PipeChat Digest #3237 - Sunday, November 17, 2002
 
Re: Authenticity?
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Widor Fifth Symphony Edition
  by <Chicaleee@aol.com>
Re: Organ Historical Society
  by "whevans" <whevans@softcom.net>
Fox, Biggs, and Authenticity
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3236 - 11/17/02
  by <Kzimmer0817@aol.com>
Re: Fox & Biggs Interpretations
  by "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com>
Re: Proper execution of Widor Toccata from the 5th.
  by "Ray Ahrens" <Ray_Ahrens@msn.com>
Hook Opus 625-650
  by "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Authenticity? From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:15:09 +1300   Jon, Yes, that 16ft Open Metal was indeed too big for manual use and killed the chorus with a woolly grumble, and not an extension of either of the 8ft = Open Diapasons. Down the church, the 16ft open wood sounds slightly different from the open metal, but at the console, the 16ft metal actually sounds bigger (it's in the showcase - the open wood is in the back). The 16ft Bourdon I put in its place is a perfect chorus 16ft and can do many oher things as well, including providing (up 8ve) a wonderful warm stopped wood rank on the Great as a contrast to the not-so-tonally-subtle metal open flute. 16ft CCC of the Great Bourdon is about 7" X 6.5" in scale and has = low cut-up and clear quick speech, so it's not an Echo thingie.   By the way, I didn't put a 32ft Acoustic Bass on the Pedal quite deliberately. The church's acoustics are very dead and those supoerlative 16fts give all the weight, dignity and depth one could hope for in such a building.   Ross -----Original Message----- From: jon bertschinger <jonberts@magiccablepc.com> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Authenticity?     >Ross: do I understand that the 16' Open no longer plays in the >Great? >what was the reasoning for this when the work was done? Was it >too large a scale originally? > >Jon Bertschinger >Temple Organs > >"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: Widor Fifth Symphony Edition From: <Chicaleee@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:51:17 EST     --part1_105.1fe0cb98.2b09afa5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   My edition of the Widor Fifth Symphony has a copyright of 1936 by Edward = B. Marks Music Corporation. There is a note at the top, "This is the only Authentic Edition as originally written by the composer without any = revisions or changes." Then, on the left it says, "New Edition by Norman Dello = Joio." Lee   --part1_105.1fe0cb98.2b09afa5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>My edition of the Widor = Fifth Symphony has a copyright of 1936 by Edward B. Marks Music = Corporation. &nbsp;There is a note at the top, "This is the only Authentic = Edition as originally written by the composer without any revisions or = changes." Then, on the left it says, "New Edition by Norman Dello Joio." = &nbsp;Lee</FONT></HTML>   --part1_105.1fe0cb98.2b09afa5_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Organ Historical Society From: "whevans" <whevans@softcom.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:08:55 -0800   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0024_01C28E6C.C613E540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   www.organsociety.org ----- Original Message -----=3D20 From: Wuxuzusu@aol.com=3D20 To: pipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:38 AM Subject: Organ Historical Society     Greetings List:   Is the Organ Historical Society still in existence?   I have sent two email inqueries to them at catalog @organsociety.org   I have received no responses to my inqueries.   To this point I have been most satisfied with the promptness of their = =3D responses.   Curiously,   Stan Krider=3D20   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0024_01C28E6C.C613E540 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=3D3D2>www.organsociety.org</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=3D20 style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =3D black"><B>From:</B>=3D20 <A title=3D3DWuxuzusu@aol.com =3D href=3D3D"mailto:Wuxuzusu@aol.com">Wuxuzusu@aol.com</A>=3D20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =3D title=3D3Dpipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 href=3D3D"mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org">pipechat@pipechat.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 17, 2002 = =3D 9:38=3D20 AM</DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Organ Historical =3D Society</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 =3D face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF">Greetings List:<BR><BR>Is the Organ Historical = =3D Society=3D20 still in existence?<BR><BR>I have sent two email inqueries to them at = =3D catalog=3D20 @organsociety.org<BR><BR>I have received no responses to my=3D20 inqueries.<BR><BR>To this point I have been most satisfied with the =3D promptness=3D20 of their responses.<BR><BR>Curiously,<BR><BR>Stan Krider</FONT>=3D20 </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0024_01C28E6C.C613E540--    
