PipeChat Digest #2900 - Wednesday, June 12, 2002
 
Re: speakers in swell boxes
  by "Dennis Goward" <dlgoward@qwest.net>
Re: More thoughts on digital tone
  by <Wurlibird1@aol.com>
RE: Service of the Word
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Re: More thoughts on digital tone
  by "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU>
Paul Manz
  by <Phil_Cooper@dot.ca.gov>
looking for org+tpt Fireworks Ouverture
  by "Adam P. Cole" <acole@leland.stanford.edu>
Digital "voicing"
  by <cmys13085@blueyonder.co.uk>
Re: Paul Manz
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Service of the Word
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: speakers in swell boxes
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole
  by <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com>
Re: Service of the Word
  by <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com>
Gary Deboer
  by "lab" <labeaty@panix.com>
Re: Makin Regal 338/Johannus Opus 30
  by "Harv8" <Harv8@msn.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: speakers in swell boxes From: "Dennis Goward" <dlgoward@qwest.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:22:28 -0700   >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.     AOB's were not cheap. Mine, a two manual console, retailed for $41,000 back in 1985.   For the record, AOB built about 420 organs.   Dennis      
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: <Wurlibird1@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:26:37 EDT   Richard Jordan writes:   >I was always taught that the reason why and electronic organ can never >measure up is >no matter what you do with an electronic organ, >it will never move the volume of air that the pipes do <<   This was a truer statement years back than today, back when more amplifier =   wattage and more <loudness> was the answer to everything. "Volume of air" = is a simple matter of relative physics and with today's 30 "+ bass woofers, = more and more channels of audio, and more and more drivers being employed for tonal dispersion, one can reasonably conclude that an electronic [generic term] organ can actually move more air than pipes in a similar sized instrument. There is a greater deficit than volume of air that EORG's = face and again it is a simple matter of physics.   Speakers (drivers) lack a sympathetic phenomena that is present in pipes, especially metal pipes, but present to some degree in all pipes regardless = of their construction. This phehomena results in a natural event which = produces phase angle cancellations and phase angle augmentations. How this occurs = can be seen graphically with a good quality spectrum analyzer and is a product = of the physical resonator responding to frequencies produced by other pipes. = To borrow a well-abused phrase from another thread, this is occurring "real-time," i.e., as the pipes actually speak. Drivers, on the other = hand, faithfully reproduce what is presented to their voice coils which are not sympathetic to other drivers. Thus, this phenomena must be synthesized = and included as part of the driver information (signal). Therefore it sounds.......well.......synthetic because it is not a natural real-time = event which occurs with pipes as a product of their physical characteristics.   I am not prepared to say that eventually this huge deficit cannot be = overcome by pipeless design engineers. Ten years ago I never thought that we would = be hearing sounds from EORG's that actually rival authentic pipes in the complete auditory envelope. Despite my love for pipes over any other = medium of tone generation, I am cheering for the pipeless designers because they have so much to overcome in their pursuit of perfect synthesis (which is = an oxymoron of the highest caliber).   Best wishes, Jim Pitts  
(back) Subject: RE: Service of the Word From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:17:42 -0400   >I gather that the old idea was that Morning Prayer wasn't done INSTEAD of Eucharist, but in preparation for it. Pious folks went to both.   Yes! Furthermore, Morning and Evening Prayer are derived from the daily monastic offices and the prayer book calls them *daily* Morning (Evening) Prayer. There is scant justification for using Morning Prayer on Sundays only. The appointment of the psalms presumes a month-long twice-daily pattern during which they would all be used. The office lectionary is separate from the mass lectionary.   I recall from the 1970s that on Sundays, Morning Prayer and the Eucharist were both choral services at Saint Paul's Cathedral, London, with just a = few minutes between them so people could arrive and leave who didn't want to attend both. This was as it should be.   >now, I suspect that Morning Prayer has fallen into disuse   Alas, it has. While I have never liked Morning Prayer and sermon as a self-sufficient service, sung Morning Prayer should happen nevertheless. = A recent article in _The Living Church_ entitled "In search of choral = mattins" bemoans this disappearance. Even in choral foundations, mattins are = seldom sung anymore. No doubt this change reflects a concern for quality over quantity in a choir's work and has contributed to a higher standard of singing. But a sad result is that a chorister might go through his whole career being exposed to only half the psalter. Something's not good = there.   We do have, now, the option for using one of the offices as Liturgy of the Word and proceeding to the Liturgy of the Sacrament beginning with the offertory. The most pleasing use of this option, I think, is for an = evening weekday Communion after choral evensong, as is done at Saint Thomas, NYC. Aside from that, I wouldn't like to see exercised regularly. It conduces = to liturgical entropy-- too many corners cut, distinctions erased, etc. How = in the world are such concoctions described in bulletins and on announcement signs outside the church? I fear Baptist envy and advertisements like "10:00 a.m. Worship" This is too amorphous and generic, like "a glass of water" or "a cup of sugar." The church has specific rites for specific purposes. I want to know what I'm getting into.      
