PipeChat Digest #2922 - Wednesday, June 19, 2002
 
Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin)
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin)
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
not to beat a deceased equine, BUT ...
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: not to beat a deceased equine, BUT ...
  by <Icedad@aol.com>
The One-Manual Market
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: not to beat a deceased equine, BUT ...
  by "C. Joseph Nichols" <cjn@nicholsandsimpson.com>
Hey, Bruce Cornely . . .
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
Re: Mollers
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com>
Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin)
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com>
Gress-Miles
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
one-manual organs
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Gress-Miles
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Glenda's Sunday Dinner--off topic
  by "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org>
One Manual Instruments
  by "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net>
Re: Correction to My Narrative! Okra revisited!
  by <Chicaleee@aol.com>
Re: Gress-Miles
  by "Gary Black" <gblack@ocslink.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin) From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:27:59 -0500   On 6/19/02 2:15 PM, Phil_Cooper@dot.ca.gov wrote:   > I'm not interested in > sales numbers, my job is to be concerned with art.   You asked how I figured that organ committees were driven more to the digital salesman than to the one-manual organ builder. I told you to look = at the sales numbers. That was not in itself a judgement of whether they were artistic or whether they should have done that. That was a comment about what organ committees are deciding about musical needs in churches. Overwhelmingly, if they've got limited dollars to spend, committees are opting for competent digital substitutes over the tiny one-manual trackers available at entry level prices.   By the way, organs in churches are not primarily about art. They are about suitability for enhancing the worship of God in hymns, in liturgical = music, in accompanying choral music and only lastly in pure organ music. Organs = in churches are not primarily for recitals - they are for services and must fulfill that need well before any other need is even looked at.   If art and utility coincide, that is wonderful. It is inappropriate = however to place art above utility. Unless you are willing to pay for it yourself, it is in fact fraudulent to pose as an expert and convince others to buy = an instrument which suits your wants and ignores their needs.   Cheers, Russ Still a pipe lover (never a digital salesperson)    
(back) Subject: Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin) From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:42:28 -0500   > 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.   --Boundary_(ID_K3Qn7eD1Ec2jcJ6Slhedvg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   On 6/19/02 5:09 PM, Cremona502@cs.com wrote:   > Sadly, the people who remind us that the "organists who will follow" = only=3D seem > to consider that those organists will have taste identical to their own. >=3D20 > Much better to live within beautiful arbitrary limitations that to have = a > large arsenal of mediocre reproduced ones.   Bruce, Sadly, it has been my experience that the ones who seem to consider that =3DB3the organists who will follow=3DB2 will have taste identical to their = own are those who cloak their arbitrary limitations in protestations of art and beauty, only another term for their particular bias. What I want in a = churc=3D h organ is as much versatility as possible, knowing that it will be called upon to perform a wide range of tasks during its lifetime. This does not imply mediocrity but rather intelligent compromise leaning toward the organ=3DB9s use rather than the organist=3DB9s particular artistic bias.   TTFN, Russ   --Boundary_(ID_K3Qn7eD1Ec2jcJ6Slhedvg) Content-type: text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT   <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">On 6/19/02 5:09 PM, Cremona502@cs.com wrote:<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Sadly, the people who remind us = that the &quot;organists who will follow&quot; only seem to consider that = those organists will have taste identical to their own. <BR> <BR> Much better to live within beautiful arbitrary limitations that to have a = large arsenal of mediocre reproduced ones.<BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR> Bruce,<BR> Sadly, it has been my experience that the ones who seem to consider that = &#8220;the organists who will follow&#8221; will have taste identical to = their own are those who cloak their arbitrary limitations in protestations = of art and beauty, only another term for their particular bias. What I = want in a church organ is as much versatility as possible, knowing that it = will be called upon to perform a wide range of tasks during its lifetime. = This does not imply mediocrity but rather intelligent compromise leaning = toward the organ&#8217;s use rather than the organist&#8217;s particular = artistic bias.<BR> <BR> TTFN,<BR> Russ</FONT> </BODY> </HTML>     --Boundary_(ID_K3Qn7eD1Ec2jcJ6Slhedvg)--  
