PipeChat Digest #2903 - Thursday, June 13, 2002 Re: The Essentials of a Small Organ by <email@example.com> RE: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole by "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> RE: The Essentials of a Small Organ by <SProt82850@cs.com> Sampling versus real-time by "Cheryl C Hart" <email@example.com> RE: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole by <DrB88@aol.com> Lutheran Liturgies, etc. by <Pepehomer@aol.com> RE: Cavaille-Coll by "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole by <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time by <FLTim@aol.com> Chicago Symphony Organ by "William T. Van Pelt" <email@example.com> RE: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole by "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Cavaille-Coll by "pat and ian" <email@example.com> Re: Digital "voicing" by "Bruce Miles" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Cavaille-Coll by "Randolph Runyon" <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: Re: The Essentials of a Small Organ From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:11:21 -0700 First of all, I doubt that 12-14 stops is going to be ENOUGH organ in a 500-seat church with DRY acoustics ... you're going to have to push them AWFULLY hard and scale them AWFULLY big ... the latter isn't a bad thing in and of itself, BUT ... 12-14 stops scaled big enough to lead congregational singing in a dead room without screeching isn't going to leave a whole lot that's quiet enough to accompany a 15-voice choir. Consider: PEDAL 16' Principal 8' Octave 4' Super Octave GREAT 8' Principal 4' Octave 2' Super Octave Mixture SWELL 8' Diapason (almost certainly required in the situation you describe) 4' Octave Mixture That's a total of ten stops right there, even omitting a Pedal mixture and a Swell 2' principal (which can be done if the Swell mixture starts at 2'). You'll NEED a 16' Pedal Principal in a dry room ... that was typical of how 19th century American builders handled dry rooms ... they strengthened the bass, and also the 8' tone ... hence the 8' diapason in the Swell. OK, add to that: PEDAL 16' Bourdon GREAT [16' Bourdon (transmission from Pedal) ] - possibly 8' Flute SWELL 8' Flute 8' Trumpet and that's your fourteen stops ... no string, no celeste, no softer reed, no 4' flute, no mutations, etc. etc. etc. ... basically a hymn-playing machine that would play SOME organ literature, IF it were VERY carefully voiced and placed. You COULD get two more manual stops by starving the Pedal and making it a single large-scale 16' stop ... that could give you a string and celeste on the Swell, or a Cornet III on the Great and an Oboe on the Swell ... the latter would be my choice ... some would argue for a Trumpet on the Great and the Oboe on the Swell, but I'm basically of the opinion that if there's going to be only ONE trumpet, it should be under expression so that you can have a species of "Full Swell to Reed(s)" and also be able to play SOME French romantic music. Cheers, Bud Oboe32@aol.com wrote: > > Hey gang, as I sit and scribble out specifications during my tedious = World > History Summer class, I wonder what is essential to smaller organs. With = my > church approaching the time for a new organ, and with other churches = doing > such, I'm curious as to what you all think. I know much depends upon the > room, so lets set the mood: > > 500 Seat Church > Acoustic of about 1 to 2 seconds > Space for about 12 to 14 ranks. > 15 voice choir > > Lets see some stoplists... > > Pete Isherwood > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:email@example.com > Administration: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:email@example.com
(back) Subject: RE: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:08:29 -0400 David B. writes: >My two cents' worth on your question is that changing settings with = seasons is frequent enough... changes in the settings of the liturgy for = seasons like Advent and Lent are helpful in accentuating the penitential nature = of the season. More festive settings are used for Christmastide and Eastertide... and variety during the lengthy season after Pentecost. That would be my preference, too. In addition to your well made = points, there is simply the French observation "La plus que =E7a change, la = plus que c'est la meme chose." If everything changes every week, the constant = change itself gives an impression of sameness. I think it was in _That Hideous Strength_ that C.S. Lewis gave us the picture of a young couple who loved the weather-- not just the good = weather, but all weather delighted them. They would drive into the country for = a picnic, and if it rained, no matter, they would eat their sandwiches in = the car and watch the rain with as much pleasure as if they were lying in = the sun. They were, of course, particularly interested in how the weather changes during the various seasons of the year. Then Lewis mused that = human beings are creatures who are bored by constant sameness, while constant change makes them confused and anxious. God's ingenious solution to = this dilemma is to give us a world full of cycles. We are immersed in = change, but some of it is gradual change and most of it is predictable.=20 I think that there is a deep wisdom in this insight, and it is one = reason I don't envy those who eschew the liturgical year and wake up every = morning to another nondescript, undifferentiated day. They must not know what = they are missing.
