PipeChat Digest #2895 - Tuesday, June 11, 2002
 
Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time
  by <support@opensystemsorgans.com>
Re: More  thoughts on digital tone
  by "Del Case" <dcase@puc.edu>
Re: More  thoughts on digital tone
  by "Robert Lind" <Robert_Lind@cch.com>
Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal)
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
Re: More  thoughts on digital tone
  by "C. Joseph Nichols" <cjn@nicholsandsimpson.com>
Re: More  thoughts on digital tone
  by "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net>
Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal)
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal)
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: More  thoughts on digital tone
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
Re: More  thoughts on organ tone
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time From: <support@opensystemsorgans.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:10:57 -0400       ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:34:07 -0400 >From: Arie Vandenberg <ArieV@classicorgan.com> >Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time   >If one is to fully do justice in trying to reproduce a pipe organ the >sampling route here is what is needed. > >1) each note must be sampled and stored in memory >2) each sample should be at least three seconds long preferrably 5 = seconds >3) each note on playback must be run off of a separate master clock >4) each note must be at least volume level adjustable >5) samples must be at least a full 16 bit, preferrably 18 or 20 bit >6) numerous DACs, to keep signals separate >7) once in the analog domain, use only highest quality op-amps and = filter >components >8) use at least 2 audio channels per stop (at least on the manual stops) >9) use lots of high quality speaker systems ( linear frequency = response, >low distortion, wide dispersion etc.) > >Now tell me, who builds such an organ? The answer is nobody, since the >price would be too high.   Not as high as you might think.   If by "memory", your first requirement means "random-access memory", then = I'd argue with it. You're specifying an implementation, not a functional requirement, and the industry is moving past what you've written.   I don't know what requirement number three means, precisely, but it sounds = like another older implementation spec. If you implement something like this = on a PC, for example, you're using one physical "master clock", but its in the megahertz range. The "clocks" you have in mind are virtual in that world, = and you can have as many as you like by dividing the physical one however you like. So this is a zero-cost requirement.   By "numerous DACs", I assume you don't mean more than one per analog = channel. If not why would you need more channels in the digital domain than in the analog? It's a lot cheaper to add samples than to mix analog signals.   Apart from that, I think the only really expensive requirement here is = number eight, and I think the expense gains little or nothing. Rather than two channels per stop, I'd say four per division (two front and two rear).   I'd argue that these requirements are a little high for "doing justice", = but that's subjective. We're talking about a = cost-versus-closeness-to-the-original tradeoff, here. I doubt if you'll find anybody on the list -- certainly = not me -- who wouldn't put the money into a real organ whenever possible. But = if you can't afford the millions, don't have the space, or are required by = the family sleep Nazi to use headphones, then you have to pick an appropriate = place on the continuum. Your specs are nice and not as expensive as you think. = But I'd say that you can still "do justice" with even less.   Dick Meckstroth  
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: "Del Case" <dcase@puc.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:15:29 -0700       lab wrote: > > > > My point here is that the issue of taste and preference is the same for > digital instruments, no matter which particular technology a given = company > may use. Some organists just simply prefer or like the Allen sound = better > than anything else. Others prefer Galanti and as we've seen in recent > postings, some others prefer Johannus or Musicom systems. > > The relative "better" or "worse" of this argument cannot be determined > empirically because in fact it is purely a matter of taste, preference, > and ultimately one's aesthetic sensibilities. >   While there was much in this posting with which I can easily agree, it would seem that you are saying that there is no bottom line in making aesthetic judgments. Everything is personal, subjective, there are NO objective standards.   Is this the logical conclusion to what you have said above?   Del W. Case Pacific Union College  
