PipeChat Digest #2898 - Wednesday, June 12, 2002
 
Re: So many questions, so little time . . .
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
Re: LCMS Hymnal
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Re: More  thoughts on organ tone
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by <support@opensystemsorgans.com>
With One Voice clarification
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: With One Voice clarification
  by <DrB88@aol.com>
Re: With One Voice clarification
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Service of the Word
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: With One Voice clarification
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Service of the Word
  by <DrB88@aol.com>
speakers in swell boxes
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: speakers in swell boxes
  by <OrganMD@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: So many questions, so little time . . . From: "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:34:27 -0500   At 10:16 PM -0500 06/11/2002, Jim Hailey wrote: >Well Glenda, I can help you with number 3. Come Sweet Death, is in the >volume "At the Organ with Virgil Fox". It is a Warner Brothers = Publishing. >This book also has several other works that Fox arranged and/or played. = I >think I ordered this from Barnes & Noble Online, but am not real sure.   The Organ Historical Society Catalogue carries this volume - http://www.ohscatalog.org/coloranofshe.html   David  
(back) Subject: Re: LCMS Hymnal From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:36:20 -0400   on 6/12/02 12:20 AM, Jeff White at reedstop@prodigy.net wrote:   >> > You know, I used to feel that page 158 was "IT" as far as liturgies, but = I > have to admit that I'm finding a lot of joy and satisfaction in two > non-LCMS-produced liturgies: Setting Five from "With One Voice", and = Marty > Haugen's "Now the Feast". Both services have everything Lutheran that's > needed (with a few extra phrases here and there), and are musically nice = to > sing. The only drawback is Now the Feast is really written for piano = and > Setting V does sound better on piano, although I've been doing it on the > organ. The neat part is they can be used in traditional and = contemporary > services equally well! I know, because we've done it, and the = congregation > really favors them over Setting One (which is our page 158). >   I like Setting Five from "With One Voice," too, but wish it had not = omitted the phrases sung immediately before ("Glory to you, O Lord") and after ("Praise to you, O Christ") the Gospel.   Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu          
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on organ tone From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:30:06 EDT   Hi Jim:   The one speaker per note idea was tried already by I believe AOB. The cones were various lengths. Conn also. The best way to use speakers is to put them behind swell shades if adding digital to pipes. The swell box does a very nice job of mixing pipes and digital together and they express at the same rate.   Ron  
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: <support@opensystemsorgans.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:30:20 -0400   ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:23:21 -0400 >From: cdkrug@worldnet.att.net >Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time   >"Realtime" is an overused word. In my line of work, Realtime means, "If >you don't do THIS within 50us of THAT, the device will explode."   Exactly. A realtime process is usually defined as one that has to = complete within a pre-specified interval after a particular external event. In = that sense, any musical instrument synthesized on a computer is realtime, = regardless of the specifics of how the waveforms are produced. The software has to respond to user inputs -- usually MIDI messages -- more or less promptly, = and it has to produce input to the DACs at exactly the sampling rate.   The term "sample" is overused, also. Sometimes, each discrete value that serves as an input to a DAC is called a "sample". Lately, the MIDI world = has taken to applying the word to a set of these recorded from an analog = source. So a three-second "sample" of a pipe can contain a hundred and fifty thousand "samples".   It's almost a bad as what's happend to poor "virtual", but don't get me = started on THAT.   You're right, "realtime" is overused, and it's being used incorrectly in = this thread. The distinction people are making is not between realtime and = non- realtime, it's between sampled and computed-on-the-fly. In the former = case, the values are being looked up from a wave table; in the latter case, = they're being calculated while the sound is being heard. Typically, the samples = are produced by calculating a pulse train and feeding the result to a series = of digital filters. The usual reason for doing this is to save storage = space: the filter coefficients take a lot less than stored samples do.   