(back) Subject: RE: The Essentials of a Small Organ From: <SProt82850@cs.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:12:50 -0400 Before any of us attempt to create a stoplist, I have a few questions: 1. What is the purpose of this organ? Acompaniment? Solo literature? Background noise to cover movement or awkward moments of silence? 2. Is unification/borrowing allowed? 3. What is the musical tradition of the church? 4. What kind of music does the choir do? 5. What kind of organ literature will be most often played? 6. What kind of action is desired? These questions are intended to give us more of a framework to design = within. Steven
(back) Subject: Sampling versus real-time From: "Cheryl C Hart" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:08:13 +0100 The different interpretations of 'real-time' have become a bit confusing! As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice: "a word means whatever I want it to mean" - but I would like to try and clarify what should be a very useful term. Ernest frequently says "If it sounds right, it IS right!". If it sounds wrong, no amount of sales talk or computer speak will convince a musician to like something that 'sounds wrong'. What we (and a lot of other people) understand by real-time is what actually happens in the organ as the organist is playing - not what happened when samples were being taken and put into the organ during manufacture. In a sampling organ, playing a key with a particular stop 'on' initiates a pre-determined succession of sounds, which have = previously been put into the organ. A real-time computer organ will make all the calculations from instructions, rather than start a re-play process, and take heed of what other notes are being played, how steady the wind supply = for that rank is supposed to be, and generally do a huge amount of number-crunching as the note is played. The real-time process enables the voicer to get closer to the art of voicing pipes, because the voicer can address every harmonic separately, and immediately hear what he is doing to that individual note. So many other parameters are equally under the control of the voicer, including whether some harmonics initially speak sharp or flat, and of course, the all-important decay characteristics - such as the 'death rattle' of a = reed, and the change in pitch of a flue as the pallet closes. I have heard several "me-too" protests from others, but we are quite certain that we = can make far more artistic voicing alterations to all these parameters than = can be done with a sampling system, however good. At 11:01 11/06/02 -0500, Gary wrote: >what you hear coming out the speakers is that the actual pipe >sampled sound or some manipulated (simulated) software string made to = sound >as close to pipe as possible and thereby losing valuable pipe data in the >process. It is quite true that, if the record/replay process were perfect, you = would stand to hear a very good reproduction of a pipe that was voiced by somebody else in a different building. I would certainly agree that this is the cheapest way to make a good organ - no doubt about that. But when Gary refers to "manipulated software strings losing valuable pipe data" - = I really think he is begging the question of sampling versus real-time. Our data is initially derived from our own FFT analyses of pipes that we have recorded, but the difference is that these analyses are used as a START for the process, not the finished result. Every pipe organ company = has access to a good voicer, as should every electronic company, and any pipe voicer will tell you that he does not want middle C of his Open Diapason in church A to be an exact replica of the same stop in church B. You need to be able to make changes - some quite drastic ones - to all = sorts of aspects of each note in the building, and this obviously means more expensive computer hardware, and a lot more time in voicing (in our case several days or weeks on site), but those who hear and play our instruments say that it is well worth it. Yesterday afternoon - whilst I was reading through the pipechat offerings of earlier in the day, and becoming very frustrated by our server's inability to let me receive email after mid-day (I went home at 6 pm and still it was not working, but thank goodness it was this morning) - Ernest = took a very distinguished American gentleman to Keble College, Oxford, where he declared unequivocally that he thought the organ was streets = ahead of anything that he has heard. We have had so many similar compliments, and indeed so many orders where people are happy to pay our prices, that there has to be something in what I say! (Yes, I remember the well-known adage that Ernest once coined, "if you lock ten organists in a room, you