I imagine cheaper to build than the curved French style. I prefer the pitches to run from low to high, left to right, on BOTH jambs ... but I think Aeolian might not have done it that way in their angled-jamb rocker tab consoles ... of course, with mostly 8' stops in most of their organs, it didn't matter a WHOLE lot (grin). I DON'T like the practice of putting half of each division's stops in the left jamb and half in the right ... the big Beckerath in Cleveland had straight vertical rows of drawknobs, but it was arranged that way, which meant you had to take BOTH hands off the keyboard to draw the Great principal chorus, for instance. This, of course, leaves the question of what to do with the couplers ... perhaps a single vertical row of knobs in either jamb, right next to the keyboards? One of the purposes of a terraced console is to lower the music rack so the organist can see over it and/or direct ... doesn't strike me that above the Swell manual is NECESSARILY the best place for the couplers. Cheers, Bud
(back) Subject: New Topics From: "Chris Tackett" <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:31:35 -0700 I'm a newcomer to the list and I have to admit that in spite of it being = my first time to see the pipes vs. electronics debate I'm tired of it. I did gain some useful information (I have a two manual Allen to play at church and I'm going to look into having the speakers and amps serviced), but overall I've had enough for now. I have two new topics to discuss or, rather, questions to ask. Topic One: I was a piano, composition, and conducting major in college, = and I only ever took two semesters of formal instruction in the organ. I = didn't anticipate that I would ever need anything beyond the basics, after all I was never going to have a regular church organ position. Well, sometimes = God says "Ha!" and here I am with a church choirmaster and organist position. = I have been improvising most of my service music, but I would like to learn more about the repertoire (both concert and liturgical) and how to = actually play the instrument properly. Does anyone have a list of recommended texts or compositions to broaden my (self) study of the instrument? I'm fairly comfortable with my hands being = a pianist and all, but I could use some help with the feet. Is there a = graded list of organ works (I'm thinking Bach specifically, but all composers are welcome) that I could work through to improve my skills and learn some = good music on the way? Topic Two: Why does it seem to me that no one is ever happy or satisfied with the instrument that they have? In college I worked a bit on one of = the Moller Artistes that have been mentioned here recently. (I'd love to have one for myself, so if anyone hears of one, please let me know) and also on the grand organ in the university auditorium. The organ in the auditorium was a three manual Moller, with what I now know was a basic American orchestral setup. It was a nice basic instrument, but it had been tinkered with. The organ prof at the college (late seventies to mid-eighties) was a = baroque specialist, so she had the organ adapted to baroque repertoire. Among = other things, the tremulants were disabled, the celestes were un-de-tuned (so = that they no longer had that typical celeste beating waver), and the principals were revoiced to a lighter sound. (I'm not sure how that was done exactly, but they did not have the richness of tone that I've heard since in = similar instruments in other places.) Locally, I've played a Schlicker that has had the same sort of thing done with it- tremulants disabled, reeds roughed up, and celestes brought into perfect tune. My question: Why do people do that? I guess it's human nature to want what we don't have, but why do perfectly good instruments that don't conform to one person's idea of one historical period have to be remade into = something that is ultimately neither fish nor fowl? This Moller was no longer an orchestral organ, but it was never a proper Baroque organ either. (One advantage to electronics is that all of these sounds can be had at = your fingertips without huge pipe chambers and hundreds of ranks of pipes.) Oh, well. Any ideas? Chris Tackett Tucson AZ
(back) Subject: Re: terraced drawknob consoles From: "Stanley Lowkis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 05:01:11 -0400 email@example.com wrote: One of the purposes of a terraced console is to lower the > music rack so the organist can see over it and/or direct ... doesn't > strike me that above the Swell manual is NECESSARILY the best place for > the couplers. Bud: That's where the organ speakers go. The money saved on the Casework alone is Fabulous.. Stan "Proud Owner of Four WurliTzer Diapasion Pipes"