So for greeting cards that sing, you sample the speech and feed the = samples to a linear predictive algorithm to calculate the coefficients, which you = store in the chip. Then, in real time, the chip uses the coefficients to calculate = an approximation of the original samples. But if you've got anything more expensive than a greeting card chip to work with, that space is no longer bought at a premium. Instead of the "realtime" approximation, you can = afford the real thing.   One advantage to the calculated approach is that it's easier, in real = time, to speed up and slow down the progress of the sound without changing its = pitch. This has all sorts of applications, but in synthesizing an organ, you'd = take advantage of this only to "stretch" the middle of a note for long, = sustained sounds. The problem is that the stretched frames tend to sound a little = flat and electronic. Looping sampled sound, if it's done right (as it's = usually not), can sound more natural. (If looping is done badly, though, it = sounds even more flat and electronic. Some of the organ Soundfonts you find on = the Internet are good examples.)   As far as "strings of software" go, I think Bud got it right.   Dick  
(back) Subject: With One Voice clarification From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:35:17 -0400   On 6/12/02 9:36 AM, "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> wrote:   > on 6/12/02 12:20 AM, Jeff White at reedstop@prodigy.net wrote: > >> I'm finding a lot of joy and satisfaction in two >> non-LCMS-produced liturgies: Setting Five from "With One Voice", and = Marty >> Haugen's "Now the Feast". Both services have everything Lutheran = that's >> needed (with a few extra phrases here and there), and are musically = nice to >> sing. The only drawback is Now the Feast is really written for piano = and >> Setting V does sound better on piano, although I've been doing it on = the >> organ. >> > I like Setting Five from "With One Voice," too, but wish it had not = omitted > the phrases sung immediately before ("Glory to you, O Lord") and after > ("Praise to you, O Christ") the Gospel. > > Randy Runyon   Jeff and Randy: It's GOT to be four or five years since I've looked at those WOV settings, and I've used only a couple of them, once or twice = each. I think the very ones of which you speak. I DO remember being quite unimpressed musically, and downright antipathetic textually.   I checked with our cantor a few minutes ago, and he says, with respect to the responses before and after the Gospel:   quote   They're there, but without music, with the intention of their being = spoken. I think the Sursum corda and proper prefaces are intended to be spoken as well, though I don't know why. (Perhaps to appease the clergy who can't or won't sing. An oxymoron if ever there were one!)   P.S. On Setting 5: "Bleh!" BTW, Miami is my mother-in-law's alma mater. English major, I believe.   end quote   I can't tell you in what high regard I hold our cantor's opinion. He's a first-rate musician, and a theologian with few peers among the most elevated.   We bought WOV the minute it came out, with the intention of using the hymn materials, but naught else--and it's remained that way, through three directors of music and two pastors. My distaste for the liturgical stuff remains (for textual and musical reasons), but I'm DELIGHTED we have these books for their hymn stuff.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: With One Voice clarification From: <DrB88@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:01:18 EDT     --part1_150.f38310c.2a38bc3e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   I agree with Alan......the only setting that we have used from With One = Voice is the Service of the Word. While the music there isn't all that it might =   be, it is tolerable, and has worked nicely in our congregation. Ours is a =   very traditional congregation, with a strong commitment to the liturgy and = to good hymnody. I figure if that service setting will fly with our people, = it will most anywhere.   David B. in Chicago   --part1_150.f38310c.2a38bc3e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">I agree with Alan......the only setting that we = have used from With One Voice is the Service of the Word.&nbsp; While the = music there isn't all that it might be, it is tolerable, and has worked = nicely in our congregation.&nbsp; Ours is a very traditional congregation, = with a strong commitment to the liturgy and to good hymnody.&nbsp; I = figure if that service setting will fly with our people, it will most = anywhere.&nbsp; <BR> <BR> David B.