PipeChat Digest #2908 - Saturday, June 15, 2002
 
Re: Sampling versus real-time - another approach?
  by "Adrian Nash" <adrian.nash@tesco.net>
Re: Kicking out the pastor (v. Long)
  by <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com>
OFF-TOPIC -- Preachers, preaching, etc. -- DELETE IF NOT INTERESTED
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Youth for Organs! (xp) (and pretty long)
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Youth for Organs! (xp) (and pretty long)
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Re: Kicking out the pastor (v. Long)
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Re: Youth for Organs! (xp) (and pretty long)
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Sampling versus real-time - another approach? From: "Adrian Nash" <adrian.nash@tesco.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:54:27 +0100   Hi Steve,   Thanks for your comments.   I see what you mean about modelling the synthesis to match the sample. = You can do that with the PDA method, but in this case I would just do the normal wavetable sampling if all I wanted was a reproduction of the original sample - this is perfectly possible; the scheme supports either approach. The key point is that by first breaking down a sample into partials it can be re-voiced to suit the voicer's requirements. The original analysis of a sample isn't strictly necessary - it is a good starting point - a template if you like.   I really would like to hear one of these new Yamaha synthesisers, it = sounds very impressive. The "1 foot Sax" is a good example of how PDA would be used to make it sound better. If you took even the top note of a Soprano Sax then tried to shift it up to 1' pitch it would sound horrid and may even "alias" due to high order harmonics going out of the frequency range of the synthesiser. However, with PDA, I would simply strip out these troublesome harmonics or at least tone them down, this would have the effect of rounding the sound and making it much more like what would be expected. The problem with wavetable synthesis is that the harmonic construction (and hence timbre) applies only at the actual note sampled. The moment it is shifted in pitch, that harmonic construction is =   no longer valid. This is what makes samples sound "squawky" and why more keygroups are required. What I do is interpolate between two keygroups. By phase locking two samples together and cross-fading across the keyboard, you get a gradual shift of timbre between the samples rather =   than an abrupt change.   Reverb is not really my field. I think that in the end, there is a limit to what can be achieved with electronic reverb, it is still probably best to provide a digital organ with a large number of speakers and let the natural acoustics do the "processing". However, in a home situation for practice purposes, this is not usually practical. I have found that exploiting the 3D hardware mixing capabilities of the new breed of sound cards does go some way to improving the "mix" of pipe choruses. The problem is that a "flat" mix that does not include effects such as time-delay and phase changes not to mention the reverb aspects can suffer from the A + B equals C phenomenon ie, two distinct waveforms when mixed together are not heard as two separate waveforms anymore but a sort of hybrid that sounds like neither.   Velocity response? Yes, you can change the timbre with repect to velocity so you can vary the amount of chiff on an un-nicked pipe for example in real-time. The problem is, you need a velocity-sensitive keyboard which most organ consols are not. The trick is to layer two phase-locked waveforms together with different velocity-attack characteristics. As the =   velocity is increased, one waveform will start to dominate the other, for example bringing out more 3rd harmonic and hence chiff.   Sorry for *another* long reply! Best Regards Adrian     At 15:06 14/06/02 -0500, you wrote: > > Adrian Nash wrote a rather lengthy response to Cheryl at Copeman Hart: > > > > It is astounding just how powerful a 2GHz PC is these days. The main > > limitation seems to be the operating system rather than sheer = processing > > power in these real-time applications. Even so, Windows doesn't do = too bad > > a job considering I can download my email or my wife writes a letter = in > > "Word" whilst I am playing my heart out with all the stops drawn - = through > > headphones you understand, my wife is tolerant but not *that* = tolerant! > > > > This is a "home grown" project borne out of an interest in this kind = of > > thing and a lack of budget for a really good digital organ. I've = found > > like many subscribers, the cheaper end of the digital organ market = just > > doesn't cut the mustard but yet, who has upwards of $10,000 to buy a = really > > good one? Not me! I would be very interested in others comments and > > suggestions. > > > > > >Adrian I'm curious about a number of things. From what you describe you >model the synthesis to match what you sample. I don't see how that is >significantly different from sampling, you just use a different route to >get the same result. > >I have a Yamaha synthesizer that does virtual modelling. It has models of =   >Saxophone or trumpet and then calculates what it would sound like with >variables for breath pressure and lip pressure. It's fairly realistic but =   >the resulting sound is very raw, imagine a Sax at 1 foot. It can be >softened by mixing in a sample and/or adding ambience. I'm a bit of a >perfectionist on reverbs because my end result is a recording not just >personal enjoyment. Really good reverbs are very processor intensive. > >I also wondered if your synthesis included velocity response and = attempted >to model tracker action? That would seem pretty cool, but I'd have no = idea >of how to do it. > >Thanks for your post it was very interesting. > >Steve Chandler > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: Kicking out the pastor (v. Long) From: <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:02:18 EDT     --part1_f3.1c81eaf2.2a3bcffa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In a message dated 6/14/2002 5:46:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, acfreed0904@earthlink.net writes:     > > The church council recently decided to hire a guest preacher one = Sunday a > > month because the pastor needed more time to write his sermons. > > Pathetic. At the very MOST they should of "offered" to hire a guest = once a > month, if pastor wished. They've called him to preach; if he's a lousy > preacher, (1) they should have known that when they called him; (2) they > should just live with it; (3) it's not grounds for such action.   