(back) Subject: Re: More thoughts on digital tone From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:18:56 -0700   >Richard Jordan writes: > >>I was always taught that the reason why and electronic organ can never >>measure up is >>no matter what you do with an electronic organ, >>it will never move the volume of air that the pipes do << > >This was a truer statement years back than today, back when more = amplifier >wattage and more <loudness> was the answer to everything. "Volume of = air" is >a simple matter of relative physics and with today's 30 "+ bass woofers, = more >and more channels of audio, and more and more drivers being employed for >tonal dispersion, one can reasonably conclude that an electronic [generic >term] organ can actually move more air than pipes in a similar sized >instrument. There is a greater deficit than volume of air that EORG's = face >and again it is a simple matter of physics.   I have to agree with the observation about the physics of today's new speaker designs. The proof observed 2 months ago was when we tied a Rogers Trio to a Carver Sunfire sub-woofer for the pedal line. This took place in a 1200 seat school auditorium. This amazing 13 x 13 x 13 inch box shook the very building. Of course at $2k you get the design you paid for. Originally I had heard it on a Walker digital, and was impressed enough to buy it for the 16' E-extension to our pipe organ.   john V  
(back) Subject: Paul Manz From: <Phil_Cooper@dot.ca.gov> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:25:37 -0700   Hey all -   Question: Is Paul Manz still alive? If so, where can I contact him?   Thanks!   Phil Cooper    
(back) Subject: looking for org+tpt Fireworks Ouverture From: "Adam P. Cole" <acole@leland.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:40:35 -0700   Hello,   I am seeking a competent arrangement of the Ouverture from Handel's Fireworks suite for organ and solo trumpet. It's to be used as a bridal processional (just the opening adagio). Can anyone point me in the right direction?   thanks, Adam Cole    
(back) Subject: Digital "voicing" From: <cmys13085@blueyonder.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:53:10 +0100   Hello,   I'm sure that the digital/pipe discussion is creating the usual = interest.....I have some catching up to do, so I haven't entirely = followed the thread.   However, one thing is certain. The digital organ is now established = enough to pose a considerable threat to any organ-builder who cannot = create truly musical instruments. This is the part which fascinates me, = because I have come across the most dreadful digital = instruments.......so bad as to be laughable in fact.   At this point I have to be careful for fear of upsetting people, but = let's say that I have followed developments with interest in the past 30 = years or so and, without doubt, one of the "centres" of digital sound is = in close proximity to where I live.   It seems to me that we are now at a point in the development of the = digital organ whereby it is possible to actually "voice" with some = degree of accuracy and felxibility, rather than to merely re-create a = stock digital sound. It fascinates me that, in many of the digital = organs I have played, the creators of these instruments are making = exactly the same mistakes that pipe-organ builders made when they = travelled down the "neo-baroque" route.   Some 20 years or more ago, I used to give a talk about voicing and = pipe-organ "style". In that talk, I demonstrated an interesting = experiment. Using high quality analogue machinery, I stuck microphones = inside organ chambers and recorded instruments "in the raw". Then I = played them back in the sort of small rooms used for the typical = "talk"......the sound which came out of the speakers was absolutely = ghastly. I then demonstrated that the task of voicing and finishing was = to make the instrument react favourably with the acoustic in which it = was placed. By using a 12-band graphic equaliser, it was possible to = adjust the various volume levels and, more importantly, the relationship = of the various "harmonics". The organ I had recorded was absolutely = neo-baroque, and yet, with some tweaking of the graphic equaliser, it = was possible to create a sound which was almost ideal for the small room = in which we were sitting. This was achieved by lifting the bass and = sloping off the higher frequency bands.....the exact same thing which = the romantic organ-pipe voicers did.   