PipeChat Digest #3850 - Monday, August 4, 2003 Re: Subject: Darwinian organists or fossilised organists? by "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: traditional hymns, etc. by <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Re: Music for a wedding by <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Re: Biltmore Skinner by "Alan Freed" <email@example.com> Re: Biltmore Skinner by "Alan Freed" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Contemporary 'dis'-service by "Alicia Zeilenga" <email@example.com> Re: Marva Dawn by "Alan Freed" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Biltmore House - Lock Haven, PA Skinner.. by "Alan Freed" <email@example.com> Advice, please by "Alicia Zeilenga" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Subject: Darwinian organists or fossilised organists? by <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Writing by "Alan Freed" <email@example.com> Re: Biltmore Skinner by <RonSeverin@aol.com> Re: Biltmore Skinner by <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Contemporary 'dis'-service by <REEDSTOP@prodigy.net> Re: Biltmore House - Lock Haven, PA Skinner.. by <email@example.com> Re: Advice, please by <REEDSTOP@prodigy.net> Re: Advice, please by "Bob Conway" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Contemporary 'dis'-service by <Pepehomer@aol.com> Re: Traditional Hymns by <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: Re: Subject: Darwinian organists or fossilised organists? From: "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:04:20 +0100 (BST) Hello, Dr Amy hits on an interesting aspect of life; the hedonistic pursuit of sensualism for its own sake. Having a partner who is heavily into "dance", I suppose I am nearer than I would sometimes like to be to the music of to-day. I must, indeed, be the only classical organist in the whole wide world who will be at the Heinekin Dance Parade next Saturday, in Rotterdam!! (My ear defenders are at the ready!) Now....what I observe is "intensity" with a capital "me".... The music is just ONE aspect of a wider phenomenon; drugs, unbridled sexual impulses, the pleasure of bodily movement for its own sake and of being "part" of something. After all, it isn't their mothers who dress them funny.....it is the search for identity which leads to those saggy-bottoms, purple finger-nails, punk hair-styles and body piercings. The music is just "the rhythm of life", which perhaps makes youth FEEL that they are unique and "crucial" and "happening". It's complete tosh of course, for by the time that they are thirty, they will be working in factories and offices and carry the burden of bringing up the next generation. The problem with clergy attempting tap into youth culture is one of impertinence.....I see the young writhing away to dance music and ask myself, "How dare the clergy PRESUME to understand what is RIGHT?" The search for identity, the hedonism of youth and the social interaction is a vital part of life for the majority, and if we try to adopt the style of music---associated with it, for religious purposes, we are in danger of alienating everyone. Let youth have its moments of absurdity and hedonistic pleasure.....it doesn't last very long and most of them survive it relatively unscathed. It's quite difficult to remember what it was like to be young when you're getting on a bit. However, I recall fast cars, daring exploits, dangling off ropes, crazy parties and people getting high to the point that they collapsed in a heap surrounded by bottles. If the clergy REALISED that we don't understand them, and they don't WANT to be understood, the better it will be for everyone. If the music of to-day were to be used in worship, it would cost more than hollywood production to get the equipment and the computers....creating modern pop is a very, very expensive business. So what we get instead, is a down-market, middle of the road musical approach which appeals to no-one but older people trying to ape the young. That is not only impossible, it is actually very sad. Maybe the clergy and those who propose such music were never really young at all. And when the novelty wears thin, or fashions abruptly change, they are left high and dry, surrounded by the baggage of their musical memories. As a mere organist, and probably considered quite a frump, I am the one who will be easily mixing with the revellers in Rotterdam and uttering prayers such as, "Jesus! That's loud!" Regards, Colin Mitchell UK PS: What TUNES will they hum when they're our age? "Dr. Amy Fleming" <email@example.com> wrote: > I love almost all music. I listened to Scott Joplin > this afternoon. The > problem with the CCM crowd and those churches (like > my mom's) where they > dance and wave their hands with emotions, is, when > that emotional high > cannot be sustained ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
