PipeChat Digest #2893 - Tuesday, June 11, 2002
 
Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal
  by <Pepehomer@aol.com>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by "Steven Frank" <steve@virgilfox.com>
Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal)
  by "Panning" <jpanning@cal-net.net>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net>
Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time
  by <Wurlibird1@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:53:27 -0400   > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not = understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.   --B_3106587207_3356246 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   On 6/10/02 6:04 PM, "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> wrote:   >> I am music director and organist in an ELCA church. One of my choir = mem=3D bers >> told me yesterday that the Lutheran Book of Worship, which I had = thought=3D both >> the ELCA and the Missouri Synod use, exists in a different, revised = vers=3D ion >> for the Missouri Synod churches. Can someone confirm this? >>=3D20 Oh, my goodness NO, Randy. Buy one of each (Lutheran Worship, and = Lutheran Book of Worship) , and do your own compare-and-constrast. They started = OUT together, but soon parted paths. Sad story. Liturgically very similar, = Se=3D e the =3DB3Foreword=3DB2 of both books. Lots of problems with = harmonizations. Take the time to study it, and the time will reward you.   Alan, St. Luke=3DB9s ELCA, Manattan     --B_3106587207_3356246 Content-type: text/html; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman">On 6/10/02 6:04 PM, &quot;Randolph = Runyon&quot=3D ; &lt;runyonr@muohio.edu&gt; wrote:<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman">I am music = dire=3D ctor and organist in an ELCA church. &nbsp;One of my choir members told me = y=3D esterday that the Lutheran Book of Worship, which I had thought both the = ELC=3D A and the Missouri Synod use, exists in a different, revised version for = the=3D Missouri Synod churches. &nbsp;Can someone confirm this?<BR> <BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman">Oh, my = goodne=3D ss NO, Randy. &nbsp;Buy one of each (Lutheran Worship, and Lutheran Book = of =3D Worship) , and do your own compare-and-constrast. &nbsp;They started OUT = tog=3D ether, but soon parted paths. &nbsp;Sad story. &nbsp;Liturgically very = simil=3D ar, See the &#8220;Foreword&#8221; of both books. &nbsp;Lots of problems = wit=3D h harmonizations. &nbsp;Take the time to study it, and the time will = reward =3D you.<BR> <BR> Alan, St. Luke&#8217;s ELCA, Manattan<BR> </FONT> </BODY> </HTML>     --B_3106587207_3356246--    
(back) Subject: Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal From: <Pepehomer@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:10:36 -0400   In a message dated Mon, 10 Jun 2002 8:31:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, = jhaileya10@charter.net writes:     > I have never known the LCMS to use the Lutheran Book of Worship. The = church > is using either The Lutheran Hymnal, Lutheran Worship or a combination. > Some of the hymns are taken from All God's People Sing or > the Hymn > Supplement. > > Jim H     As was in my current church's case, they bought the LBW when it came out = new, probably not knowing fully that the Synod backed out of the project. = Thus, 100 hymnals that you just don't wanna toss out. I personally do not = like it - other than it adds a slight variety for liturgies rather than = only the "page 15" liturgy. Of course, the upcoming hymnal will have both = the "page 15" as well as the well liked Divine Service II (First setting) = from the LW, as well as one new liturgy.   When I say "current" church, I grew up at a large LCMS church in = Ellsworth, Kansas for 13 years. They wouldn't even think about singing = from anything other than The Lutheran Hymnal. I am currently preparing to = do the funeral for my church's former pastor (who passed away last = Saturday), and he chose hymns all from the "old" hymnal. I guess you = really can't go wrong with the classics.   Justin Karch Organist, Holy Trinity LCMS Rome, GA  
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:41:00 -0500   Again, more misinformation about sampling. The three companies mentioned are not at all the same. Ask yourself the question of what is being sampled, then you will find that during playback the Johannus actually = uses pipe samples while the others sample strings of software that simulate = pipe sound. The end result differences are very audible and much in favor of Johannus.   ----- Original Message ----- From: "r" <basset3@citlink.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:51 PM Subject: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time     > Cheryl: > You made it quite understandable. > Allen, Rodgers, Johannes and others are using digital samples which = "play > back" exactly as recorded. > Which companies are using "real time" technology that creates the = variable > wave? I'm interested in knowing. > Thanks, > Robert Clooney (Middletown, NY) > > > > "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: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:16:18 -0500   Wrong, I know that Allen uses pipes, and I am reasonably sure that Rogers does.   This is starting to border the digital vs. pipe in which the only answer = is pocket book and room =3D choice.   Jim H ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:41 PM Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time     > Again, more misinformation about sampling. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "r" <basset3@citlink.net> > To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:51 PM > Subject: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time > > > > Cheryl: > > You made it quite understandable. > > Allen, Rodgers, Johannes and others are using digital samples which "play > > back" exactly as recorded. > > Which companies are using "real time" technology that creates the variable > > wave? I'm interested in knowing. > > Thanks, > > Robert Clooney (Middletown, NY) > > > > > > > > "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 > > > > > "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: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: "Steven Frank" <steve@virgilfox.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:26:15 -0400   on 6/10/02 10:41 PM, G. Deboer wrote:   > Johannus actually uses > pipe samples while the others sample strings of software   Sample strings of software?   This doesn't make any sense to me.   How does one sample strings of software?!?!?!?!   As far as I know Allen samples actual pipes.   Steve    
