PipeChat Digest #3900 - Saturday, August 23, 2003
 
RE: Music suggestion
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
RE: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: Music suggestion
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: Key Preference / Pitch
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: Key Preference / Pitch
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: Bach's Passacaglia
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Re: Pitch and Bach
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Re: Music suggestion
  by "Nelson Denton" <ndenton@cogeco.ca>
Re: Moravian Home Church Organ and our Rieger-Kloss
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com>
Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Greetings and Salutations
  by "Bigaquarium" <Bigaquarium@netzero.net>
Greetings and Salutations
  by "Bigaquarium" <Bigaquarium@netzero.net>
Re: Moravian Home Church Organ and our Rieger-Kloss
  by <Icedad@aol.com>
the one-manual Tannenberg
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by "Blaine Ricketts" <blainericketts@comcast.net>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Tannenburg, the one manual did NOT burn
  by "Sand Lawn" <glawn@jam.rr.com>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by "James R McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com>
 

(back) Subject: RE: Music suggestion From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:08:15 -0500   Colin, you probably don't need to meet my husband and his Harley. When he bought it, he didn't think it loud enough. So I had to buy all new custom Harley pipework (chrome) so it would sound like what he wanted. The whole countryside knows when he cranks it up in the garage.   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Colin Mitchell   Sorry....but I hate Harley-Davidson bikes....noisy and overweight.   I used to live very close to the actor Jason Connery (Sean Connery's son) and he had one. The darned thing used to wake me up night after night, like the sound of a tuner working on a 16ft pedal Trombone.        
(back) Subject: RE: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:13:37 +0800   I am not happy about some of the arguments being used about this "perfect pitch", nor am I inclined to accord the gift, if it is that, much importance. Other factors seem to be more impiortant as far as I am concerned.   I often played for choral evensong for a Bishop in the local Anglican Church. Sometimes he chanted the Creed and sometimes he didn't. If he started out chanting the creed I knew I could come in with the organ accompaniment, and he would be right on the note. However, How would he know where the organ was in pitch unless he had heard it already that night in the hymns. He couldn't know. In our churches which are not air conditioned and often not heated there is a wide variation of pitch according to the weather.   My church organ is at A434 at present but I know that at 70F it should be close to A440. Don't tell me that "perfect pitch" is self adjusting according to the weather!   When I am training my choir I can switch between parts whenever I choose, and having finished one piece I can give the starting note for the next even if in a different key. I don't think I have "perfect pitch" since I cannot hit exactly a particular note without having heard a sound on the piano or organ first. As far as organs are concerned anyway they are likely to be anywhere between 430 and 445 and how would someone with "perfect pitch" actual know what pitch he was singing to? He couldn't.   I think the importance of "perfect pitch" is exaggerated to some degree, and that it is far more important to be able to keep pitch than to have the power to guess the pitch of any single note. Bob ELms.   ---- Original Message ---- From: agun@telcel.net.ve To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: RE: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:30:09 -0400   >Andres Gunther >agun@telcel.net.ve   >Note that the "perfect pitch" is an ability to store a given pitch >in your brain permanently (BTW it's a recessive heritable ability). In my >case it's the a'=3D440Hz that is "stored" in my brain because my piano is tuned in this pitch since I took my first lessons. >But somebody with this ability who lived in other time and learned / >listened to music in the standard pitch of HIS time (f.e. a'=3D 415) >would have gone nuts playing on a 440 Hz tuned instrument. > >>    
(back) Subject: Re: Music suggestion From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:18:02 +0800   What about "CHitty Chitty Bang! Bang!"? Bob Elms.   ---- Original Message ---- From: dillardm@airmail.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: Music suggestion Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:16:34 -0500   >Fantasia on "Wild Thing" >Chorale Prelude on "Easy Rider" > >Patricia/Thomas Gregory wrote: > >>This is the weekend of the huge Harley Davidson 100th birthday >party. The >>center of the activities will be near the church. Any suggestions >for >>appropriate music? >> >> >> >> > >    
(back) Subject: Re: Key Preference / Pitch From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:31:16 +0800   Right Randy, and if we have a choir, as we have we find the basses trying desperately to get just that little bit lower in order to stay in tune. The altos are not much better off either. Bob Elms   ---- Original Message ---- From: runyonr@muohio.edu To: pipechat@pipechat.org, Subject: Re: Key Preference / Pitch Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:09:43 -0400   > >I am under the impression that there is some transposing down going >on among editors of newer hymnals, due to the belief that that makes them >easier to sing.    