(back) Subject: Re: traditional hymns, etc. From: <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:05:48 EDT Terrick, Amy, and others: (please excuse the length of this post--there's a lot of thoughts in = here!) First of all, Terrick, I was interested to hear what you did with Picardy--some very old "traditional" hymns, even plainsong-based hymns, = lend themselves to very creative treatments. I myself used the tune as a basis for a = choral anthem, arranging it (with the addition of some original material) using = lush harmonies evocative of the old Dawson spiritual arrangements. Some may = consider that cheesy (it was done with craft and-- I am told-- much taste, = however), but the choir I arranged it for loved to do those old Tuskegee spirituals and they loved what I did with Picardy probably as much as Terrick's = congregation took to what he did with it. Secondly, I think it is important to remember = that the instrumental make-up of many "contemporary" church ensembles = (especially in the Roman Catholic church) is surprisingly close to that of the secular "broken consorts" of the renaissance. Guitars, flutes, a keyboard = instrument, a violin--not much different than lutes and theorbo, viols and violins, = recorders, etc. Perhaps, however, a distinction should be made between a vernacular musical and literary sacred idiom and a secular idiom. While one wouldn't = see a renaissance or early baroque "dance band" in church, one would see brass = choirs and later, the trio sonata with organ and/or archlute continuo as in the Schuetz solo cantatas. So, while it is not my preference in worship music, = I cannot argue that the contemporary Catholic or Evangelical "praise band" is = without historical precedent. I do wish that we gave careful thought to creating a = modern, vernacular idiom which is distinctively sacred musically, rather = than parroting secular pop or "folk" idioms. Even when popular tunes have been introduced into classical hymnody (such as Bach's introduction of the = bawdy Hassler ballad "Mein G'mueth ist mir verwirret" in his St. Matthew Passion, which = is now enshrined in our hymnals as Passion Chorale) they have been transformed to = fit cultural expectations of the "sacred". This would take a serious = committment from church bodies and cooperation between professional and amateur church = musicans and composers. The LCMS and ELCA have made some inroads in this = area and, in my opinion, are leaders in both contemporary organ-based hymnody = and service music. In the Roman Catholic church, it would require the = abandonment of the idea that sacred music can be forced into a strict ideological mold. = This is an unfortunate analogy, but if one looks at what began to happen to = music in the Soviet Union in the 1920's under the influence of the Proletkult, = one can see a similar result in music of today's Roman church. Any other = thoughts on this from anyone? There is quite a bit of decent, contemporary hymnody out there which has clear, theologically substantive text, singable melody and interesting, theoretically solid harmonization (any choral singer--formally trained or = not-- knows bad voice leading when she sings it!). While I feel that the direction = taken by American Roman Catholic hymnody after Vatican II was driven more by = ideology than by a concern for creating a lasting, distinctive hymnody (what a = missed opportunity), some of the material developed there has merit while some = is--at least in my opinion--totally inappropriate for congregational singing on = purely technical grounds. Much of what you find in say, Gather, was contemporary thirty years ago and is to my ear, embarassingly dated and trite musically = yet solid theologically. I agree with some of you that much of the "praise" = music used in "contemporary" evangelical worship is ultra-pietistic and often = vapid in its theological and musical content. I will point out, however, that there = is little difference between some of the better "praise choruses" and some of = the Taize material (of which I am also not overly fond) widely used in = some traditions. The thought occurrs to me that the real key to preserving and = reinvigorating the traditional musical gems of the church is education of the = congregation. In many congregations, their denominational liturgical and musical = traditions are not well explored through adult education offerings. In some = churches--like the last parish I served--there is outright hostility toward the idea of offering adult education classes which explore subjects like gregorian = chant, hymnody, and liturgical history. Worse yet, there is some clergy and laity--especially in evangelical Protestant churches--who apparrently feel = that the Gospel in and of itself is insufficient to draw the "unchurched" and who further = lack the creativity to make "traditional" liturgy less threatening to = newcomers. The result is that often these congregations are offering more pop concert = than worship on Sunday mornings, and the theological void creates more of a revolving door than real growth and honest conversion. Your thoughts on = this? My self-imposed sabattical from 15 years of professional church = musicianship in various reformed and catholic traditions has given me the opportunity = to reflect on these kind of issues and frankly has softened my stance towards = "contemporary" (popular) church music. However, as a parishioner of a = theologically progressive and liturgically/musically conservative Anglo-Catholic = Episcopal church, I have seen first hand that a congregation which is encouraged and = eager to embrace historical music and yet be open to innovation can be a surprisingly interesting place to worship. Bill H.
(back) Subject: Re: Music for a wedding From: <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:09:29 EDT Donald, I've used David Johnson extensively at weddings since I discovered it in (gulp) 1994. Brides and (interested) Grooms seem to really like it. Bill H.