will get out eleven different and totally irreconcilable opinions".) Harvey asked the question - under the Subject: Re: Makin Regal = 338/Johannus Opus 30 - >Isn't Musicom a successor to another company? Musicom is a success, not a successor. The Company was started by Tony Koorlander in the '80s, in very close collaboration with us - who were the = first to order their hardware - and the co-operation has been close ever since. Up to that time, we had been making what were then = state-of-the-art analogue organs, but Musicom not only convinced us to go digital, but in the succeeding years developed what had started out as the 'Bradford' system (Ernest was a consultant on that at Bradford University several years before), and have developed, independently of the University, new versions of the hardware and system software, which we think are the very = best. Meanwhile, Bradford University have been developing the system in = different ways, and their designs are used by our good friends at Wyvern. Ernest has the greatest admiration for Peter and Lucy Comerford, at the University, and knows that they will have developed something good: but = it all falls within the fairly strict definition of 'real-time' computing. I have so enjoyed reading all your thoughts (thank you for the pleasure), and giving mine above, that I haven't achieved as much as I should today, and if this is somewhat disjointed it's only because of the stuff I have HAD to do in between times, and the old brain is beginning to feel a wee bit taxed with all the to-ing and fro-ing (a bit like a grasshopper). So = I think it's now fingers-in-the-soil time (I find it's great for brain repair) while daylight lasts. IMNSHO, I think we've done this topic = proud - and exhausted it (probably). :-) Cheryl http://www.copemanhart.co.uk
(back) Subject: RE: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: <DrB88@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:16:56 -0400 Thank you, Paul.... well said. I loved the Lewis space trilogy too, and = have often used their quip "we like weather" in the same vein. Having = grown up on the conservative Evangelical side of the fence, where there = was little sense of organization to the year other than National and = Hallmark holidays, Rally Day, plus Palm Sunday, Easter and Christmas, I = have more recently come to understand the impact of the cycles of the = church year and the balance they bring. Balance is the operative = word...as you ably pointed out. David
(back) Subject: Lutheran Liturgies, etc. From: <Pepehomer@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:03:06 -0400 First off, I really have enjoyed this whole thread leading to other = threads over this past week. I haven't read this many posts with so much = interest in a while (NOT saying that the other conversations aren't = lively!) I am actually quite surprised that there are other LCMS and possibly ELCA = churches that use the same liturgy every week. Wow. In my church, we = rotate (or what you can rotate using the LBW) Communion Sundays we either = use the well-loved "This is the Feast" Divine Service I (Divine II, first = setting in the "new blue" hymnal.) or we use the simple and effective = service of confession and forgiveness (I don't know it's exact name right = off the top of my head, mostly because that service has no music.) That = eliminates the first and third Sundays of the month. Then we either use = the Service of the Word (with two canticles), or use the Responsive Prayer = service (once again, no music). We tried Matins out the LBW once out of the eight years I have been here. = Horrible tragedy. Turned into one long organ solo. I hope the Synod is = going back and using the LW version of Matins for the upcoming hymnal. = You can't beat the Te Deum (oh I hope I remembered the correct part - the = slightly long part with the key change for the middle three verses). I = get fired up just playing it alone. I have only recently heard about this "With One Voice", as I am about to = play for a service at my grandparents church in Enid, OK. They told me = that they like to use that hymnal and I was afraid it was just a = collection of spiritual songs. I guess I need to get back into the "loop" = of music. Of course, I think my church will probably wait until the new = hymnal comes out before spending any money. We're about to kick of a = campaign to build a badly needed new sanctuary. We're busting at the = seams, yet no one is in favor of doing a second service. Justin Karch Organist, Holy Trinity LCMS Rome, GA
(back) Subject: RE: Cavaille-Coll From: "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:08:21 -0400 >French phonetic pronunciation of Cavaille-Coll? Cah-vah-YAY cawl (There should be an acute accent over the e).