(back) Subject: not to beat a deceased equine, BUT ... From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:29:04 -0700   Bartow, Fla, c. 1950 - population 12,000 people.   Organs:   First Baptist Church - 3m Moller, 1920s, rebuilt 1960s with no tonal changes   First Methodist Church - 2m Estey, teens (?), replaced by a 2m Aeoline, 1920s (?) in the late 1930s-early 1940s, replaced by a 2m McManis unit organ in the 1970s (?), after a hurricane blew the roof off the organ chamber. The Estey went to my mother's church in nearby Mulberry, where it has since been replaced by a 4-rank "Florida" Skinner unit organ.   Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church - 2m Moller, 1920s, maintained   First Presbyterian Church - 2m Hope-Jones CHURCH (!) organ, teens (?), replaced by a ?m Schantz, 1980s (?)   First Christian Church - 2m Moller, 1920s, maintained   Holy Trinity Episcopal Church - Moller Artiste, 1930s, sold to the Lutherans, along with the old church ... the new church has an Allen.   Atonement Lutheran Church - the Episcopalians' Artiste, above   Asbury Methodist - the Allen TC-1 out of my home, replaced with a newer one in the 1980s   ??? Memorial Presbyterian Church - Wurlitzer spinet   ??? Baptist Church - Thomas spinet, replaced with an Allen in the 1960s   St. Thomas RC church - reed organ, later replaced by a Hammond spinet   Except for the Methodists, Moller pretty much made a clean sweep (grin).   The silly Episcopalians built a new church-in-the-round that wouldn't ACCOMMODATE a pipe organ, not even their little Artiste.   First Methodist is a good example of determination to have a pipe organ .... they bought the Estey new; somebody gave them the Aeoline out of Edward Bok's mansion; after the hurricane, they bought the McManis second-hand from somewhere. Somebody recently discovered the ruins of the Aeoline in a barn somewhere, and is trying to get the Bok Tower Gardens authorities to restore it and install it in the Visitors' Center.   My point: the churches that were determined to have pipe organs HAVE pipe organs ... either they have maintained their old ones, or they have replaced them with newer pipe organs.   The Mollers are all pretty typical for the period, some better than others.   The Christian Church's organ was the smallest ... an Open Diapason on the Great, and everything else borrowed from the Swell.   The ARP organ was a mid-sized 2m, with EXCELLENT placement AND acoustics. I particularly remember a FINE Swell Cornopean.   The Baptist organ was essentially a two-manual instrument ... the Great Second Open Diapason appeared as "English Diapason" on the Choir; everything else except the Unda maris and the Clarinet was duplexed from the Great with no name changes.   The less said about the Hope-Jones, the better (grin) ... it was an EVIL beast .. Diapason, Flute, String, Celeste (?), Dulciana (?), Oboe Horn. The sound was indistinct, coarse, and choked. They gave it better placement when they remodeled the church, but evidently it didn't sound any better, as they replaced it with the Schantz.   But you could make MUSIC on them (with the possible except of the Hope-Jones), IF you accepted them for what they WERE.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: not to beat a deceased equine, BUT ... From: <Icedad@aol.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:35:42 EDT     --part1_115.133e9c04.2a426f4e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Bud,   I enjoy your information. Thanks for all your nice listings.   Sincerely,   Daniel   --part1_115.133e9c04.2a426f4e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3>Bud,<BR> <BR> I enjoy your information. Thanks for all your nice listings.<BR> <BR> Sincerely,<BR> <BR> Daniel</FONT></HTML>   --part1_115.133e9c04.2a426f4e_boundary--  
(back) Subject: The One-Manual Market From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:46:13 EDT   The market for one-manual pipe organs is limited, simply because it is = a creature that will not play MOST of the literature that attracts people to =   the pipe organ in the first place. I'm not even going to try to come up with an analogy here, like a = family of four trying to get by with a motorcycle. The fact remains that what attracts people to a pipe organ is literature that is conceived for more = than one manual. If a congregation is going to invest in a pipe organ, and they have raised enough money for an efficient one-manual instrument, a good pipe = organ builder will encourage them to raise just a bit more and get themselves = the extra one or two stops and the second keyboard. We all know the laundry list of arguments for one-manual instruments. = We are all aware of the body of literature for one manual. We all know that a =   one-manual pipe organ can and will support hymn singing. But the list of things that a single-keyboard pipe organ CANNOT do is longer than what it = CAN do. Once you've paid for the mechanical infrastructure of the instrument, = the price per stop decreases as one adds. The cost/benefit analysis points = toward going for the second manual. Some consultants might question the = abilities and intentions of an organist who INSISTS on a one-manual instrument when = two are possible. Will a one-manual pipe organ help or hurt the cause?  