(back) Subject: Re: Key Preference / Pitch From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:49:07 +0800   Randy, the following in the new Australian Hymn Book "Together in Song". Nicea - D major (E major in Methodist Hymn Book) Grosser Gott - F major Italian Hymn - not used Diademata - D major (E major in MHB) Neander - Bb major Palestrina - not included Lancashire - not included Llanfair - F major Kremser - D major Lasst uns erfreuen - Eb major (MHB Eb major)   ---- Original Message ---- From: runyonr@muohio.edu To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: Key Preference / Pitch Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:51:41 -0400   >Here are some examples of hymns that have been moved downward, to >back up my >point in an earlier post. > > >1. Nicea: E-flat in The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) vs. D in the >Lutheran Book >of Worship (1978) > >2. Grosser Gott: G (1941) vs. F (1978) > >3. Italian Hymn: G (1941) vs. F (1978) > >4. Diademata: E (1941) vs. D (1978) > >5. Neander: C (194)1 vs. B-flat (1978) > >6. Palestrina: E-flat (1941) vs. D (1978) > >7. Lancashire: D (1941) vs. C (1978) > >8. Llanfair: G (1941) vs. F (1978) > >9. Kremser: D (1941) vs. C in The Presbyterian Hymnal, 1990 > >10. Lasst uns erfreuen: E-flat (1941) vs. D in Presbyterian Hymnal, >1990 > >>    
(back) Subject: Re: Bach's Passacaglia From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:47:34 -0400   No, that's the Flentrop at Harvard. Not bad, of course, but the real treat was his recording at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig. The sounds he used in the Passacaglia were fantastic, and really brought the piece to life.   -WG     > <Myosotis51@aol.com> wrote: > Hello ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com, > > Is this it? Passacaglia and Fugue for organ in C minor, BWV 582?? If = so, > it's been reissued, and it's available on Amazon. I typed E. Power = Biggs on > Amazon, and got a nice long list. > > <A = HREF=3D"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000027BF/qid=3D1061= 613881/sr=3D8-3/ref=3Dsr_8_3/002-4059367-3366416?v=3Dglance&s=3Dclassical&n= =3D507846"> > = http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000027BF/qid=3D1061613881/s= r=3D8-3/ref=3Dsr_8_3/002-4059367-3366416?v=3Dglance&s=3Dclassical&n=3D50784= 6</A> > > Victoria > > In reference to your comment: > > Steve and Walter, I agree > with you on Bigg's recording of the Passacaglia. It is a > great recording from the point of view of showing off the > architecture of the piece. I think I like Chorzempa's > recording even better, but compared to these 2 > recordings the other dozen versions on disc I have are > just not worth listening to, other than to hear the > sound of the organ maybe.    
(back) Subject: Re: Pitch and Bach From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:57:30 -0400   Agreed. Wasn't Bach arrested and jailed for sword-fighting a bassoonist in the street? Nothing dispassionate about that! More to the point, just look at the notes he wrote. You've got to be nuts to think you can play, say, the D-major P&F without having a bit of fun with it. He had to be giggling to himself the first time he commited that subject to paper.   -WG     > "John Foss" <harfo32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > ... On a question of Bach > interpretation, ever a controversial topic, I do not > believe a man who had 22 children could have played > the organ without passion! Dry performances of Bach > are like gin without tonic, painful on the tongue ...   > > John Foss    
(back) Subject: Re: Music suggestion From: "Nelson Denton" <ndenton@cogeco.ca> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:05:26 -0400   A "Motor"cycle Built For Two? Piano and organ duet.   > >>This is the weekend of the huge Harley Davidson 100th birthday > >party. The > >>center of the activities will be near the church. Any suggestions > >for > >>appropriate music?    