(back) Subject: Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:39:39 EDT --part1_1a2.3a64733.2a3a4efb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2002 11:44:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, = DrB88@aol.com writes: > My fear would be that too frequent a change could result in worshipers = being > unable to focus on their purpose---worship---because they are too > preoccupied with the vehicle of expression. The balance here will be > different in every parish, I imagine, but is a worthy consideration. You're missing my very point which was, in essence, if you keep throwing = new stuff out there, there comes a point where you've/they've got a (prepare = for musicians' buzzword) REPERTOIRE from which to choose. That is what I was trying to convey from the example of my own church. We're now to that = point where no part of the service music is ever the same from week to week, yet = all of the music is "in the repertoire" and, therefore, doesn't cause the lack of focus you fear. The way I implemented it was to throw in ONE new movement - let's say a Sanctus, sing it for three weeks in a row, then throw in a different = Gloria or something, run it for three weeks while still running the Sanctus, then = dr op back to the well known Sanctus on the third week of the new Gloria, = then add another different part the next week......etc., etc., etc. There was always one new part somewhere that ran for 3 weeks, but ALWAYS reverting = back to the well known version after that run. After about six months of that.....guess what.....you have LOTS of new things that the people now "know". I know all that was confusing, but hopefully you get the idea. So, that's why I say, "setting" six is the long-awaited license to go for it!! Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would probably = be a negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with the whole "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, and of course that's overwhelming for people. "setting" six.....you've heard about it, you've read about it, go for it!~ = :-) Jeremy --part1_1a2.3a64733.2a3a4efb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a message dated = 6/13/2002 11:44:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DrB88@aol.com writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">My fear would be = that too frequent a change could result in worshipers being unable to = focus on their purpose---worship---because they are too preoccupied with = the vehicle of expression. The balance here will be different in = every parish, I imagine, but is a worthy consideration. </FONT><FONT = COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 = FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" = SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR> You're missing my very point which was, in essence, if you keep throwing = new stuff out there, there comes a point where you've/they've got a = (prepare for musicians' buzzword) REPERTOIRE from which to choose. = That is what I was trying to convey from the example of my own = church. We're now to that point where no part of the service music = is ever the same from week to week, yet all of the music is "in the = repertoire" and, therefore, doesn't cause the lack of focus you fear.<BR> <BR> The way I implemented it was to throw in ONE new movement - let's say a = Sanctus, sing it for three weeks in a row, then throw in a different = Gloria or something, run it for three weeks while still running the = Sanctus, then drop back to the well known Sanctus on the third week of the = new Gloria, then add another different part the next week......etc., etc., = etc. There was always one new part somewhere that ran for 3 weeks, = but ALWAYS reverting back to the well known version after that run. = After about six months of that.....guess what.....you have LOTS of new things that the people now = "know". I know all that was confusing, but hopefully you get the = idea.<BR> <BR> So, that's why I say, "setting" six is the long-awaited license to go for = it!! Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would = probably be a negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with = the whole "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, = and of course that's overwhelming for people.<BR> <BR> "setting" six.....you've heard about it, you've read about it, go for it!~ = :-)<BR> <BR> Jeremy</FONT></HTML> --part1_1a2.3a64733.2a3a4efb_boundary--
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: <FLTim@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:01:19 EDT Hopefully, no one out there is considering buying an instrument based on = this kind of technical arm-wrestling. A bride walking down the isle in your church won't be concerned one bit if the organ in the church has the = fastest chips, the most gigabytes of memory or biggest spark-plugs. In my experience, organ salespeople who try to sell based on one = particular link of a VERY LONG technical chain do so because the other guy is selling = an organ that actually sounds better. Best regards, Tim Newby
(back) Subject: Chicago Symphony Organ From: "William T. Van Pelt" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:58:39 -0400 A new CD features American works for organ and orchestra by Sowerby, = Piston, Barber and Michael Colgrass as played by David Schrader and the Grant Park Orchestra (including many Chicago Symphony musicians, we're told) = conducted by Carlos Kalmar, in Symphony Hall, Chicago. The hall replaced its 1982 Moller with a 3m Casavant of 60 ranks in 1998. This is the first CD of the organ. The organ is somewhat unique for today in that consultant, organist, and organbuilder Jeff Weiler (an OHS member) specified windpressures of 6", = 10" and 25" throughout the new organ. The CD booklet contains and interesting essay by Weiler on the design. Available at http://www.ohscatalog.org on the opening page, of course.
(back) Subject: RE: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: "Emmons, Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:05:41 -0400 Jeremy suggests: >throw in ONE new movement - let's say a Sanctus, sing it for three weeks = in a row, then throw in a different Gloria or something, run it for three = weeks while still running the Sanctus, then drop back to the well known Sanctus = on the third week of the new Gloria, then add another different part the next week Very good pedagogy, I think. That is the way I would want to introduce = new repertoire, too. >Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would probably be a negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with the whole "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, and of course that's overwhelming for people. But why should it be overwhelming if all movements are already in the repertoire that you have developed? (Bear in mind that my ideal for congregational settings would not be weekly change, but seasonal or, in Trinitytide, every coupla months). So much more musical depth is possible when a composer can look at the entire mass, as they have traditionally been able to do, so that the setting as a whole has some sense of development and unifying devices. Taking several service settings each written as a suite, picking them apart, and nibbling at individual movements cafeteria-style does violence to the conception. This isn't the recommended way to listen to sonatas or symphonies, is it? Of course, when musicians acquiesce in this they delight liturgical tinkerers and busybodies, who would love to think of the Gloria in = Excelsis, for instance, as just one hymn out of several and maybe plug in a Te Deum = or a Trisagion or a metrical version in its place, whatever strikes their fancy. Why else do you think the 1982 Hymnal is (dis-) organized as it = is?