<BR> in Chicago</FONT></HTML>   --part1_150.f38310c.2a38bc3e_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: With One Voice clarification From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:17:41 -0400   Has anyone used With One Voice setting 6, in which one chooses from = several Kyries, Glorias, etc. in the rest of the hymnal? Some of those seem interesting, but with the drawback that parishioners have to do more page-turning and -searching.     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: Service of the Word From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:34:57 -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_3106726497_2509506 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   On 6/12/02 11:01 AM, "DrB88@aol.com" <DrB88@aol.com> wrote:   > I agree with Alan......the only setting that we have used from With One = V=3D oice > is the Service of the Word. While the music there isn't all that it = migh=3D t be, > it is tolerable, and has worked nicely in our congregation. Ours is a = ve=3D ry > traditional congregation, with a strong commitment to the liturgy and to = =3D good > hymnody. I figure if that service setting will fly with our people, it = w=3D ill > most anywhere. =3D20 >=3D20 > David B. > in Chicago=3D20   David:   Thanks for writing. Your note brings up a whole =3D8Cnother matter. = =3DB3Service of the Word.=3DB2 I used that in a Baltimore parish from time to time in = the early 70s. Now, I don=3DB9t know what I=3DB9d use it FOR. Used to be = that if a parish had, say, eight Sunday morning services per month (we had 12), two, three, or four or five would be eucharistic celebrations, and the rest = woul=3D d be what we called =3DB3half-masses=3DB2--the first half of the eucharist, = followed by Lord=3DB9s Prayer and benediction. I thought, then, =3DB3better to use = Service of the Word for non-eucharistic worship than to use the half-mass, which = is so =3DB3chopped off=3DB2 without finishing. Then, with sacramental = renewal, the number of eucharists a month (out of eight services) got to be ALL EIGHT.   The Anglicans, during those early-20th-century decades, used Morning = Prayer for the non-eucharistic services. But now, I suspect that Morning Prayer has fallen into disuse=3D8Bas half-mass has for us. (I haven=3DB9t seen = it in AGES.) Even the =3DB3early service=3DB2 is a mass (=3DB3for why should = the =3DB3early=3DB2 attenders be deprived of communion?=3DB2). I gather that the old idea was = that Morning Prayer wasn=3DB9t done INSTEAD of Eucharist, but in preparation = for it. Pious folks went to both.   But then (c. 1970?) we came out with Service of the Word! Why? We = already had a non-eucharistic service (half-mass) that was falling into disuse, = and Matins as well, which was likewise being ignored. What is the = =3DB3need=3DB2 for =3DB3Service of the Word=3DB2 on Sunday morning? (That sounds like a = challenging question, but I hope you=3DB9ll know it=3DB9s not. I=3DB9m genuinely = curious.)   Alan   --B_3106726497_2509506 Content-type: text/html; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Service of the Word</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman">On 6/12/02 11:01 AM, = &quot;DrB88@aol.com&quot;=3D &lt;DrB88@aol.com&gt; wrote:<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D3D"Arial">I agree with = Alan.....=3D ..the only setting that we have used from With One Voice is the Service of = th=3D e Word. &nbsp;While the music there isn't all that it might be, it is = tolera=3D ble, and has worked nicely in our congregation. &nbsp;Ours is a very = traditi=3D onal congregation, with a strong commitment to the liturgy and to good = hymno=3D dy. &nbsp;I figure if that service setting will fly with our people, it = will=3D most anywhere. &nbsp;<BR> <BR> David B.<BR> in Chicago</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"> <BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"><BR> David:<BR> <BR> Thanks for writing. &nbsp;Your note brings up a whole &#8216;nother = matter.=3D &nbsp;&#8220;Service of the Word.&#8221; &nbsp;I used that in a Baltimore = p=3D arish from time to time in the early 70s. &nbsp;Now, I don&#8217;t know = what=3D I&#8217;d use it FOR. &nbsp;Used to be that if a parish had, say, eight = Sun=3D day morning services per month (we had 12), two, three, or four or five = woul=3D d be eucharistic celebrations, and the rest would be what we called = &#8220;h=3D alf-masses&#8221;--the first half of the eucharist, followed by = Lord&#8217;s=3D Prayer and benediction. &nbsp;I thought, then, &#8220;better to use = Service=3D of the Word for non-eucharistic worship than to use the half-mass, which = is=3D so &#8220;chopped off&#8221; without finishing. &nbsp;Then, with = sacramenta=3D l renewal, the number of eucharists a month (out of eight services) got to = b=3D e ALL EIGHT.