Most pastors, when giving their "trial sermon" do wonderfully. Why? = Because they actually put a large amount of preparation into it. Face it....most pastors, while they might put together a great one once in a while, do NOT = do this regularly. I wish more congregations would take this kind of initiative......ditto with we musicians. If my music started to suck (for =   lack of a better expression) and I was told someone would come in to play = one Sunday a month "because I needed more time to practice", you can be pretty =   sure I'm going to get back in shape and present things at the first-rate level God deserves.   Just my 2 cents   --part1_f3.1c81eaf2.2a3bcffa_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">In a message dated 6/14/2002 5:46:57 PM Eastern = Daylight Time, acfreed0904@earthlink.net writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt; The church = council recently decided to hire a guest preacher one Sunday a<BR> &gt; month because the pastor needed more time to write his sermons.<BR> <BR> Pathetic.&nbsp; At the very MOST they should of "offered" to hire a guest = once a<BR> month, if pastor wished.&nbsp; They've called him to preach; if he's a = lousy<BR> preacher, (1) they should have known that when they called him; (2) = they<BR> should just live with it; (3) it's not grounds for such = action.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> Most pastors, when giving their "trial sermon" do wonderfully.&nbsp; = Why?&nbsp; Because they actually put a large amount of preparation into = it.&nbsp; Face it....most pastors, while they might put together a great = one once in a while, do NOT do this regularly.&nbsp; I wish more = congregations would take this kind of initiative......ditto with we = musicians.&nbsp; If my music started to suck (for lack of a better = expression) and I was told someone would come in to play one Sunday a = month "because I needed more time to practice", you can be pretty sure I'm = going to get back in shape and present things at the first-rate level God = deserves. <BR> <BR> Just my 2 cents</FONT></HTML>   --part1_f3.1c81eaf2.2a3bcffa_boundary--  
(back) Subject: OFF-TOPIC -- Preachers, preaching, etc. -- DELETE IF NOT INTERESTED From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:23:24 -0700   We use the old one-year lectionary, but that still gives the priest the choice of preaching on   1 - the Psalm 2 - the Old Testament Lesson from Morning Prayer 3 - the New Testament Lesson from Morning Prayer 4 - the Collect at Mass 5 - the Epistle at Mass 6 - the Gospel at Mass 7 - whatever he feels like preaching on (grin)   I've been at St. Matthew's five years now, and I've NEVER heard the Rector repeat a sermon, OR preach a BAD one ... they're INFURIATING at times, but never BAD (chuckle).   One reason: you can set your WATCH by them. They are TEN MINUTES LONG, period, and not one SECOND longer. He says what he has to say, and gets on with the Mass.   I've often felt like the "preaching" churches are sorta in the "eggs in one basket" situation ... if you have a GOOD preacher, GREAT; if you don't, well, you don't keep your congregations very long.   MOST priests (Anglican OR Roman Catholic) CAN'T preach, but it doesn't much matter ... Mass (and the life of the parish) goes on. I've known some well-beloved priests who were DREADFUL *preachers*, but good *pastors*. I think that's more important.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Youth for Organs! (xp) (and pretty long) From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:25:05 -0400   I can't remember to whom I was talking about elderly Norwegians resisting organs in churches in pietistic Norwegian southern Minnesota, a century or so back. But I've got the quote now, from the history of Hauges Church, Jackson County, Minn. Herewith:   In the early days it was not customary for the congregation to have any special program for the young people. It depended mostly on the parents to look after their children. The young people, after they were confirmed, wer= e turned loose to take care of themselves. It depended a great deal on the parent=B9s attitude. Under these circumstances many of the young people started on a bad road away from church and Christian influence. Something had to be done to remedy this condition.   