Interestingly, the converse was not possible.....that of modifying = "romantic" close-up pipe sound and reducing the bass, lifting the treble = bands and thinning the middle. The end result was more like a bad = Cavaille-Coll organ than a Baroque one.   This raises an interesting point.....is the digital organ actually = potentially BETTER than we give it credit for? May it be that there are = a number of cloth-eared fools involved in certain digital organs? = Indeed, are we merely perpetuating the chronic failures of "voicers" = over the centuries; few of whom seemed to actually know what they were = doing?=20   Certainly, my own personal experience includes an interesting afternoon = spent at a "celebrated" digital organ makers, where it soon became = apparent that the "voicer" hadn't a clue. So I helped him to get a = better sound........we both learned much that day, but he really was = incapable of "thinking out" a sound for himself and then making the = organ into what he wanted.   So it rather struck me very forcibly that, irrespective of the sampled = sounds, the clever technology and sampling rates, only a good tonal = artist can really get the results. Equally, only a true tonal artist can = deliver the musical goods when using pipes.   Are they such a rare breed of people that we only ever acknowledge a = hanfdul in our own time?   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK            
(back) Subject: Re: Paul Manz From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:09:51 -0400   On 6/12/02 4:25 PM, "Phil_Cooper@dot.ca.gov" <Phil_Cooper@dot.ca.gov> = wrote:   > Question: Is Paul Manz still alive? If so, where can I contact him? > I believe he still lives. In very frail health. At the St. Paul = residence of himself and wife, last I heard. They previously spent summers in Colorado, but I think those days are over. Problems with the spine, as I understand.   His successor as cantor at Mount Olivet was Mark Sedio, who's probably in the Minneapolis phone directory. You could give him a try.   In exchange for these leads, let me know! OK?   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Service of the Word From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:51:45 -0400   On 6/12/02 2:17 PM, "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> wrote:   Alan said:   >> I gather that the old idea was that Morning Prayer wasn't done INSTEAD = of >> Eucharist, but in preparation for it. Pious folks went to both.   Paul responds: > > Yes! Furthermore, Morning and Evening Prayer are derived from the daily > monastic offices and the prayer book calls them *daily* Morning = (Evening) > Prayer. There is scant justification for using Morning Prayer on = Sundays > only. The appointment of the psalms presumes a month-long twice-daily > pattern during which they would all be used. The office lectionary is > separate from the mass lectionary.   Alan:   Totally agreed, at every point. > > I recall from the 1970s that on Sundays, Morning Prayer and the = Eucharist > were both choral services at Saint Paul's Cathedral, London, with just a = few > minutes between them so people could arrive and leave who didn't want to > attend both. This was as it should be.   Again, totally agreed. Now, whether that's a "standard" (however high, = low, or sideways) to hope for, in ordinary urban parishes in the USA, I'm not = so sure. I think that the Oxford Movement's desire to restore the daily = office has a real place in many congregations/communities--obviously monastic communities, academic situations, seminaries, etc. But in the ordinary organ/suburban/rural layfolk parish? I think it would be very nice, but . = .. .. . .   And of course a principal urban parish, certainly a cathedral, should = offer all the above, for all sorts and conditions of men. I enjoyed my visit to Uppsala in c. 1994: Sunday was composed of (solemn) Vespers on Saturday, Matins, two masses, and second (solemn) Vespers. That's what cathedrals = are FOR, at least in part. > Alan, again:   >> now, I suspect that Morning Prayer has fallen into disuse > > Alas, it has. While I have never liked Morning Prayer and sermon as a > self-sufficient service, sung Morning Prayer should happen nevertheless. = A > recent article in _The Living Church_ entitled "In search of choral = mattins" > bemoans this disappearance. Even in choral foundations, mattins are = seldom > sung anymore. No doubt this change reflects a concern for quality over > quantity in a choir's work and has contributed to a higher standard of > singing. But a sad result is that a chorister might go through his = whole > career being exposed to only half the psalter. Something's not good = there. > > We do have, now, the option for using one of the offices as Liturgy of = the > Word and proceeding to the Liturgy of the Sacrament beginning with the > offertory.   