(back) Subject: Fox, Biggs, and Authenticity From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:33:31 EST   Dear PipeChatters: I would hardly consider Biggs' Bach performances "Romantic." They may = not be what the currently vocal collection of performance practice pundits consider "authentic," but think about the entire marketing concept that created Biggs' career, and the label quickly falls off. Vladimir Horowitz described Scarlatti as "the first Romantic." If one listens to the Horowitz recordings, what is more striking? The precision = of the articulation, or the unspeakable passion? Wow... There tends to be a sweeping generalization amongst organ players that =   "Romanticism" can be applied to anything played with feeling or = expression, yet that "Romantic organs" are somehow dull, thick, and devoid of anything =   higher in pitch than a four-foot flute. The attendant bad theory is that adding poorly balanced, insanely high-pitched three-rank "mixtures" to = older organs "cures" them of their Romanticism. More often than not, = "classicized" organs, and "neo-classic" new organs, still have many of the stops in the wrong places, even for the music to which they hope to cater. As far as accuracy of performance practice is concerned, unless we = have treatises which date from the period, or diaries of great organists from = the period (or their students), much of it is conjectural reconstruction based =   upon the evidence of the (unaltered?) instruments, as well as the bits of surviving autograph manuscripts. Much of the music about which we = speculate was hand-copied, and like the childhood game of "telephone," goes through = the process of mutation from generation to generation. As Europe and the nations of the former Soviet Union begin to open = their archives and more collections are combed by scholars, we will stumble upon =   PRIMARY sources for performance practice. Primary sources are the = scholar's manna. IN THE MEAN TIME, MAKE MUSIC. Take care of the instruments you have. Improve them if you must, but don't corrupt them for the sake of stylistic whim. Play thoughtfully, and think playfully. Sebastian M. Gluck New York City  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3236 - 11/17/02 From: <Kzimmer0817@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:43:02 EST     --part1_12d.1b347ca5.2b09bbc6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   John said:   > Keith, I agree with you that Bach would never have been cubby-holed into > "his own time" and would have enjoyed any and all venues. However, I > must also appreciate the "Authentic" examples as well. I can certainly > understand and appreciate those who go to great lengths to re-create and =   > preserve our "organ history".   John, Thanks for not flaming me, because I fully expect to get it. I = agree with the idea of preserving and recreating the historical sounds. It's educating and nice to be able to listen to music being played in a way = that comes closest to sounding as it did "back then". What bothers me are = those who think that that is the "only" way to perform it and that performing = music on modern instruments somehow robs the music of the essence that was put = into its composing. It conveys the attitude that the composer somehow = hand-picked the instruments because they were exactly what s/he wanted and forgets the =   fact that composers wrote for the instruments that were extant at the time = of writing. It also assumes that the composer would be unhappy with performances of their music on modern instruments that may be better in = tune as well as better sounding (I realize to whose ears).   In a similar vain, we attended a concert by Furman University's chorus = many years ago. Several pieces were sung in their original languages. The = directo r explained that he believes in singing pieces in their original tongues = in order to convey the subtle meanings as the composer intended - I think he figured that it had something to do with the idea that the words and = accents of the words were so tied to their particular notes that any translation would render the piece meaningless. Of course, if the audience cannot understand the words being sung, it doesn't really matter that a = particular syllable given musical accent by the composer because it is not understood = by the audience. We lose more by not understanding the lyrics than would be lost by attempting a close translation. O well, not another tangent.   Good night, Keith   --part1_12d.1b347ca5.2b09bbc6_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">John said:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Keith, I agree = with you that Bach would never have been cubby-holed into<BR> "his own time" and would have enjoyed any and all venues.&nbsp; However, = I<BR> must also appreciate the "Authentic" examples as well.&nbsp; I can = certainly<BR> understand and appreciate those who go to great lengths to re-create and = <BR> preserve our "organ history".