The opportunity to do something came when Peter Williams, a school teacher and well known by me [the aged pastor, who wrote this memoir many years later], wanted to have a sideline besides teaching school. He was quite a musician and a good singer. We had him start a singing school. The young people had had no training in that line. There were only two organs in this [Minnesota Territory? I don't know; seems unlikely.] territory. The publi= c school system was very meager in those days. There had not been much opportunity for the young people to get a good education. The singing schoo= l became a great success. The young people came together in the schoolhouse t= o sing and were very enthusiastic. They were handicapped by not having an organ. Then they decided to buy one [from the Monkey Ward Catalog, I've heard from another source] and to ask the congregation to place it in the church so they could meet there for singing. Everything had gone fine so far, only some grumbling by certain old people. [They'e STILL with us! (I'll be 70 next month.)] I was always along at these meetings to see that everything went along orderly as I knew there were some who watched to find fault. This school started in the fall of 1893. In October 1894 the young people asked the congregation for permission to put the organ they had bought in the church and to meet there to sing as they practiced only religious songs. They also told the congregation, if it desired, the organ could be used at the services and that it would be a donation to the congregation. A motion was made to accept the request.   Now came what I had expected, the opposition found an opportunity for protest. They put up a fight against the motion to allow an organ in the church and for young people to meet there and sing. They used the Bible and their own old experience in sin [note that phrase!] to prove how terribly wrong it was. There were not many held this opinion, but they did make a great stir. Those who took a different view did not say much. The motion wa= s carried with a big majority and the meeting was well attended. To quiet thi= s disturbance, I asked the congregation to not use the organ at the services for some time. Meantime the young people continued with their singing, very enthusiastically.   At a meeting May 11, 1895, the congregation decided to put the organ into use at the service. At Pentecost the same year the organ was taken into use and August Lokken, a fine young man, was the first organist in Hauges congregation. [He's the paternal grandfather of the old pal who supplied this quote--and some of you may know him from "orgue-l."] Those who oppose= d the organ in church were present at the service. It was customary on the festival days [Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, as I recall] that the members of the congregation walk around the altar [in Norwegian church architecture= , the altar (and its high reredos) was freestanding in the middle of the apse= , fronted by a semicircular communion rail] and give an offering [into offering plates placed on the south and north ends of the mensa--later, the north end plate was for the organist] to the pastor. It was also customary that the audience should sing a hymn at the same time. The Guldbergs hymnar= y was used. A certain hymn was designated for this purpose and the organist played this hymn according to the notes in Lindeman=B9s book. After the service one man made the remark that today a dance tune was played in the church when the congregation went around the altar with their offering to the pastor.   The good work for the welfare of the young people continued. A Young People=B9s Society was organized. They had their meetings in the church with fine programs, with songs, reading, declamations and short talks. Many people came to the meetings. The opposition of this movement did not forget to come, sitting in the back part of the church and interested in finding fault. If I asked some of them to come forward and say a good word to encourage the young people, it was refused. Instead they came to me and asked me not to continue those meetings. One of the deacons came to me with tears in his eyes and asked me to discontinue the meetings. They were afrai= d it would turn out to be something very bad, judging from their own early sinful life [Ah, yes, THAT!]. I told them unless they could prove it was wrong, I should never give up helping the young people.   Those same people never came to me and complained and asked for help, when some of the young people went to dances, card parties and drinking parties. It is to be understood it was not the whole congregation that took such a stand and looked at the movement as something wrong. The big majority had a different view. The opposition came from the south part of the congregation= .. Then there were a few exceptions on the south end. There were many fine Christian people but there were many fault finders, narrow-minded, stingy, legalistic [hey! this old pastor knew his people!], and if they should fin= d something good and perfect, they had to look at themselves. The people in the north end were different. They were broad-minded, hospitable, and alway= s ready to donate and help a good and worthy cause. The young people were always willing to help in the congregation when given an opportunity. I never had any trouble with the church members in the north part of the congregation.   BARN DANCES AND BAD HABITS   A very bad evil started in the settlement by people outside the congregatio= n and by some other nationalities. They moved in, bought land, built houses and barns and when completed it should be dedicated with dancing and beer drinking. It was a trap to catch the young people and not so easy to get ri= d of. I went to those people as a pastor and had a nice talk with them, that we as a Christian congregation were opposed to this, and asked them kindly to refrain from it. In most instances it had a good result.   For some years a bad habit and a bad example for the young people had been going on among some members of the congregation, to serve wine and beer and sometimes stronger drink at weddings and other gatherings. At a meeting May 12, 1900, it was brought up and a resolution passed, that the congregation would not tolerate such traffic and considered it a great sin and an offens= e for the church members to visit saloons.   End of quotation   I enjoy these old memoirs. Enjoy, if it's to your taste. Or USE, if that'= s appropriate in your situation.