Hmm. I prefer to think of the mass as a unitary thing. I'm disinclined = to make part of it an addendum to a piece of the daily office. (Never = thought of that before, but I'll try.)   > The most pleasing use of this option, I think, is for an evening > weekday Communion after choral evensong, as is done at Saint Thomas, = NYC.   You wanna have an evening mass on a weekdeay? (We have such, every week.) HAVE it! Why connect it with any part of the daily office, or with = "Service of the Word." Just DO IT! The mass is the mass.   > Aside from that, I wouldn't like to see exercised regularly. It = conduces to > liturgical entropy-- too many corners cut, distinctions erased, etc. = How in > the world are such concoctions described in bulletins and on = announcement > signs outside the church?   Ah, you see, we are together again. I thought I was arguing with you, but we're talking the same language!   > I fear Baptist envy and advertisements like > "10:00 a.m. Worship" This is too amorphous and generic, like "a glass = of > water" or "a cup of sugar." The church has specific rites for specific > purposes. I want to know what I'm getting into. > I hear ya. That's very good. "What's on the menu?" Everyone has a right to ask. (oh, dear, "rite" to ask") I didn't SAY that.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: speakers in swell boxes From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:39:59 -0500     ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:18 AM Subject: speakers in swell boxes     > > > RonSeverin@aol.com wrote: > > > > Hi Jim: > > > > The one speaker per note idea was tried already by I believe AOB. > > Ron > > > > Legend has it that there's an Allen installation somewhere around here > (SoCal) that did exactly that. > >> would be a fairer comparison, but then the COST would also be a LOT > closer. > > 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: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:46:08 EDT     --part1_69.28738536.2a396170_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   All of the discussion about who likes what book and what setting of the liturgical music has been entertaining as I've never seen discussion as = such before. As one who was baptized, confirmed, and played in a Lutheran = church from age 12-22 during which WOV came out, allow me to run something by = y'all.   I was ECSTATIC when WOV came out because we were in dyre need of new material.....hymn-wise and liturgy-wise. By far, the thing that most impressed me was "setting" six (pardon me if the number is wrong as I = haven't looked at the book in some time) which is, basically, a license saying = "Y'all are hereby authorized to incorporate some variety like the Episcopalians". = In other words, you're not TRAPPED into doing a "Setting". You all know = as well as I do....Lutheran congregations sing the same blasted thing over = and over and over and over......every bloomin' week. The best one can usually =   wish for is to change from setting one to setting two at one point in the year, at which time you sing the same blasted thing over and = over......every bloomin' week until you switch back.   So, with that said, I'm curious as to how many have latched on to that freedom of using service music from different sources for variety and changing them more often. I think this approach would bring life to an otherwise robotic cycle of repetition.   Coincidentally (and perhaps as a gift from God to get me out of = "repetition land") I ended up in the Episcopal Church and have been there for several years now. We rarely, if ever, sing the same service music two weeks in a =   row. It has amazed me how energetically a congregation will sing service music when it hasn't been done to death.   Any thoughts?   