(back) Subject: Re: Moravian Home Church Organ and our Rieger-Kloss From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:08:37 -0500   Mike wrote:   >On 20 Aug 2003 at 18:42, Icedad@aol.com wrote: > > > >>There first organ was a Tannenburg from 1772. >> >> > >It was indeed. If I remember correctly there were some disputes >surrounding this organ. There was disagreement about the organ's >plcement, and Tannenberg complained that he did not recieve >enough money for theinstrument. > >This organ is currently being restored by Taylor and Boody. There >is a pic on their website. > > > Let me just clarify a few historical points here in the interests of historical accuracy. First, the earliest organ in Salem was in 1798, not 1772, and Tannenberg built a second instrument in 1800. Both these organs still exist. The 1798 organ was a one manual instrument built for the Moravian Chapel (in the Gemeinhaus or Saal), and rebuilt in the 1960's by Charles McManis, although with the limited historical evidence at his disposal he failed to understand what the original disposition of the instrument had been. This little organ is currently at Historic Old Salem and it hopefully to be restored to its true glory before two long.   The instrument which Taylor & Boody are currently restoring is the 1800 Tannenberg organ built for the Home Church. This is the only surviving two manual Tannenberg organ of which anything other than the case still survives. The stop lists of the two organs were as follows:   1798 instrument:   Manual C-f''' (54 notes)   8' Gro=DF Gedackt 8' Quinta Dena 8' Viola de Gamba 4' Principal 4' Flauta   1800 instrument:   Hauptwerk C-f''' (54 notes)   8' Principal 8' Gro=DF Gedackt 8' Viola di Gamba 4' Principal Octav 4' Flauta 3' Quinte 2' Sub Octav (sic.: a name often used by Tannenberg for Super Octave)   Oberwerk C-f''' (54 notes)   8' Quintadena 8' Flauta Amabile 4' Salicet 4' Flauta Douce   Pedal C-c' (25 notes)   16' Sub Bass 8' Violon Bass Pedal Koppel (Hauptwerk to Pedal Coupler)   John Speller            
(back) Subject: Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:22:00 -0400   On 8/23/03 8:13 AM, "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> wrote:   > In our churches which are not air conditioned and often not heated there = is a > wide variation of pitch according to the weather.   Bob, can you be a bit more explicit about "a wide variation"? Are you talking about as much as a semitone--or even more? Six or eight years = ago I got all the numbers together and did all the math, and was surprised to see how LITTLE (though still audible, to be sure) an organ pitch changes = as it moves from, say, 55 deg. F. to 85 deg. F.--but I have NO recollection = of just how much it was, and have long lost all that work.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Greetings and Salutations From: "Bigaquarium" <Bigaquarium@netzero.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:54:59 -0400   Greetings,   My name is Nathan, I am a fan of the pipe organ in it's many forms, and = I have just subscribed to pipechat. (C:   I would like to start off with a question. Could anyone point me = towards a web site that has specs and a modern stoplist for the town hall organ in Sydney, Australia? I visited the official town web site but either = through mistake or it infact not being there, couldn't find the stoplist. Thanks!   = -Nate      
(back) Subject: Greetings and Salutations From: "Bigaquarium" <Bigaquarium@netzero.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:03:12 -0400   Greetings,   My name is Nathan, I am a fan of the pipe organ in it's many forms, and = I have just subscribed to pipechat. (C:   I would like to start off with a question. Could anyone point me = towards a web site that has specs and a modern stoplist for the town hall organ in Sydney, Australia? I visited the official town web site but either = through mistake or it infact not being there, couldn't find the stoplist. Thanks!     -Nate      
(back) Subject: Re: Moravian Home Church Organ and our Rieger-Kloss From: <Icedad@aol.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:56:54 EDT   John,   Thank you for the historical clarifications. I was going on = information I received from people from the congregation. I can't believe we missed = seeing the Tannenburg in the Salem Exhibition Hall. Will see it on our next visit = to Salem to see our daughter.   Thanks,   Daniel    
(back) Subject: the one-manual Tannenberg From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:10:48 -0700   I'm confused ... I thought I remembered reading in Sticks And Whistles (aka The Tracker) that Charlie McManis had built a REPLICA of the one-manual organ (as best he could with the information he had at hand at the time), since the original was all but destroyed (by fire?) ... he re-used what survived, but as I recall the rest was new, including most of the pipes (?).   My memory is ... well, yeah (grin).   Cheers,   Bud        
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: "Blaine Ricketts" <blainericketts@comcast.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:16:07 -0700   Are you thinking about the one manual in the Brother's residence that McMannis restored about 1965? Blaine Ricketts   quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > I'm confused ... I thought I remembered reading in Sticks And Whistles > (aka The Tracker) that Charlie McManis had built a REPLICA of the > one-manual organ (as best he could with the information he had at hand > at the time), since the original was all but destroyed (by fire?) ... he > re-used what survived, but as I recall the rest was new, including most > of the pipes (?).      