</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> John, Thanks for not flaming me, because I fully expect to get it.&nbsp; I = agree with the idea of preserving and recreating the historical = sounds.&nbsp; It's educating and nice to be able to listen to music being = played in a way that comes closest to sounding as it did "back = then".&nbsp; What bothers me are those who think that that is the "only" = way to perform it and that performing music on modern instruments somehow = robs the music of the essence that was put into its composing.&nbsp; It = conveys the attitude that the composer somehow hand-picked the instruments = because they were exactly what s/he wanted and forgets the fact that = composers wrote for the instruments that were extant at the time of = writing.&nbsp; It also assumes that the composer would be unhappy with = performances of their music on modern instruments that may be better in = tune as well as better sounding (I realize to whose ears).<BR> <BR> In a similar vain, we attended a concert by Furman University's chorus = many years ago.&nbsp; Several pieces were sung in their original = languages.&nbsp; The director explained that he believes in singing pieces in their original tongues in order to convey the subtle meanings as = the composer intended - I think he figured that it had something to do = with the idea that the words and accents of the words were so tied to = their particular notes that any translation would render the piece = meaningless.&nbsp; Of course, if the audience cannot understand the words = being sung, it doesn't really matter that a particular syllable given = musical accent by the composer because it is not understood by the = audience.&nbsp; We lose more by not understanding the lyrics than would be = lost by attempting a close translation.&nbsp; O well, not another = tangent.<BR> <BR> Good night,<BR> Keith</FONT></HTML>   --part1_12d.1b347ca5.2b09bbc6_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Fox & Biggs Interpretations From: "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:26:29 -0500   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0037_01C28E90.C1D594F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   Hi, Keith!   My, my, but you are spoiling for a fight, aren't you? Well, you won't =3D get one from me, because I agree with you 100%. 18th century organs =3D were preferred by 18th century composers and organists because they =3D didn't have 20th century instruments available. That's all.   If you manage to live through the onslaught that this posting is going =3D to generate, I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.   Dave     ----- Original Message -----=3D20 From: Kzimmer0817@aol.com=3D20 To: pipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:38 PM Subject: Fox & Biggs Interpretations     Greg wrote....     Not to say that I don't love Biggs' Bach recordings, but they are =3D simply=3D20 romanticized-full of heel pedalings, flamboyant registrations =3D including=3D20 massive cresendi and decrescendi on plenum fugues etc.....     I admit that I write in my ignorance. I have no formal training on =3D the organ. I'm a pianist whose church, when I was 15, purchased a Conn = =3D organ requiring me to become an organist one Easter Sunday. I think I =3D do pretty well for an amateur, though. I have not studied the proper =3D interpretation of organ literature - from any period - tho' I've picked = =3D up a few things in conversations with organists.   I have a few recordings of Biggs and Fox. I know they like to play =3D big organs and use frequent registration changes and gradual crescendi =3D (as I've heard was not done in baroque music) in their interpretations. = =3D While I think that muddies the piece (as do choirs of 150 trying to sing = =3D Messiah), the lay public seems to like them.   My question really regards the strong emphasis some place on =3D performing on "period" instruments and playing in a style that they =3D think was used at that time period. I guess, I'm asking whether or not = =3D we think Bach chose the particular stop settings or ways of showing =3D expression because that way was the way he thought best - or was that =3D the only practical way he could.   If Bach were to be ushered to the bench of a large pipe organ of today = =3D - with 99,999 levels of combination memory, several swell chambers, =3D crescendo pedals, AGO pedalboard, etc. I wonder if he would make the =3D best use of all these gadgets. They didn't exist in his time, that's =3D why he didn't utilize them - I think.   Since I'm in the mood to be a little bit of a jerk tonight, I'd like =3D to throw out the radical thought that Bach himself might even be =3D delighted to sit at the console of a modern electronic organ!?!?!? =3D There was no other keyboard alternative to the pipe organ when grandeur = =3D was needed. He didn't choose to write for a pipe organ over an =3D electronic organ or, God forbid, a synthesizer because he had considered = =3D the other organlike keyboard options and chosen the pipe organ. What =3D else was there?   