(back) Subject: Re: not to beat a deceased equine, BUT ... From: "C. Joseph Nichols" <cjn@nicholsandsimpson.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:50:19 -0500   ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> > First Presbyterian Church - 2m Hope-Jones CHURCH (!) organ, teens (?), > replaced by a ?m Schantz, 1980s (?)   Bud,   I actually went to see the Hope-Jones in the early '70's and tuned a few notes on the STRING. My my!!   C. Joseph Nichols Nichols & Simpson, Inc. www.nicholsandsimpson.com      
(back) Subject: Hey, Bruce Cornely . . . From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:52:04 -0500   What's the latest on the First Presbyterian installation in Gainesville, and when is it to be dedicated?   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com          
(back) Subject: Re: Mollers From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:32:26 -0500     ----- Original Message ----- From: "BridgewaterUMC Director of Music" <bridgewatermusic@hotmail.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:41 PM Subject: Re: Mollers     > > Just out of interest, does anyone know when Molller stopped making = tracker > instruments? Several years ago I played what was believed to be the oldest > Moller in use at the time in Cumberland Md. It was in pretty bad shape but > not a bad sound. I have since forgotten the supposed date of its completion > but it is original to the building, so I would expect that it was = 1875-85 > era, perhaps older.   In the earliest period (ca. 1875-1917), Moller built a combination of trackers and bar-and-membrane tubular-pneumatic instruments, with the = latter tending to preponderate as time went on. In around 1917 they went over to pitman tubular-pneumatic, and then a mere few months later to electro-pneumatic pitman organs, which they built for the rest of their existence. They stopped making trackers around World War I, except that they reintroduced building a few of them in the 1960's and 1970's.   John Speller    
(back) Subject: Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin) From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:37:34 -0500   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> To: "PIPECHAT-L" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:28 PM Subject: Re: one-manual pipe organs vs. you-know-whats (grin)     > On 6/18/02 4:24 PM, quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: > > > There are MANY *fine* 19th century one-manual organs still in use that > > CAN play as much literature as a parish church of modest size would = EVER > > require. > > But why on earth would you spec an organ the size of your example and limit > it to one manual? And why do organists think they are fit to decide that = a > parish church should live within such arbitrary limitations. Especially > when, as we so often state as organists, we are installing an instrument > which is going to last effectively forever. Would this not suggest that = we > should be striving for more versatility, not less?   Ideally one wouldn't limit its versatility in this way. I guess it's a question of how big an organ one can afford when they currently run at $10,000 to $25,000 a rank (depending on builder). I don't think everyone would agree, but I think the point that the posters on this thread were trying to make is that a small one manual pipe organ like this can be more effective than a much larger electronic substitute, and that Karl Moyer's = CD is a good demonstration of this.   John Speller    
(back) Subject: Gress-Miles From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:14:40 +1200   Just yesterday I spent a whopping and outrageous one dollar in a 1963 lp recording of Robert Owen playing big works on the Gress-Miles organ in Christ Church, Bronxville, New York. The organ is a 3-manual & Pedal of = five divisions and 68rks, 3877 pipes (that's how the record jacket describes it and then gives the specification). Is Gress-Miles regarded as a good firm? Is the firm still going? Is this organ regarded as a good one? Is it still the same or has it been altered? When was it built?   For what it's worth, judging only from the record, it seems pretty heavy = and overly "masculine", if that's the right word, possibly too big for the building it's in. I wonder how four manual divisions on three manuals = works out in practice, this one having Great, Positiv, Swell I and Swell II.   Ross    
(back) Subject: one-manual organs From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:17:58 -0700   I don't often disagree with Sebastian, but I (obviously) do in this case.   First of all, there's a great deal of literature FOR the one-manual organ ... English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, South German, etc., even BEFORE you get to the 19th century and all the French stuff.   Second, you remark that a one-manual organ can't play most of the literature that "drew people to the pipe organ in the first place."   Well, I'm not TALKING about recital literature. Sure, the first recital I ever heard was The Fox on a 4-manual E.M. Skinner, and it made me decide to be an organist. BUT, that's not the PRINCIPAL function of the kind of organ I'm talking about, in the kind of situation I'm talking about. That Skinner was in a big downtown Congregational church in St. Petersburg, FL.; the little Estey in my mother's church was in a a little "company" mining village of about 2000 people ... it was the only organ in town.   