(back) Subject: Re: Cavaille-Coll From: "pat and ian" <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:16:35 +0930 Hi! This is my "two cents worth". Or should it be "two euros worth"? KAH-VIE-EH-KOL This IS CERTAINMENT going to be LE thread! (or should it be LA thread?). It was a long, long time, though, since I was taught French at school. La femme teacher was nice, though! Ian. > From: "David Carter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Reply-To: "PipeChat" <email@example.com> > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:51:29 +0000 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Cavaille-Coll > > Good Morning, Fellow Pipechatters - > Not having much knowledge of French pronunciation, could a list member > provide me (privately if you wish, or on list if you think it might be = of > general interest), the French phonetic pronunciation of Cavaille-Coll?
(back) Subject: Re: Digital "voicing" From: "Bruce Miles" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:08:50 +0100 Hello all, As the author of one of the freely available sets of digital organ sounds (soundfonts) on the web, may I chip (!*!) in here. I have shown that it is possible, with care, to create, from scratch, = quite realistic organ pipe sounds using nothing more than a good ear, some free software and a home computer. If your machine can handle soundfonts you = can judge for yourself if you go to my web site (below) - where you will find = an 'English Organ' (rather un-baroque) and a 'Cinema Organ' (very un-baroque indeed). There are also some short 'sound-clips' which any computer can handle.Some sounds are better than others - this is more due to lack of patience and time than for any other reason. I make no great claims for these, they not professional standard simulations much less exact replicas of a Silberman or Wurlitzer organ. They were done out of interest, and in spite of their limitations have attracted many favourable comments - yes - even from professionals. Don't judge them on bog-standard computer speakers - you do at the very least need at least one decent amplifier loudspeaker set-up. I have found that the overiding quality limitations occur in the mixer - amplifier -loudspeaker part of the chain, not in the accuracy of the individual sounds. It follows that the further along the chain the mixing occurs the better the quality. One amplifier/speaker per note is the impractical ideal, one or two (bass and treble) per stop is better, and so on. Rather than using just one sound card etc., one per manual gives a worthwhile improvement, and using a quality audio card in conjunction with the usual and rather limiting Sound Blaster Live (which handles the soundfonts themselves) is also an advantage. The great fun thing about this sort of set up is that you can voice it = suit your preferences, you have great control over the accoustic environment = and can experiment with everything. I have done a little simulation of the change in tone quality produced by opening the swell shutters. (on the = Misc page) which may be of interest.. Cheers, Bruce Miles mail to:- firstname.lastname@example.org website:- http://www.gbmuk.fsnet.co.uk
(back) Subject: Re: Cavaille-Coll From: "Randolph Runyon" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:10:57 -0400 Non, mes amis. Paul Emmons was right: Cah-vah-YAY cawl (There should be an acute accent over the e). Pat and Ian say: KAH-VIE-EH-KOL Mais non, that ain't right! Sorry, guys. There must be a "yod" (the = first Y in Emmons' "YAY"), when you have double L's followed by a sounded vowel. Randy Runyon firstname.lastname@example.org Department of French and Italian Miami University (Oxford, OH 45056, USA) > > This IS CERTAINMENT going to be LE thread! (or should it be LA thread?). > > It was a long, long time, though, since I was taught French at school. = La > femme teacher was nice, though! > > Ian. > >> From: "David Carter" <email@example.com> >> Reply-To: "PipeChat" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:51:29 +0000 >> To: email@example.com >> Subject: Cavaille-Coll >> >> Good Morning, Fellow Pipechatters - >> Not having much knowledge of French pronunciation, could a list member >> provide me (privately if you wish, or on list if you think it might be = of >> general interest), the French phonetic pronunciation of Cavaille-Coll? > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Administration: mailto:email@example.com > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org >