I'd venture to head a little further down the pathway to destruction =3D by suggesting that, if Bach were alive today and realized that he could = =3D have an imitation (or fake) pipe organ in his own home on which to =3D practice, I think he'd be excited about it. He could compose until late = =3D at night using headphones - so he wouldn't disturb anyone. I seriously = =3D question whether Bach, when faced with the cost differences between pipe = =3D organs and the electronic imitations, would do without an organ at home = =3D rather than get the imitation. It simply wasn't an option in his day. = =3D He'd probably have a little fun as well on a synthesizer. I can't =3D imagine what he'd do if he had a MIDI sequencer available to him on his = =3D keyboard!   I didn't say that to get another one of those pipe vs electronic =3D debates going. I simply meant to say that I think Bach used the =3D instruments that were available and did the best that he could do with =3D them. If he were around today, I submit that he'd be much more open =3D minded than most of us about which instrument he played. I imagine that = =3D he would apply his creative genius to whatever situation or instrument =3D at his immediate, practical, pragmatic, and cost-effective (or whatever = =3D else) disposal. He'd probably even utilize whatever bells and whistles = =3D (swells, crescendos, pistons, etc) that were available.   As difficult as his music can be - especially if, as I was told one =3D time, that you're only supposed to use your toes since the pedals in his = =3D time were too short to play with your heels - I can imagine how hard =3D he'd make it if he realized that our pedalboards allow an organist to =3D use his heels!!   O well, so much for my ignorant ranting. I'm sure I'll be told where = =3D I'm mistaken.   Keith Commerce, Georgia.     ------=3D_NextPart_000_0037_01C28E90.C1D594F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Hi, Keith!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>My, my, but you are spoiling for a = =3D fight, aren't=3D20 you?&nbsp; Well, you won't get one from me, because I agree with you =3D 100%.&nbsp;=3D20 18th century organs were preferred by 18th century composers and =3D organists=3D20 because they didn't have 20th century instruments available.&nbsp;&nbsp; = =3D That's=3D20 all.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>If you manage to live through the =3D onslaught that=3D20 this posting is going to generate, I look forward to hearing from you =3D again in=3D20 the future.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Dave</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=3D20 style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =3D black"><B>From:</B>=3D20 <A title=3D3DKzimmer0817@aol.com=3D20 href=3D3D"mailto:Kzimmer0817@aol.com">Kzimmer0817@aol.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =3D title=3D3Dpipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 href=3D3D"mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org">pipechat@pipechat.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 17, 2002 = =3D 8:38=3D20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Fox &amp; Biggs=3D20 Interpretations</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 =3D face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF">Greg wrote....<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = =3D solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=3D20 TYPE=3D3D"CITE">Not to say that I don't love Biggs' Bach recordings, but = =3D they=3D20 are simply <BR>romanticized-full of heel pedalings, flamboyant =3D registrations=3D20 including <BR>massive cresendi and decrescendi on plenum fugues=3D20 etc.....</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I admit that I write in my =3D ignorance.&nbsp; I=3D20 have no formal training on the organ.&nbsp; I'm a pianist whose =3D church, when I=3D20 was 15, purchased a Conn organ requiring me to become an organist one = =3D Easter=3D20 Sunday.&nbsp; I think I do pretty well for an amateur, though.&nbsp; I = =3D have=3D20 not studied the proper interpretation of organ literature - from any =3D period -=3D20 tho' I've picked up a few things in conversations with =3D organists.<BR><BR>I=3D20 have a few recordings of Biggs and Fox.&nbsp; I know they like to play = =3D big=3D20 organs and use frequent registration changes and gradual crescendi (as =3D I've=3D20 heard was not done in baroque music) in their interpretations.&nbsp; =3D While I=3D20 think that muddies the piece (as do choirs of 150 trying to sing =3D Messiah), the=3D20 lay public seems to like them.<BR><BR>My question really regards the =3D strong=3D20 emphasis some place on performing on "period" instruments and playing = =3D in a=3D20 style that they think was used at that time period.&nbsp; I guess, I'm = =3D asking=3D20 whether or not we think Bach chose the particular stop settings or =3D ways of=3D20 showing expression because that way was the way he thought best - or =3D was that=3D20 the only practical way he could.