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: "Robert Lind" <Robert_Lind@cch.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:45:28 -0500   I should keep my mouth shut and stay out of this, and perhaps after I've written it, I'll simply destroy the e-mail.   This whole area is incredibly subjective. Even within the same person over a period of time, one's views change and one's hearing mechanism changes and "worsens" as old age creeps in.   At 17 I went to college, having studied during my last three years in high school on a wonderful E.M. Skinner. Somehow upon attending organ recitals in the Chicago area starting in = 1957, my ear soon craved brilliance: mixtures were in and fat-scaled flues and reeds were out. I used to laugh at organ maintenance guys (probably in = their 50s) who lamented over the thin-scaled sounds that were taking over.   In 1959, I studied Sowerby works with the composer on his instrument at St. James, Chicago. I had the good grace = (and tons of respect) not to argue--I did it Leo's way. Whatever his registrations and thoughts on what worked in his pieces I went along with = it 100%. The next year I became his assistant, and I registered all = non-Sowerby works on that undistinguished 1920 Austin MY way. For full plenum in a Baroque work it seems to me now that I probably pared down the 8' flue = sound to one manual flute all by itself. I used to turn that organ upside down = and inside out in trying to get something decent out of it. And you can bet = that recordings of Biggs on his famous Flentrop had something to do with it. = The difference between the way Sowerby and I registered must have been close = to comical. I was always trying to eliminate mud, thickness, wooliness, opacity; he was using the full tonal spectrum in the manner the instrument was "meant" to be played.   In 1963 I demonstrated Saville electronic organs and was intrigued with what they were up to. Bob Saville would ask = me in the shop to listen to various examples of reeds and other stops. When I didn't prefer the sound HE wanted me to like best, he'd say "but the oscilloscope shows that this is right on track." I'd fire back: "But my = ear tells me that you've a long way to go."   By 1965 I was enamored of the Schlicker at Church of the Ascension, Chicago, and felt that the Noehren organ at St. Richard's, Chicago, was too aggressive and screechy. Serving in the Army Band program in Germany 1967-69 and getting around to instruments of = various kinds in several countries, I found out that that Schlicker wasn't so hot after all.   In 1978 I suddenly had to find an organbuilder because an angel gave my Lutheran church in Northfield, IL, a healthy sum for an organ. By this time I rather fancied a Noack in a = convent in a Chicago suburb. After much looking and listening (the then-student = John Paul Buzard even submitted a proposal), I narrowed my choices to an EP Casavant or a Wilhelm tracker. I went with Wilhelm. It was the Lutheran thing to do, after all.   Today I'm not so sure. Church music is much more eclectic. And by now I hanker after a more well-rounded organ with pistons, swell shades, a celeste, a 32' reed--and, if I can find it--lots = of 8' flues. Yep, I'm now siding with those old guys I laughed at all those decades ago. This is gross oversimplification, of course. They and I probably would never agree on the QUALITY of sound emanating from various kinds of principals/diapasons and what ideal to strive for.   But I'm oh so tired of certain builders' (they shall remain nameless) slim-bodied pipes and their squeaky ensembles and the keydesk smack up against the organ so that most of the sound = whizzes over your head and what's left may take your ears off, and of mechanical stop action and of instruments that are so different from that 1920 Austin but in their own way are every bit as unremittingly unmusical as the old klunkers built back in some unenlightened past.   So--what is the tonal ideal? I doubt that you'll ever get two people to agree.   Robert Lind in the Chicago suburbs         lab <labeaty@panix.com> 06/11/2002 11:33 AM Please respond to PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> TMore thoughts on digital tone     Hello, all.   I've been following the recent back and forth discussion on digital sampling and the tonal "ideal."   I think the issue here is one of what is a tonal "ideal" and this is by its own nature a question of aesthetics and not science. To remove this from the digital domain and put it into pipe organ terms, how much agreement would we get on an idealized pipe organ sound?   I am reminded of an acquaintance who asserts that the Flentrop sound is simply the "best" organ sound. I like that sound and always remember the Biggs recordings on the Busch-Resinger organ in Cambridge, MA. But would the Flentrop sound be "ideal" for a Baptist church in say Arkansas?   I don't think it would support their idea of what church music and organ sound are supposed to be. "supposed to be" meaning from their perspective which is equally valid as say a Missouri Lutheran church in Minnesota. Presumably in the latter case, the Flentrop sound is more suitable.   My point here is that the issue of taste and preference is the same for digital instruments, no matter which particular technology a given company may use. Some organists just simply prefer or like the Allen sound better than anything else. Others prefer Galanti and as we've seen in recent postings, some others prefer Johannus or Musicom systems.   The relative "better" or "worse" of this argument cannot be determined empirically because in fact it is purely a matter of taste, preference, and ultimately one's aesthetic sensibilities.   Pardon the length of this posting but let me conclude with this comparison of sampled vs. synthesized digital sound provided to me by a very experienced organ technician.   Says he: Digitally sampled sound is somewhat like a black and white photograph in that it captures the sound in a more or less original form.   Digitally synthesized sound is more like an artist's rendering of the photograph in that it offers the same image but in an interpretive manner.   I don't know how accurate this may be, but think it's an interesting concept.        