(back) Subject: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal) From: "Panning" <jpanning@cal-net.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:11:24 -0500   To answer questions posed by Paul Emmons and Randy Runyon.   The Lutheran Book of Worship (LBW, 1978, green) started out as a joint project of the ELCA and LC-MS, but the latter withdrew before LBW's publication and subsequently produced its own book, Lutheran Worship (LW, 1982, blue).   Benefiting from the experience of the two previous Lutheran hymnals, especially in the matter of harmonizations, the Wisconsin Synod brought out Christian Worship (CW, 1993, red). Shortly thereafter, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, a group that is in fellowship with the WELS, published the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary (ELH, 1996, black) in association with MorningStar Music Publishers. Like CW, ELH has won praise for its hymnody, and represents a tremendous accomplishment for such a modest church body (22,000 souls). In addition to the usual material, it contains the Augsburg Confession, Luther's Small Catechism, and the complete 3-year ILCW lectionary.   Both the LC-MS and Wisconsin Synod used The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) until the advent of their respective new hymnals. The new LC-MS hymnal has no input from the Wisconsin Synod.   Paul, where did you live in Wisconsin?   John A. Panning Lake City, Iowa (but born in Watertown, Wisconsin, one of the seats of Wisconsin Synod Lutheranism)  
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:28:13 -0500   It is not the lack of initial pipe samples for each company, but what each of the three companies and several others do with them that produces the final sound. What your ears hear may not be the actual pipe sound you think you are hearing, but a software reproduction of it. My final comment on this issue, to each his own or whatever turns you on. But do yourself a favor and thoroughly investigate each company before you plunk down your hard earned monies. Don't just accept some hearsay = because somebody said so, do your own analysis and then decide. Thank you.   Gary     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:16 PM Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time     > Wrong, I know that Allen uses pipes, and I am reasonably sure that = Rogers > does. > > This is starting to border the digital vs. pipe in which the only answer is > pocket book and room =3D choice. > > Jim H > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> > To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:41 PM > Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time > > > > Again, more misinformation about sampling. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "r" <basset3@citlink.net> > > To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:51 PM > > Subject: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time > > > > > > > Cheryl: > > > You made it quite understandable. > > > Allen, Rodgers, Johannes and others are using digital samples which > "play > > > back" exactly as recorded. > > > Which companies are using "real time" technology that creates the > variable > > > wave? I'm interested in knowing. > > > Thanks, > > > Robert Clooney (Middletown, NY) > > > > > > > > > > > > "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 > > > > > > > > > "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 > > > > > "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: Digital Samples vs Real Time From: <Wurlibird1@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:36:58 EDT   You wrote:   >Ask yourself the question of what is being sampled, then you will find that during playback the Johannus actually = uses pipe samples while the others sample strings of software that simulate = pipe sound. The end result differences are very audible and much in favor of Johannus. <<   Finding your point in this escalating debate is difficult. Perhaps its = that you prefer Johannus to any other brand which is your right. Others will differ with you as to the auditory perception that they experience, and = that is also their right. I do take issue with you on the rather misleading statement that Johannus does not simulate pipe sounds. All pipeless instruments <simulate> pipes. Sample technology is but a mere snapshot of =   the pipe over a given timeframe. It does not contain all of the nuances = of an individual pipe for to do so the storage medium would be massive over = the compass of a single stop, then multiplied exponentially over the entire rank-equivilence of the organ. Further, digitally recorded samples are <manipulated> to synthesize those absent nuances to create more authentic voicing and articulation. In other words, the <sample> then becomes, itself, a software string so we =   ultimately arrive at the same objective but employ divergent technologies = to get there.   My comments should in no way be interpreted to mean that Johannus is = anything less than a very excellent organ. The feature-to-cost factor is more than =   attractive and their most recent improvements in technology may well vault =   Johannus to new levels of respect and acceptance.