There's nothing that I'm REQUIRED to do in the course of an old-fashioned Anglican High Mass that I couldn't do on the one-manual organ I described. In fact, we almost bought a virtually identical one-manual Hinners as an interim instrument until the Holtkamp comes, but I couldn't QUITE fit it into our west gallery on the main floor (at least not with a CHOIR) (grin).   What I'm REQUIRED to do on Sunday morning:   Play an opening voluntary, which can be anything (QUIET) that I like, except during Passiontide, when there isn't one.   Accompany four hymns (sung by the congregation). Accompany the Kyrie, Gloria, Doxology, Sanctus, Amen, Agnus Dei (sung by the congregation) Accompany the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory Verse, Communion Verse (sung by the choir or a soloist, usually to Gregorian Chant) Accompany the Offertory and Communion Anthems or Solos (sung by the choir or a soloist)   Play a closing voluntary, which can be anything (LOUD) that I like, except during Passiontide, when there isn't one.   Nothing in that summary would require anything more than a one-manual organ. The operative word is "ACCOMPANY."   I have three general pistons set on the toaster for that: flute and string for chant accompaniment; foundations 8-4 (plus or minus Oboe) for accompanying the Mass, and principal chorus (plus or minus Mixture) for the hymns.   St. Matthew's seats 150 people; I have 10-20 singers in the choir; we're blessed with EXCELLENT acoustics.   And I would say that's considerably MORE than would be required in a Protestant church of similar size.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: Gress-Miles From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:25:38 -0700       Ross & Lynda Wards wrote: > > Just yesterday I spent a whopping and outrageous one dollar in a 1963 lp > recording of Robert Owen playing big works on the Gress-Miles organ in > Christ Church, Bronxville, New York. The organ is a 3-manual & Pedal of = five > divisions and 68rks, 3877 pipes (that's how the record jacket describes = it > and then gives the specification). > Is Gress-Miles regarded as a good firm? > Is the firm still going? > Is this organ regarded as a good one? > Is it still the same or has it been altered? > When was it built? > > For what it's worth, judging only from the record, it seems pretty heavy = and > overly "masculine", if that's the right word, possibly too big for the > building it's in. I wonder how four manual divisions on three manuals = works > out in practice, this one having Great, Positiv, Swell I and Swell II. > > Ross >   I think (mercifully) they no longer exist.   My limited experience with them: the STRINGS would part your HAIR, and they went UP from THERE (grin).   The divided Swell business IS useful in organs that don't have enclosed Choir organs, PROVIDED the two Swell divisions couple independently.   The (Los Angeles) Johnson Organ Co / Gillette Aeolian-Skinner / unknown consortium organ in St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego California has such an arrangement, which is a blessing ... the newer unenclosed work takes after Gress-Miles, above (chuckle) ... the Canon Liturgist used to wear EAR PLUGS when he had to sing the High Mass. I think at last count there were THREE batteries of unenclosed reeds.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: Glenda's Sunday Dinner--off topic From: "TommyLee Whitlock" <tommylee@whitlock.org> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:33:20 -0400   > No, no, that's a given.....I was talking about fried fatback, as a side. = > It's a staple around here, and I had never had it until I moved to this = part > of SC. We didn't eat it in the part of the state I came from. It's an > interesting culinary experience, and actually quite good!   Monty, When I was a kid in SC, we would occasionally have fried streaked meat - essentially fatback with streaks of lean meat in it. Plain old fatback, though, we just used for seasoning the beans or greens. And my family was =   _poor_.   But this discussion is pretty far afield, since neither fatback nor = streaked meat are _organ_ meats. ;)   Cheers, TommyLee    
(back) Subject: One Manual Instruments From: "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:02:54 -0400   Dear Pipechatters,   Jon Habermas in Chicago reminds that those of us who attend OHS Convention recitals have heard some riveting performances of splendid music on really beautiful one-manual instruments. As I write this, several memories come flooding forward from conventions past, and they include the accompaniment of hymns, always included in OHS recitals, and in a couple of cases, the accompaniment of a full Anglican Evensong. I have memories of large convention audiences standing and cheering at concert's end, first for the performer, and then, at his or her gesture toward the instrument, for the organ itself. These have been instruments of immense integrity, with well-scaled, well voiced, wind-blown pipes, for which there can be no substitute. As long as we are considering a building of a size suitable to = a small instrument, we need never to allow ourselves to be made to feel ashamed at recommending such an instrument to a congregation, as some have suggested. One needs to be clever, skilled, and in love with beautiful and genuine sounds, and a congregation will share that love. Below is what I wrote last summer in North Carolina, about a truly magnificent one manual instrument:   An Organ Recital followed by Evensong, St. Timothy's Anglican Church, Winston-Salem.   "What, you say, another 1 manual organ!? Well, I have to say that I heard more, and more beautiful music coming out of this little box than out of more than a few much larger instruments. The note on it in the program says "This organ [an amazingly versatile and clever instrument, Opus 22 of 1994, from the shop of John Farmer] is an essay in the merits of a complete one-manual scheme." An A+ essay, I would say. Through the judicious use of common basses, space and money was saved, and divided stops make possible lots of accompanied solo effects. More about these details during the discussion of the music. The organist who next played a recital for us, and then proceeded to accompany Evensong was Scott Carpenter. He is assistant at this church - Kristin Farmer is Director of Music. The Recital: First, Preambule from the 24 Pieces of Vierne, with a remarkably broad and lovely sound - where on earth did all that come from? Well, this organ has five 8' stops, not counting the tenor f Celeste! = There is noble trickery involved here. The 2nd Open Diapason(!) goes down only = to middle c, where the very much used Stopped Diapason Bass takes over, but this is enough to give, at least above middle c, the rich sound of two Opens, and then there is that Stopped Diapason, plus a Melodia and a Dulciana, those last two sharing a bass common with the Stopped Diapason = as well. Money and space is saved, and an artistic musical variety is = achieved. Next, an anonymous 18th Century English Cornet Voluntary, and courtesy of divided stops, we had a beautiful accompanied Cornet, three ranks just = from middle c up. Then a full Trumpet divided at middle c made possible a = Trumpet Voluntary of Thomas Dupuis (1733-1796). Then, the ultimate perpetual = motion choral prelude, Nun freut euch (BWV 734) of Bach, with the running figure = a fabulous high flute. Where the gentle but very present cantus came from, I don't know! Then, we heard the really lovely Celeste in Prayer in E Flat = of Guilmant. The final works on the program were two parts of an Organ Mass based on the little 15th century waltz tune L'Homme armee, which few of us escaped singing in music history courses at some point. This was my introduction to the music of Margaret Sandresky. . . . "   I could happily play this instrument in church for the rest of my life. I could listen to the sound of the 8' Open Diapason on the Great for at = least hours at a time. Ye that have ears to hear . . . . .   Cheers,   Malcolm Wechsler www.mander-organs.com        
(back) Subject: Re: Correction to My Narrative! Okra revisited! From: <Chicaleee@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:09:14 EDT     --part1_33.28c22ae4.2a42af6a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Thanks, Jim, for understanding. Lee   --part1_33.28c22ae4.2a42af6a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks, Jim, for = understanding. &nbsp;Lee</FONT></HTML>   --part1_33.28c22ae4.2a42af6a_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Gress-Miles From: "Gary Black" <gblack@ocslink.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:26:18 -0500   HI everyone, I have a top board from the swell organ of a Gress-Miles Organ. It is made of solid mahogany and is very heavy! When the organ = was rebuilt by the Howell Pipe Organ company, I helped to take it out. They = had used tubular steel for supports for the chest work and all was sagging and in very power condition. The console was a nightmare, handles on the = sides for lifting I guess and most stops were not working because of failed = stop controls. It was a real screamer in my opinion. Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 8:25 PM Subject: Re: Gress-Miles     > > > Ross & Lynda Wards wrote: > > > > Just yesterday I spent a whopping and outrageous one dollar in a 1963 = lp > > recording of Robert Owen playing big works on the Gress-Miles organ in > > Christ Church, Bronxville, New York. The organ is a 3-manual & Pedal = of five > > divisions and 68rks, 3877 pipes (that's how the record jacket = describes it > > and then gives the specification). > > Is Gress-Miles regarded as a good firm? > > Is the firm still going? > > Is this organ regarded as a good one? > > Is it still the same or has it been altered? > > When was it built? > > > > For what it's worth, judging only from the record, it seems pretty = heavy and > > overly "masculine", if that's the right word, possibly too big for the > > building it's in. I wonder how four manual divisions on three manuals works > > out in practice, this one having Great, Positiv, Swell I and Swell II. > > > > Ross > > > > I think (mercifully) they no longer exist. > > My limited experience with them: the STRINGS would part your HAIR, and > they went UP from THERE (grin). > > The divided Swell business IS useful in organs that don't have enclosed > Choir organs, PROVIDED the two Swell divisions couple independently. > > The (Los Angeles) Johnson Organ Co / Gillette Aeolian-Skinner / unknown > consortium organ in St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego > California has such an arrangement, which is a blessing ... the newer > unenclosed work takes after Gress-Miles, above (chuckle) ... the Canon > Liturgist used to wear EAR PLUGS when he had to sing the High Mass. I > think at last count there were THREE batteries of unenclosed reeds. > > 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 > >