<BR> <BR> The Anglicans, during those early-20th-century decades, used Morning = Prayer=3D for the non-eucharistic services. &nbsp;But now, I suspect that Morning = Pra=3D yer has fallen into disuse&#8212;as half-mass has for us. &nbsp;(I = haven&#82=3D 17;t seen it in AGES.) &nbsp;Even the &#8220;early service&#8221; is a = mass =3D (&#8220;for why should the &#8220;early&#8221; attenders be deprived of = comm=3D union?&#8221;). &nbsp;I gather that the old idea was that Morning Prayer = was=3D n&#8217;t done INSTEAD of Eucharist, but in preparation for it. = &nbsp;Pious =3D folks went to both. &nbsp;<BR> <BR> But then (c. 1970?) we came out with Service of the Word! &nbsp;Why? = &nbsp;=3D We already had a non-eucharistic service (half-mass) that was falling into = d=3D isuse, and Matins as well, which was likewise being ignored. &nbsp;What is = t=3D he &#8220;need&#8221; for &#8220;Service of the Word&#8221; on Sunday = mornin=3D g? &nbsp;(That sounds like a challenging question, but I hope you&#8217;ll = k=3D now it&#8217;s not. &nbsp;I&#8217;m genuinely curious.)<BR> <BR> Alan</FONT> </BODY> </HTML>     --B_3106726497_2509506--    
(back) Subject: Re: With One Voice clarification From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:40:52 -0400   On 6/12/02 11:17 AM, "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> wrote:   > Has anyone used With One Voice setting 6, in which one chooses from = several > Kyries, Glorias, etc. in the rest of the hymnal? Some of those seem > interesting, but with the drawback that parishioners have to do more > page-turning and -searching. > We have not done just that, but something like it. We dip into those = things from time to time just for variety in our music. Lately we used the = Celtic Alleluia for a couple months, and people liked it. And some Gospel acclamations as well. I don't have WOV at home, for some strange reason, but ##600 and onward come to memory. (We're not keen on the WOV translations of the major parts of the Ordinary, but might even use some = of them on occasion.) We do a LOT of variety; we're in the theatre district = of Manhattan: lots of young performing-arts types who are used to sight-reading anything without complaining--and, in fact, enjoying it.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Service of the Word From: <DrB88@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:59:07 EDT     --part1_86.1bc424e9.2a38c9cb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Alan........ Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm not sure if I can totally answer = your question. I would prefer, as would our pastor, that both of our Sunday morning services be Eucharistic. However, there are many factors, both practical and liturgical, that have kept us alternating. Our current schedule offers Eucharist for one of the two services each Sunday...and we =   alternate Communion with Morning Prayer or the Service of the Word. In an =   effort to come closer to all Eucharistic services, we schedule Holy = Communion in both services on all Festival Sundays, and also when there is a fifth Sunday in the month.   This schedule was put in place before I came to the church, and my understanding was/is that the use of Service of the Word as an alternate = to Holy Communion was somewhat of a means of answering the "contemporary" issue...which is not big in our congregation, thankfully. We do other = types of services at other times...Taize, Jazz Vespers, etc. to bring variety to =   our expressions of worship as well.   One fear in banishing the non-communion liturgies (Morning Prayer in particular) is that our people would lose touch with those worship = structures also, and their corresponding canticles, etc. We have a monthly Evening Prayer service at which we perform a Bach Cantata with orchestra--a series =   that has been alive and well in our parish for over 31 years now. So the interest in continuing Morning Prayer as an alternate to Holy Communion is = at least partly liturgical.   Primarily, I value With One Voice as a hymn supplement. Having spent = several years in the Episcopal Church prior to this post, I miss the 1982 Hymnal greatly...and can identify with the individuals who wrote recently = decrying the sometimes odd and outlandish harmonizations in the LBW. But I have = also come to love the German Chorales which I didn't really know or understand = all that well previously.   And, last but not least, we are blessed with an 81-rank Berghaus organ in = a beautiful space with excellent acoustics.   David B. in Chicago   --part1_86.1bc424e9.2a38c9cb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Alan........<BR> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.&nbsp; I'm not sure if I can totally = answer your question.&nbsp; I would prefer, as would our pastor, that both = of our Sunday morning services be Eucharistic.