(back) Subject: Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal) From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:38:38 -0500     Paul wrote, in part:   > Why does (or did) this prevail in the Lutheran heartland? It seems > that Lutherans are likelier to be aware of their rich heritage the = farther > geographically they live from the upper midwest, where they are the most > numerous.   I can offer a reasonable explanation for this: while the (Scandinavian) Lutherans who settled in the upper Midwest were not motivated as much by ecclesiastical concerns as the Puritans who settled New England, the were = still largely pietists. The parishes and church organizations they established = bore the pietistic stamp. Thus, while in the home country it is not uncommon = to find larger parishes offering choral settings of the ordinary of the Mass = (which is what it is often called in Scandinavia) sung in Latin, it is nearly = unheard of in the U.S.   The Scandinavian Lutherans were not so pietistic as to totally break relationships with the churches in their countries of origin, however, nor = did they disallow organ music in worship.   > I found the most interesting programs, such as they were, in the = Missouri > Synod.   I found this to be true at one time, as well, but my impression is that = most of those who promoted these ideas left the Missouri Synod in the mid '70's, = and were part of the formation of the ELCA in the late 1980's. Paul Manz, and = St. Luke's-Belmont Street in Chicago would have been associated with this = movement.       ns    
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: "C. Joseph Nichols" <cjn@nicholsandsimpson.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:58:54 -0500     ----- Original Message ----- From: "lab" <labeaty@panix.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:33 AM Subject: More thoughts on digital tone     snip > But would the Flentrop sound be "ideal" for a Baptist church in say > Arkansas? >snip   Thanks,   You made my day!! ( in Arkansas )   Actually, Baptists (in Arkansas) do buy things other than Nichols & = Simpson organs.   C. Joseph Nichols Nichols & Simpson, Inc. www.nicholsandsimpson.com    
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:27:43 -0400   Well, Joe, your day will be decidedly unmade when the Arkansas Baptists begin buying digitally sampled Nichols & Simpson organs. This is where imitation is hardly the sincerest form of flattery.   Now I will go wash my mouth out with soap.   I am reminded of how much I regret that a horrible New Jersey church fire has delayed our chance to have a Nichols & Simpson organ here in the Northeast, something to which we had looked forward. I am so glad it is still on track, albeit on a long siding.   If you're not coming to OHS in Chicago, I know you are sending us at least two of your best employees!   Cheers,   Malcolm www.mander-organs.com   ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. Joseph Nichols" <cjn@nicholsandsimpson.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:58 PM Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone     > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "lab" <labeaty@panix.com> > To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:33 AM > Subject: More thoughts on digital tone > > > snip > > But would the Flentrop sound be "ideal" for a Baptist church in say > > Arkansas? > >snip > > Thanks, > > You made my day!! ( in Arkansas ) > > Actually, Baptists (in Arkansas) do buy things other than Nichols & Simpson > organs. > > C. Joseph Nichols > Nichols & Simpson, Inc. > www.nicholsandsimpson.com      
(back) Subject: Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal) From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:36:43 -0400   On 6/11/02 12:55 PM, "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> wrote:   >> Paul, where did you live in Wisconsin? > > All over: my Lutheran days were in Rhinelander (Zion Lutheran Church); = then > Madison (where Grace Church on the Square assimilated our family into > Anglicanism), Beloit, and we finally settled down in Appleton when I was > almost 11. > > My closest college friend was a Lutheran from Ashland (extreme north, on > Lake Superior) who had found his way on his own to very high-church = tastes. > He read _Ceremony and Celebration_ and _Response_, and I think was a = member > of Una Sancta. These made him a surprisingly rare bird in Wisconsin. He = was > happy only when he could get a glimpse, whiff, and earful of glorious = Saint > Luke's, Belmont Street in Chicago, i.e. not often at all. I felt his = pain, > becoming aware myself of the ironic cultural deprivation of growing up = in a > notoriously low parish surrounded by the highest Episcopal diocese in = the > world. He lamented that even Augustana College (where he had spent his > freshman year) was benighted. One of his professors taught that the = liturgy > should be a sacred dance, but had to add that at Augustana it was more = like > a sacred stumble.   