Jeremy Rush     --part1_69.28738536.2a396170_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">All of the discussion about who likes what book = and what setting of the liturgical music has been entertaining as I've = never seen discussion as such before.&nbsp; As one who was baptized, = confirmed, and played in a Lutheran church from age 12-22 during which WOV = came out, allow me to run something by y'all.<BR> <BR> I was ECSTATIC when WOV came out because we were in dyre need of new = material.....hymn-wise and liturgy-wise.&nbsp; By far, the thing that most = impressed me was "setting" six (pardon me if the number is wrong as I = haven't looked at the book in some time) which is, basically, a license = saying "Y'all are hereby authorized to incorporate some variety like the = Episcopalians".&nbsp; In other words, you're not TRAPPED into doing a = "Setting".&nbsp; You all know as well as I do....Lutheran congregations = sing the same blasted thing over and over and over and over......every = bloomin' week.&nbsp; The best one can usually wish for is to change from = setting one to setting two at one point in the year, at which time you = sing the same blasted thing over and over......every bloomin' week until = you switch back.<BR> <BR> So, with that said, I'm curious as to how many have latched on to that = freedom of using service music from different sources for variety and = changing them more often.&nbsp; I think this approach would bring life to = an otherwise robotic cycle of repetition.<BR> <BR> Coincidentally (and perhaps as a gift from God to get me out of = "repetition land") I ended up in the Episcopal Church and have been there = for several years now.&nbsp; We rarely, if ever, sing the same service = music two weeks in a row.&nbsp; It has amazed me how energetically a = congregation will sing service music when it hasn't been done to = death.<BR> <BR> Any thoughts?<BR> <BR> Jeremy Rush<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" = SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR> </FONT></HTML> --part1_69.28738536.2a396170_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Service of the Word From: <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:53:16 EDT     --part1_41.1e86273a.2a39631c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en   In a message dated 6/12/2002 11:35:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=3D20 acfreed0904@earthlink.net writes:     > The Anglicans, during those early-20th-century decades, used Morning = Praye=3D r=3D20 > for the non-eucharistic services. But now, I suspect that Morning = Prayer=3D20 > has fallen into disuse=3DE2=3D80=3D94as half-mass has for us. (I = haven=3DE2=3D80=3D =3D99t seen it in=3D20 > AGES.) Even the =3DE2=3D80=3D9Cearly service=3DE2=3D80=3D9D is a mass = (=3DE2=3D80=3D9Cfor w=3D hy should the =3DE2=3D80=3D9Cearly=3DE2=3D80=3D9D=3D20 > attenders be deprived of communion?=3DE2=3D80=3D9D). I gather that the = old idea=3D was that=3D20 > Morning Prayer wasn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t done INSTEAD of Eucharist, but in = preparatio=3D n for it.=3D20 > Pious folks went to both. =3D20 >=3D20 > But then (c. 1970?) we came out with Service of the Word! Why? We = alread=3D y=3D20 > had a non-eucharistic service (half-mass) that was falling into disuse, = an=3D d=3D20 > Matins as well, which was likewise being ignored. What is the = =3DE2=3D80=3D9Cne=3D ed=3DE2=3D80=3D9D for =3DE2=3D80=3D9C > Service of the Word=3DE2=3D80=3D9D on Sunday morning? (That sounds like = a chall=3D enging=3D20 > question, but I hope you=3DE2=3D80=3D99ll know it=3DE2=3D80=3D99s not. = I=3DE2=3D80=3D99m ge=3D nuinely curious.) >=3D20 > Alan=3D20   Thank goodness Morning Prayer isn't yet dead by any means in the = Episcopal=3D20 Church. It's certainly not common, but it's not dead. Vespers = (Evensong)=3D20 is, of course, still very much alive, and Compline is making a = comeback=3D20 thanks to prominent churches and cathedrals starting Compline Choirs. = Wish=3D20=3D I=3D20 could say the same on the Lutheran side.   I'd have to say that the saddest "development" in the Lutheran world, to = me,=3D =3D20 is the COMPLETE and TOTAL disregard for Matins, Vespers, and Compline. = =3D20 They're in the book, but that's about the extent of it. Any = congregation=3D20 I've ever encountered either doesn't know they're there or blatently = snubs=3D20 them by saying, "Oh....we don't do those" or after hearing a demo of = them,=3D20 "Eww....that sounds really 'catholic'".   