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Youth for Organs! (xp) (and pretty long) From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:44:50 -0400   on 6/14/02 7:25 PM, Alan Freed at acfreed0904@earthlink.net wrote:   > I can't remember to whom I was talking about elderly Norwegians = resisting > organs in churches in pietistic Norwegian southern Minnesota, a century = or > so back. But I've got the quote now, from the history of Hauges Church, > Jackson County, Minn. Herewith: > > In the early days it was not customary for the congregation to have any > special program for the young people....   Thanks, Alan, for this fascinating glimpse into the past! I loved reading it.     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: Re: Kicking out the pastor (v. Long) From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:15:16 -0400   on 6/14/02 5:45 PM, Alan Freed at acfreed0904@earthlink.net wrote:     I know of one > case locally where the bishop sacked a pastor because of a sex problem = with > a lady 30 years ago. There was strong and obvious resentment of the > bishop's action among Synod clergy, and his congregation left the Synod > (joining a splinter group) and re-called their pastor of quite a few = years. > And (conventional wisdom among the clergy and layfolk too) the bishop = was > specifically because of that unelected at the next election. Our = present > bishop was JUST last week re-elected, and first one re-elected here in = the > life of the ELCA.   Great story! >> >> The church council recently decided to hire a guest preacher one Sunday = a >> month because the pastor needed more time to write his sermons. > > Pathetic. At the very MOST they should of "offered" to hire a guest = once a > month, if pastor wished. They've called him to preach; if he's a lousy > preacher, (1) they should have known that when they called him; (2) they > should just live with it; (3) it's not grounds for such action.   I should say that all I know is what I read in the church monthly newsletter, which reported this. It is conceivable that the pastor requested a Sunday off on his own, but I don't know. I do know that for = all the extra sermons he had to deliver on Wednesdays during Lent, he was = quite up front about saying he got them from some book of meditations on = something or other. It was abundantly evident that the language was not his own. Poor guy can't write his way out of a paper bag.   On the Sundays he doesn't preach he will still lead the liturgy. I'm reluctant to start asking around, "Was this his idea or theirs?" for fear = of stirring up trouble. He's the one for whom the job is his family's livelihood, not me. On the positive side, he's had good success in = bringing new people into the church. As Bud says in a recent posting, sermons = aren't the most important thing if you've got good liturgy, which, being fairly traditional (setting 1 alternating with setting 2), we do. And at least = the sermons are short: I timed last Sunday's and it was exactly ten minutes. = I grew up in a Disciples of Christ church with a fabulous preacher whose sermons were always twenty minutes and always gave me food for thought for the rest of the week. I miss that, but in fact have not heard good preaching in any church I've served since then, and that was forty years ago. It's a dying art.   >...she had VERY little acquaintance with Lutheran > culture or ethos or whatever it is. She had NO acquaintance with = Luther's > Small Catechism, which just runs in my/our blood constantly; I quote it = to > myself or others every DAY! Luther's explanations of the three articles = of > the Apostles' Creed rank with the finest Christian writing since 8000 = B.C.!   This has been my only disappointment since coming to this church a year = ago. I expected to revel in Martin Luther here, but he is practically never mentioned. I read a fair amount of his works (commentary on Romans, etc.) as a freshman in college in the 1960s and have retained a great respect = and affection for the man. By the way, have you read Gustaf Aulen's _Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement_ (1961)? Aulen argues that Luther is the only one since ancient times to ever get the doctrine of the atonement right, undoing the damage Anselm did. In the words of the Lesser Catechism: Christ "has delivered, purchased, and won me, a lost and doomed man, from all sins, from death = and the devil's power." Christ ransomed man from the devil; Christ was not, = as many have it, propitiating an angry God. But alas, as Aulen points out, "Luther's contemporaries and successors went right back to the Latin type = of [atonement] doctrine. Melanchthon [failed] to understand his great = teacher" (p. xv). And so though Luther got atonement right, Lutheranism doesn't.   In my church, they don't talk about Luther. What DO they talk about? Last year it was that ridiculous book on the prayer of Jabez. This year it's (the noted antiSemite) Billy Graham, who's coming to Cincinnati in a = couple of weeks.     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: Re: Youth for Organs! (xp) (and pretty long) From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:29:59 -0400   On 6/14/02 7:44 PM, "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> wrote:   > on 6/14/02 7:25 PM, Alan Freed at acfreed0904@earthlink.net wrote: > >> I can't remember to whom I was talking about elderly Norwegians = resisting >> organs in churches in pietistic Norwegian southern Minnesota, a century = or >> so back. But I've got the quote now, from the history of Hauges = Church, >> Jackson County, Minn. Herewith: >> >> In the early days it was not customary for the congregation to have any >> special program for the young people.... > > Thanks, Alan, for this fascinating glimpse into the past! I loved = reading > it. > I knew you would. I knew your would--and I'm optimistic that a few others will have done so as well.   Thanks for your thanks.   Alan