&nbsp; However, there are = many factors, both practical and liturgical, that have kept us = alternating.&nbsp; Our current schedule offers Eucharist for one of the = two services each Sunday...and we alternate Communion with Morning Prayer = or the Service of the Word.&nbsp; In an effort to come closer to all = Eucharistic services, we schedule Holy Communion in both services on all = Festival Sundays, and also when there is a fifth Sunday in the month.<BR> <BR> This schedule was put in place before I came to the church, and my = understanding was/is that the use of Service of the Word as an alternate = to Holy Communion was somewhat of a means of answering the "contemporary" = issue...which is not big in our congregation, thankfully.&nbsp; We do = other types of services at other times...Taize, Jazz Vespers, etc. to = bring variety to our expressions of worship as well.&nbsp; <BR> <BR> One fear in banishing the non-communion liturgies (Morning Prayer in = particular) is that our people would lose touch with those worship = structures also, and their corresponding canticles, etc.&nbsp; We have a = monthly Evening Prayer service at which we perform a Bach Cantata with = orchestra--a series that has been alive and well in our parish for over 31 = years now.&nbsp; So the interest in continuing Morning Prayer as an = alternate to Holy Communion is at least partly liturgical.&nbsp; <BR> <BR> Primarily, I value With One Voice as a hymn supplement.&nbsp; Having spent several years in the Episcopal Church prior to this = post, I miss the 1982 Hymnal greatly...and can identify with the = individuals who wrote recently decrying the sometimes odd and outlandish = harmonizations in the LBW.&nbsp; But I have also come to love the German = Chorales which I didn't really know or understand all that well = previously.<BR> <BR> And, last but not least, we are blessed with an 81-rank Berghaus organ in = a beautiful space with excellent acoustics.&nbsp; <BR> <BR> David B.<BR> in Chicago</FONT></HTML>   --part1_86.1bc424e9.2a38c9cb_boundary--  
(back) Subject: speakers in swell boxes From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:18:11 -0700       RonSeverin@aol.com wrote: > > Hi Jim: > > The one speaker per note idea was tried already by I believe AOB. > The cones were various lengths. Conn also. The best way to use > speakers is to put them behind swell shades if adding digital to > pipes. The swell box does a very nice job of mixing pipes and > digital together and they express at the same rate. > > Ron >   Legend has it that there's an Allen installation somewhere around here (SoCal) that did exactly that.   I remember Allen's earlier attempts to reproduce the squelching of higher harmonics when the "box" was closed. It worked, sort of, but the effect when you OPENED the expression shoe was more that of a crescendo pedal as the higher harmonics came back up.   In this instance, Allen built a normal-sized swell box with normal shutters and placed the speakers inside, playing at full volume all the time ... expression was by the shades, rather than electronically.   No report as to how well it worked; nor have I been able to locate the installation.   I have often said that we're attempting to compare apples and oranges when we compare an off-the-shelf electronic organ with maybe 6-12 discrete channels and speakers with a custom-built pipe organ. A CUSTOM electronic organ with one channel per stop, and one speaker per note, with a reflective case of proper proportions for the number of stops, and the speakers laid out in a spatial relationship similar to pipes, would be a fairer comparison, but then the COST would also be a LOT closer. I think it's instructive that AOB only built a few organs before they went out of business.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: speakers in swell boxes From: <OrganMD@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:21:51 EDT     --part1_c9.238180b6.2a38cf1f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Hi Gang......   Let me jump into the middle of this chat. I have installed several electronic organ consoles on older pipe organs and have always installed = the speakers for the expressive divisions inside of the appropriate swell box. = It works fantastic. The best expression that you have ever heard on an electronic organ.   Bill   --part1_c9.238180b6.2a38cf1f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3>Hi Gang......<BR> <BR> Let me jump into the middle of this chat.&nbsp; I have installed several = electronic organ consoles on older pipe organs and have always installed = the speakers for the expressive divisions inside of the appropriate swell = box.&nbsp; It works fantastic.&nbsp; The best expression that you have = ever heard on an electronic organ.<BR> <BR> Bill</FONT></HTML>   --part1_c9.238180b6.2a38cf1f_boundary--