<BR><BR>If Bach were to be ushered to = =3D the=3D20 bench of a large pipe organ of today - with 99,999 levels of =3D combination=3D20 memory, several swell chambers, crescendo pedals, AGO pedalboard, etc. = =3D I=3D20 wonder if he would make the best use of all these gadgets.&nbsp; They = =3D didn't=3D20 exist in his time, that's why he didn't utilize them - I =3D think.<BR><BR>Since=3D20 I'm in the mood to be a little bit of a jerk tonight, I'd like to =3D throw out=3D20 the radical thought that Bach himself might even be delighted to sit =3D at the=3D20 console of a modern electronic organ!?!?!?&nbsp; There was no other =3D keyboard=3D20 alternative to the pipe organ when grandeur was needed.&nbsp; He =3D didn't choose=3D20 to write for a pipe organ over an electronic organ or, God forbid, = a=3D20 synthesizer because he had considered the other organlike keyboard =3D options and=3D20 chosen the pipe organ.&nbsp; What else was there?<BR><BR>I'd venture =3D to head a=3D20 little further down the pathway to destruction by suggesting that, if = =3D Bach=3D20 were alive today and realized that he could have an imitation (or =3D fake) pipe=3D20 organ in his own home on which to practice, I think he'd be excited =3D about=3D20 it.&nbsp; He could compose until late at night using headphones - so =3D he=3D20 wouldn't disturb anyone.&nbsp; I seriously question whether Bach, when = =3D faced=3D20 with the cost differences between pipe organs and the electronic =3D imitations,=3D20 would do without an organ at home rather than get the imitation.&nbsp; = =3D It=3D20 simply wasn't an option in his day.&nbsp; He'd probably have a little = =3D fun as=3D20 well on a synthesizer.&nbsp; I can't imagine what he'd do if he had a = =3D MIDI=3D20 sequencer available to him on his keyboard!<BR><BR>I didn't say that =3D to get=3D20 another one of those pipe vs electronic debates going.&nbsp; I simply = =3D meant to=3D20 say that I think Bach used the instruments that were available and did = =3D the=3D20 best that he could do with them.&nbsp; If he were around today, I =3D submit that=3D20 he'd be much more open minded than most of us about which instrument =3D he=3D20 played.&nbsp; I imagine that he would apply his creative genius to =3D whatever=3D20 situation or instrument at his immediate, practical, pragmatic, and=3D20 cost-effective (or whatever else) disposal.&nbsp; He'd probably even =3D utilize=3D20 whatever bells and whistles (swells, crescendos, pistons, etc) that =3D were=3D20 available.<BR><BR>As difficult as his music can be - especially if, as = =3D I was=3D20 told one time, that you're only supposed to use your toes since the =3D pedals in=3D20 his time were too short to play with your heels - I can imagine how =3D hard he'd=3D20 make it if he realized that our pedalboards allow an organist to use =3D his=3D20 heels!!<BR><BR>O well, so much for my ignorant ranting.&nbsp; I'm sure = =3D I'll be=3D20 told where I'm mistaken.<BR><BR>Keith<BR>Commerce,=3D20 Georgia.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0037_01C28E90.C1D594F0--    
(back) Subject: Re: Proper execution of Widor Toccata from the 5th. From: "Ray Ahrens" <Ray_Ahrens@msn.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:21:27 -0600   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0033_01C28E87.ABC2E180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable     Well, duh!!!   They've both been dead for a number of years!! I'll bet they haven't =3D done any research in a long time.   I would never use Biggs or Fox as a definative performance of ANY =3D baroque music. Their registrational and interpretive devices are not =3D in-line with any of the performance practices that have been discovered = =3D recently.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0033_01C28E87.ABC2E180 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type =3D content=3D3Dtext/html;charset=3D3Diso-8859-1> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY id=3D3DMailContainerBody=3D20 style=3D3D"FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; =3D BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; =3D BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: =3D none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"=3D20 leftMargin=3D3D0 topMargin=3D3D0 acc_role=3D3D"text" = CanvasTabStop=3D3D"true"=3D20 name=3D3D"Compose message area"><?xml:namespace prefix=3D3D"v" =3D /><?xml:namespace prefix=3D3D"o" /> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Well, duh!!!</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>They've both been dead for a number of years!!&nbsp; I'll bet they = =3D haven=3D92t=3D20 done any research in a long time.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D3D2>I would never use = =3D Biggs or Fox as=3D20 a definative performance of ANY baroque music. &nbsp;Their =3D registrational and=3D20 interpretive devices are not in-line with any of the performance =3D practices=3D20 that have been discovered=3D20 recently.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0033_01C28E87.ABC2E180--  
(back) Subject: Hook Opus 625-650 From: "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:37:54 -0500   These Hooks would have been built in 1872. Judy Ollikkala