Well, at least, it seems, the professor was critical of the status quo. I hope. (I'm reading you carefully, and can identify with a LOT of what you're saying on your friend's behalf.) > > In the late 60s there were at least a dozen Lutheran congregations in > Appleton of various synods: Wisconsin, Missouri, ALC, and LCA. You = might > assume that such a variety of affiliations would offer lots to choose = from > in practice: but *none* of these parishes had any liturgical = sophistication > at all. Why does (or did) this prevail in the Lutheran heartland?   Boy, is that a very a good question?! Been there. Spent a year at the = then (1959) largest nonRoman parish in the state (Ascension, South Layton = Blvd., Milwaukee, ELC/TALC/ELCA, 7,000+ members). There I was told that it's largely an ethnic thing. Germans canNOT have sanctuary lamps, cinctured anything, acolytes in any role, or chant by a vested person in chancel for even one (literally) damned NOTE. EYE was of Minnesota Scandinavian background, where we chanted most of the service all the time, and (though sometimes uncomfortably) had sanctuary lamps. We certainly had no sacramental sense in the 1940s, but the Germans didn't either.   That came later. 1960s (well, maybe 1958ish at the earliest). There = really was a revolution in progress at that time. I started with Una Sancta in 1955, and by 1959 surplices went near ankle length, and by 1960, albs were seen; by 1962 we had chasuble parishes in rural North Dakota. Chasubles = had been worn in the 1890s until 1917 in St. Paul, at the Seminary, but had = been put away in the closet at the merger of the three main Norwegian Lutheran groups in 1917. That was a "class" thing--pietistic peasants knew nothing of such (Augustana Sioux Falls, Concordia Moorhead, Augsburg Minneapolis) etc.); state-church aristocrats knew nothing else (Luther Decorah); middle-of-the road unionists (St. Olaf) couldn't care less.   > It seems > that Lutherans are likelier to be aware of their rich heritage the = farther > geographically they live from the upper midwest, where they are the most > numerous. Very strange.   Yes and no. We should talk more. I spent three years in a Dakota parish, having grown up in a Seattle parish of considerable size, which was basically Dakota transplants for WWII defense industry. Served a parish = in the Bronx in the 60s, and another in Baltimore in the 60s and 70s. Got = rid of shot glasses everywhere I went, and moved eucharist from monthly to weekly with NO difficulty.   > I found the most interesting programs, such as they were, in the = Missouri > Synod.   Yes; yet often they've been the real leaders. Good liturgy grows from = good theology. And in THOSE days, they had that. Think of names like von = Schenk at Our Saviour's in the Bronx, where they had children communing weekly in the 1940s. And of course all the incidental trimmings that I've alluded = to above. Think of giants like Arthur Carl Piepkorn at Saint Louis seminary.   > Perhaps that impression is mistaken, but > because of it I tend to have a place in my heart for them even if often = they > are among the more narrow-minded. Lord knows plenty of my fellow > Episcopalians would consider me so just for liking traditional music and = not > liking priestesses or the retrospective castration of old texts. > > By the way, is the latter on the agenda of the new Missouri Synod = hymnal? > If not, hallelujah! > I don't know. As I said, we should talk more.   Alan Freed, St. Luke's Church, Manhattan (ELCA)    
(back) Subject: Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:44:34 -0400   On 6/11/02 1:14 PM, "quilisma@socal.rr.com" <quilisma@socal.rr.com> wrote:   > This is all long ago and far away, but it seems to me the LCMS's > objection to the Green Book was primarily theological, rather than > musical ... in particular, LCMS objected to the inclusion of several > Canons or Prayers of Consecration in the Green Book liturgies which were > very similar to current Anglican and RC usage. > > Even the "high" LCMS where I used to substitute had NO Canon, but the > bare Words of Institution, followed by the Lord's Prayer.   You're surely right, Bud. Let the word "offer" appear in a prayer, the = LCMS folks don't want to know the subject or the object: just get RID of it. = Of course, I think that (except in Sweden) no Lutherans had a eucharistic prayer from, oh, 18th century Germany until 1958 when Service Book and Hymnal came out. So LCMS was not alone in that fear. But the did hang = onto it longer than most. And continue to do so. This IS a huge subject. > > I think there was also a dust-up about including the Stabat Mater as one > of the hymns ... but I don't remember which side was "fer" and which > side was "agin" (grin). > Well, yes; but I think that was pretty minor. But you're right. It was more theological or quasi-theological than musical. Pedro (our cantor) = and I are discussing this at the present time, as we look forward to new books in the next decade. I'll see if I can't come up with an occasional = update. Yesterday, we talked about the canon of Hippolytus and its lack (or delay, at best) of the Sanctus. It's a fun conversation, and I'm learning (an = LBW option is Hippolytus, but with no Sanctus). A major difference between Luther's Latin mass of 1523 and his German one of 1526 was the inclusion and/or placement of the Sanctus.) Contributions to the conversation welcome; if too off-topic, offlist is fine.