(back) Subject: Re: Biltmore Skinner From: "Alan Freed" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:16:37 -0400 On 8/3/03 8:36 PM, "RMB10@aol.com" <RMB10@aol.com> wrote: > Here is the stoplist of the Biltmore House E.M. Skinner organ opus 248 = 1916 > Originally installed in the residence of Cornelius Rea Agnew, Armonk, = NY; > rebuilt and installed in the Biltmore House by John Farmer 1999 > information from OHS Handbook 2001 North Carolina > > Great (enclosed 7 1/2 in. w.p) > 8 First Diapason > 8 Concert Flute > 8 Salicional > 8 Voix Celestes > 8 Sptiz Floete > 8 Flute Celest (tc) > 4 Octave > 4 Flute > 8 Cornopean > 8 French Horn > 8 Fugel Horn > 8 Clarinet > 8 Vox Humana > Celesta > Celesta Sub > Tremolo > > Swell (Duplexed from GT) > 8 First Diapason > 8 Concert Flute > 8 Salicional > 8 Voix Celestes > 8 Spitz Floete > 8 Flute Celeste > 4 Octave > 4 Flute > 8 Cornopean > 8 French Horn > 8 Clarinet > 8 Vox Humana > Chimes > Tremolo > > Pedal (unenclosed, 7 1/2 in. w.p.) > 16 Diapason > 16 Bourdon > 16 Lieblich Gedeckt > 8 Gedeckt (ext. Bourdon) > 8 Still Gedeckt (ext. Lieblich) > > Couplers > Gt/Ped, Sw/Ped, Sw/Ped 4, Sw/Gt, Sw 16, Sw 4, Sw/Gt 16, Sw/Gt 4 > > Pistons > Sw 1-2-3-4 > Gt 1-2-3-4 > Ped 1-2-3 > Set >
(back) Subject: Re: Biltmore Skinner From: "Alan Freed" <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:19:12 -0400 On 8/3/03 8:36 PM, "RMB10@aol.com" <RMB10@aol.com> wrote: > Here is the stoplist of the Biltmore House E.M. Skinner organ opus 248 = 19=3D 16 > Originally installed in the residence of Cornelius Rea Agnew, Armonk, = NY; > rebuilt and installed in the Biltmore House by John Farmer 1999 But then, Monty, are you saying that there was NOT an organ at Biltmore prior to 1999? I=3DB9m thinking there must have been. But now gone? So = what happened to THAT one (if I=3DB9m assuming correctly)? Alan
(back) Subject: Re: Contemporary 'dis'-service From: "Alicia Zeilenga" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:23:50 -0500 I find this phenomenon interesting as well. At 19, it seems like I should be the one who wants contemporary music. :) Alicia Interesting huh? I, in my 21 years of age > am > pushing for music of the past, and others in their 60-80 years of age > want > music two generations ahead of them.
(back) Subject: Re: Marva Dawn From: "Alan Freed" <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:28:34 -0400 On 8/3/03 10:06 PM, "Keys4bach@aol.com" <Keys4bach@aol.com> wrote: > Marva Dawn is a wonder >=20 > give us a book report! Dale, I=B9ll try to do just that. Alan
(back) Subject: Re: Biltmore House - Lock Haven, PA Skinner.. From: "Alan Freed" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:57:47 -0400 On 8/3/03 10:11 PM, "Sand Lawn" <email@example.com> wrote: > The Skinner presently at Biltmore was built in 1916 in the Boston plant. = =3D The > Lock Haven organ (opus 445) was built in 1923 at the Westport plant = afte=3D r > Skinner bought that facility. >=3D20 So now we have two organs at Biltmore? The Skinner opus 248 of 1916 and = in 1999 imported from Armonk, and the 1923 opus 445? Or am I getting thoroughly confused? Of course it IS a fair-sized house. Does one or the other have obvious =3DB3pride of place=3DB2? Alan
(back) Subject: Advice, please From: "Alicia Zeilenga" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:02:25 -0500 Hello, The pastor at a parish in which I have been substituting has mentioned the possibility of getting a CLAVINOVA so that the church could have a "piano" and an "organ". As both an organist and a pianist I realize that a CLAVINOVA would at best be better than nothing. I know that I have to speak to him about this, but does anyone have any advice? I feel my inexperience and lack of age very acutely. Alicia "Santa Caecilia, ora pro nobis"
(back) Subject: Re: Subject: Darwinian organists or fossilised organists? From: <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:05:07 EDT Colin, I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, I think it's helpful to understand where youth are coming from. I, for instance, rebelled against = the disestablishment/congregational religion of my father's immigrant family = (from Wolverhampton/B'ham-Brierly Hill) by becoming a Roman Catholic then later, = an Anglo-Catholic. I also became a church musician and composer. I never = related to cheap pietism or to rock-concert liturgy. I especially detested Calvinism = and Wesleyan Methodism as respectively overly cruel and austere and overly pietistic. My family was hard-core Labour in England and Liberal Democrat = in the US. Strangely enough, I remain socialist yet high church. Rectors who think that pop music trumps the Gospel in getting youth and = the unchurched adults to Mass on Sunday are sadly mistaken. However, I have = come to believe that