Jeremy   --part1_41.1e86273a.2a39631c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en   <HTML><FONT FACE=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3D2 = FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D =3D3D"Arial" LANG=3D3D"0">In a message dated 6/12/2002 11:35:54 AM Eastern = Dayli=3D ght Time, acfreed0904@earthlink.net writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D3D"#000000" style=3D3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" = SIZE=3D3D2=3D FAMILY=3D3D"SERIF" FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman" LANG=3D3D"0"><BLOCKQUOTE = TYPE=3D3DCIT=3D E style=3D3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = MARGIN-RIGHT: 0=3D px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The Anglicans, during those early-20th-century = decade=3D s, used Morning Prayer for the non-eucharistic services.&nbsp; But now, I = su=3D spect that Morning Prayer has fallen into disuse=3DE2=3D80=3D94as = half-mass has fo=3D r us.&nbsp; (I haven=3DE2=3D80=3D99t seen it in AGES.)&nbsp; Even the = =3DE2=3D80=3D9Cear=3D ly service=3DE2=3D80=3D9D is a mass (=3DE2=3D80=3D9Cfor why should the = =3DE2=3D80=3D9Cearly=3D =3DE2=3D80=3D9D attenders be deprived of communion?=3DE2=3D80=3D9D).&nbsp; = I gather that=3D the old idea was that Morning Prayer wasn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t done INSTEAD of = Euchari=3D st, but in preparation for it.&nbsp; Pious folks went to both.&nbsp; <BR> <BR> But then (c. 1970?) we came out with Service of the Word!&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; = W=3D e already had a non-eucharistic service (half-mass) that was falling into = di=3D suse, and Matins as well, which was likewise being ignored.&nbsp; What is = th=3D e =3DE2=3D80=3D9Cneed=3DE2=3D80=3D9D for =3DE2=3D80=3D9CService of the = Word=3DE2=3D80=3D9D on Sunday=3D morning?&nbsp; (That sounds like a challenging question, but I hope = you=3DE2=3D =3D80=3D99ll know it=3DE2=3D80=3D99s not.&nbsp; I=3DE2=3D80=3D99m = genuinely curious.)<BR> <BR> Alan </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D3D"#000000" style=3D3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" = SIZE=3D3D2=3D FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D3D"Arial" LANG=3D3D"0"><BR> Thank goodness Morning Prayer isn't yet dead by any means in the Episcopal C=3D hurch.&nbsp; It's certainly not common, but it's not dead.&nbsp; Vespers = (Ev=3D ensong) is, of course, still very much alive, and Compline is making a = comeb=3D ack thanks to prominent churches and cathedrals starting Compline = Choirs.&nb=3D sp; Wish I could say the same on the Lutheran side.<BR> <BR> I'd have to say that the saddest "development" in the Lutheran world, to = me,=3D is the COMPLETE and TOTAL disregard for Matins, Vespers, and = Compline.&nbsp=3D ; They're in the book, but that's about the extent of it.&nbsp; Any = congrega=3D tion I've ever encountered either doesn't know they're there or blatently = sn=3D ubs them by saying, "Oh....we don't do those" or after hearing a demo of = the=3D m, "Eww....that sounds really 'catholic'".<BR> <BR> Jeremy</FONT></HTML>   --part1_41.1e86273a.2a39631c_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Gary Deboer From: "lab" <labeaty@panix.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:06:21 -0400 (EDT)   Trying to find Gary Deboer's E-mail.    
(back) Subject: Re: Makin Regal 338/Johannus Opus 30 From: "Harv8" <Harv8@msn.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:41:35 -0700   In response to rare servicing events for Johannus. I find that service needs are about on par with the other organ brands. I would not say that servicing is rare as it really depends on a lot of factors. What I am = also trying to say is that Johannus does not have a toll-free number for us to call and that is something that really needs to be addressed. I have nothing bad to say about Johannus at all, and have been very happy with = the technical support and other parts of their product. Harvey ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Makin Regal 338/Johannus Opus 30     > In the USA a Johannus dealer can order parts from the factory and have them > shipped overnight. In other words, you have them in 24-36 hours. = Having to > wait more than 72 hours is very rare. And it is also rare indeed that a > Johannus organ is in need of replacement parts. > > Gary