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal) From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:57:45 -0400   On 6/11/02 3:38 PM, "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> wrote: >=20 > Paul wrote, in part: >=20 >> Why does (or did) this prevail in the Lutheran heartland? It seems >> that Lutherans are likelier to be aware of their rich heritage the farth= er >> geographically they live from the upper midwest, where they are the most >> numerous. >=20 > I can offer a reasonable explanation for this: while the (Scandinavian) > Lutherans who settled in the upper Midwest were not motivated as much by > ecclesiastical concerns as the Puritans who settled New England, the were > still largely pietists.   I feel better, Noel, perceiving that your answer and mine of a few minutes ago are not terribly far apart.   > The parishes and church organizations they established bore the pietistic > stamp. Thus, while in the home country it is not uncommon to find > larger parishes offering choral settings of the ordinary of the Mass (whi= ch is > what it is often called in Scandinavia) sung in Latin, it is nearly unhea= rd of > in the U.S. >=20 > The Scandinavian Lutherans were not so pietistic as to totally break > relationships with the churches in their countries of origin, however, no= r did > they disallow organ music in worship.   Except in Sweden, where they formed the Swedish Mission Covenant Church. There were small separatist movements in America, such as the Lutheran Free Church (Norwegian), but of course they weren't "out of" Lutheranism (qua state church) here. And they were, as you indicate, lowchurch pietists. >=20 >> I found the most interesting programs, such as they were, in the Missour= i >> Synod. >=20 > I found this to be true at one time, as well, but my impression is that m= ost > those who promoted these ideas left the Missouri Synod in the mid '70's, = and > were part of the formation of the ELCA in the late 1980's. Paul Manz, an= d St. > Luke's-Belmont Street in Chicago would have been associated with this > movement. >=20 Totally in agreement with my own observations. Thank you, Noel.   Alan (whose dad was Swedish--but in sheep ranch Montana; and whose mom was pietistic Norwegian in Grand Forks, N.D., so grew up schizophrenic, but was glad to discover--in college--the Swedish heritage vis-=E0-vis the Norwegian; LOVED my visit to Uppsala a few years back)    
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:58:09 -0500   At 12:33 PM -0400 06/11/2002, lab wrote: >But would the Flentrop sound be "ideal" for a Baptist church in say >Arkansas?       Well, maybe the Baptists don't buy Flentrops but the Christian Science Society in Batesville, Arkansas does have a Flentrop. Check http://www.cacago.org/stoplists/CCSBV.html   Our Chapter had Will Headlee recreate the Dedicatory Recital that E. Power Biggs played 42 years ago on that organ as one of our Chapter programs this year. It is a wonderful little instrument and fits the room perfectly.   David -- ******************************************* David Scribner Editor - Central Arkansas Chapter Newsletter mailto:editor@cacago.org  
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on organ tone From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:05:53 EDT   Dear Robert:   When you and I grew up, about the same time actually, weren't we sort of told what we were supposed to like. I think we lived through the Emperors new clothes stage, and finally decided before it was too late, that great music could indeed be played on Skinners and M=F6llers. I think at some point in our service playing career we decided that it is indeed necessary to have at least two enclosed divisions for playing a service, some soft stops, strings and celestes, more than a 16' Subbass in the pedal. Stops that blended, and some decent reeds=20 again. Bee's in a bottle just didn't cut it Holz zunfauren suddenly lost=20 any real meaning, and we realized it was just junk after all the hype. It was all nice while under the spell, but we woke up didn't we? Tons=20 of others too. These little Zumfarten machines didn't sound very well in dead rooms with equal temperment either. There are some really=20 great builders today, who build an organ with warmth, well temper, and very nice instruments to play a service on. Hopefully, gone are the days of the three stop Hauptwerke with a small scale Gedacht 8' 4' Spritzoid and a mixture XII 2/3'. This exaggeration is not that far=20 afield.   Thank God, we finally woke up and actually smelled the coffee.   Ron Severin