this kind of worship has developed in a vacuum. As traditionalists, I think we should be engaged in real innovation when it = comes to sacred music. We may have to be flexible. To me, the two extremes I see with youth--either ignoring their culture or refusing to invite them to share = an adult sense of worship by indulging their tastes without reserve--will not produce progress nor will it produce sustainable liturgical art. There must be = some kind of "third way", one which requires real, honest dialogue between church organizations and professional and amateur liturgical musicians. I'd love = to hear your thoughts on this. As an aside, last May I attended a packed RC Mass at a Jesuit church in Amsterdam. The liturgy was Novus Ordo Latin, lead by a fantastic Schola = Cantorum and an obviously savvy congregation. It tells us there is some hope for = the preservation of tradition and that traditional music does not necessarily disenfranchise contemporary congregations. Pax Tecum, Bill H.
(back) Subject: Writing From: "Alan Freed" <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:39:40 -0400 I find it difficult to believe that ANY list (I'm on a few, but not a lot) experiences writing of the quality and content that we've seen in this = list in the past few days. Absolutely stunning! (I refrain from mentioning names, but will be replying as time permits.) Alan
(back) Subject: Re: Biltmore Skinner From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:51:38 EDT Hi Alan: There was never a previous organ in the Biltmore. The facade was to contain one but never built. It was merely an ornament until the rebuilt E.M. Skinner arrived in 1999 or 8. Ron Severin
(back) Subject: Re: Biltmore Skinner From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:02:38 -0700 Hutchins installed the case and facade pipes, but there was never an organ behind it. Legend had it that the organ went instead to the family chapel (All Souls'?), now the cathedral of the diocese (!), but I believe later scholarship proved that to be fiction. When the Skinner was installed, the facade pipes were connected to provide a much-needed 16' Principal in the pedal. Cheers, Bud Alan Freed wrote: > On 8/3/03 8:36 PM, "RMB10@aol.com" <RMB10@aol.com> wrote: > > Here is the stoplist of the Biltmore House E.M. Skinner organ opus > 248 1916 > Originally installed in the residence of Cornelius Rea Agnew, > Armonk, NY; rebuilt and installed in the Biltmore House by John > Farmer 1999 > > > But then, Monty, are you saying that there was NOT an organ at Biltmore > prior to 1999? I?m thinking there must have been. But now gone? So > what happened to THAT one (if I?m assuming correctly)? > > Alan
(back) Subject: Re: Contemporary 'dis'-service From: <REEDSTOP@prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:59:25 -0500 This is not a surprise, actually. We had an event two years ago (that we called a "revival", but not in the sense of the typical meaning), and one of the features was Ken Medema, who many may recognize. He has written a lot of music for youth and children. Anyway, he tours a lot, and one of the things he said to me was that the younger generations (below 25, maybe?) DO prefer the traditional over the contemporary. I don't necessarily see evidence of this yet, BUT, the ones who are (almost) militant about their contemporary music ARE, in fact, over 40. Sooooo....perhaps we panic over the CCM movement? I see the commercials on television for CDs and stuff with all these praise songs, but when it comes down to it, I think the younger crowd finds more awe and reverence in the, well, not necessarily OLDER, but more traditional style music. Will CCM go away? Probably not. I still maintain that there's room for both, provided the CCM crowd at least gives traditional the respect it so much has earned. One person likes country, one person likes jazz, one person likes opera. It's all music. Is it all bad? Not necessarily. Symphonies have not gone by the wayside because rap has become popular. I think the same holds true in church music. Perhaps it's just that CCM is newer. Once the newness wears off, then it isn't so hyped up and such a big deal. Couple of things to consider: CCM does get other people in the church involved. It also may draw in those who may not be able to worship in the traditional style. (Isn't that, after all, why the church is there? Not to be an organ concert hall, right?) And don't get me wrong...I love the organ very much, and I miss it dearly on our CCM sundays (which is only once a month). The only thing I really wonder is if the majority of those attending REALLY like it. I dont' see many people singing... One last thing...Ken Medema also said there is NO reason the organ cannot be used in CCM services. In fact, it adds an interesting dimension to the "band". Think about it... Jeff
(back) Subject: Re: Biltmore House - Lock Haven, PA Skinner.. From: <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:05:19 -0700 No, someone inquired about opus 445, located in their CHURCH in Locke Haven, because it has the identical stoplist. Opus 248 is the only organ that has ever been installed at Biltmore. Cheers, Bud Alan Freed wrote: > On 8/3/03 10:11 PM, "Sand Lawn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > The Skinner presently at Biltmore was built in 1916 in the Boston > plant. The Lock Haven organ (opus 445) was built in 1923 at the > Westport plant after Skinner bought that facility. > > > So now we have two organs at Biltmore? The Skinner opus 248 of 1916 and = > in 1999 imported from Armonk, and the 1923 opus 445? Or am I getting > thoroughly confused? > > Of course it IS a fair-sized house. Does one or the other have obvious > ?pride of place?? > > Alan
(back) Subject: Re: Advice, please From: <REEDSTOP@prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:01:32 -0500 IMHO, synthesized organ sounds are never that great, no matter what they come out of (save from an actual electronic organ, such as an Allen, etc.) There is no variation in stops, and almost always the geniouses who put those together include a full to mixture sound + 16'. However, for a *temporary* situation, I'd say that'd work, but I would talk to him about long term and have the goal of getting some form of "real" organ. Just my two cents. Jeff
(back) Subject: Re: Advice, please From: "Bob Conway" <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:06:14 -0400 Alicia, I have a Clavinova in my home, and although it is a fair imitation of a piano, it is a very poor imitation of an organ! But it is still only an imitation! For my two-pennyworth, I would not even think of having a Clavinova in a church. Go for a good piano, or even an electronic organ. Bob Conway At 09:02 AM 8/4/03 -0500, Alicia wrote: >Hello, >The pastor at a parish in which I have been substituting has mentioned >the possibility of getting a CLAVINOVA so that the church could have >a "piano" and an "organ". As both an organist and a pianist I realize >that a CLAVINOVA would at best be better than nothing. I know that I >have to speak to him about this, but does anyone have any advice? I feel >my inexperience and lack of age very acutely.
(back) Subject: Re: Contemporary 'dis'-service From: <Pepehomer@aol.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:17:44 -0400 Presbyterian and a Catholic, all others are mostly contemporary and mainly Baptist). other observations I thought hit the nail on the head. Justin Karch Organist, Holy Trinity LCMS Rome, Ga
(back) Subject: Re: Traditional Hymns From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:18:18 +0000 Terry, The language of old hymns was not the common vernacular of the times, it was written as beautiful, polished prose. People on the street did not speak that way, any more than they do today. I think of it as poetry written for God. I'm Episcopalean, and we've rewritten our hymns, liturgy, etc. in the past 20 years or so. It's OK, I guess. The parts where they changed male gender words to include women seem fine - no sense in excluding half the planet. But to me, the other rewrites are not as evocative of spiritual communion as the old. It's for God. It should be the most beautiful we can create. If people have to reflect a bit to understand the words, that is not a bad thing. If they must ask questions to understand the meaning, that also is not a bad thing. I'm no theologian, nor a lyricist. I don't claim absolute correctness for my opinions, one of which is my belief that people who wish to do secular things should do them in secular venues, leaving the church to nourish our spirits. Best Regards to all, David Doerschuk > Amy, > You're observations about Contemporary Christian Music is true regarding > it's indulgence in emotion at the expense of theology. On the other > hand, so many traditional hymns/songs use language that is no longer > part of our vernacular. Just as Martin Luther took the Latin hymns of > the Roman church and put them into his vernacular, it's probably time to > redo the English in many of our traditional hymns. This can be done > without destroying the intent of the original text. There are also many > wonderful old tunes that people will accept if they have "new" texts. > > For instance, when I introduced the tune Picardy (it's true...they > didn't know it!), I paired it with a contemporary text and either played > it on the piano using a picking pattern like a guitar, or used a good > guitarist while I sustained chords on the organ - the people loved it. > Now, I'll use any instrumentation/text and don't get hassled about it > being old or boring.