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:17:13 -0500       quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > I'm confused ... I thought I remembered reading in Sticks And Whistles > (aka The Tracker) that Charlie McManis had built a REPLICA of the > one-manual organ (as best he could with the information he had at hand > at the time), since the original was all but destroyed (by fire?) ... > he re-used what survived, but as I recall the rest was new, including > most of the pipes (?). > > My memory is ... well, yeah (grin).   I would think "reconstruction" would best suit what Charles McManis attempted to produce. It incorporates the chest and casework of the original, but almost all the pipework is new (I think in fact with the exception of one pipe.) I believe the new pipes came from Laukhuff, though they are supposedly built to Tannenberg scales. The problem was that all the bits of the 1798 and 1800 Tannenbergs were lying about all mixed up, and -- as as you will note from my previous e-mail -- there were quite a few stops with the same names in both organs. In any case McManis had the original stop list wrong so was looking for the wrong pipes anyway. In the end Charles McManis decided it was impossible to tell which if any pipework belonged to the instrument and bought new. There is some hope that Taylor & Boody will be rather better at figuring the stuff out, and that there may be a little material -- and certainly a lot more knowhow -- to attempt a much better reconstruction of the one manual instrument later.   Charles McManis was faced with a chest that had five stops, two of them tenor C. Now it would on the face of it have be logical for Tannenberg to have built an organ which was like his four stop organs at Nazareth and Lititz -- 8' Gedackt, 8' Gamba, 4' Flute and 2' Octave, with the addition of a 4' Principal in the facade. (This is in fact what Ray Brunner suggested in his book"That Ingenious Business.") However, I have seen Charles McManis's notes and one thing that he did find was that the slider for the Quintadena was marked in Tannenberg's writing "Quint[...]. From this, McManis deduced erroneously that the stop had been a 3' Quinte and that the original stop list had been:   8' Gedackt 4' Principal 4' Flute 3' Quinte TC 2' Octave 1.3/5' Terz TC   In fact, however, both the TC ranks were 8 foot stops, a Quintadena and a Gamba, and there were never any mutations. The correct stoplist has subsequently been found in a document written by Frederick Marshall of Salem in 1801. It is a pity McManis did not have access to all the information that Taylor & Boody have, since he was for his day quite a fine craftsman and if he had known more about the history he would have been able to produce a much better reconstruction of the instrument. I am glad to say that Charles McManis, now aged 90 and living in Vermont, is still going strong, and he and his wife paid us a visit at QPO when they were down here a few weeks ago.   John Speller    
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 15:55:58 EDT   Bud:   You are correct, Charles McMannis built a new organ based upon extant records and photographs. The original was destroyed in a fire. There was some controversy over the organ's disposition of the stops or pipes. It was an attempt at a replication, rather than a restoration. There was little left of the original TO restore. This was from an artical either in the OHS handbook or the Tracker several years ago. Charles had very little to work with, so don't be too hard on him, he did the best he could at the time. The replication was inadvertantly a bit different from the original.   Ron Severin    
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:21:19 -0700   Oh, NO! I wasn't being hard on Charlie AT ALL ... he did yeoman work with the information he had at the time ... not at ALL!   I LIKE some of his tonal work, BTW ... it's a shame some of his mechanisms weren't more durable, i.e. Church of the Resurrection in NYC .... I played that organ when it was new ... it only lasted 40 years ... of course, the CHURCH *could* have had something to do with that ... I think they went through a period of decline, and probably didn't have the money to spend on maintenance.   Cheers,   Bud   RonSeverin@aol.com wrote: > Bud: > > You are correct, Charles McMannis built a new organ based upon > extant records and photographs. The original was destroyed in a > fire. There was some controversy over the organ's disposition > of the stops or pipes. It was an attempt at a replication, rather > than a restoration. There was little left of the original TO restore. > This was from an artical either in the OHS handbook or the > Tracker several years ago. Charles had very little to work with, > so don't be too hard on him, he did the best he could at the time. > The replication was inadvertantly a bit different from the original. > > Ron Severin        
(back) Subject: Tannenburg, the one manual did NOT burn From: "Sand Lawn" <glawn@jam.rr.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:07:55 -0500   Joseph Bulitschek built a three stop organ for the Saal of the Salem = Geheimhause in 1772. It was replaced in 1798 by a five stop Tannenburg. = The Bultischek was moved by Philip Bachman to the Moravian congregation = at Bethabara where it burned on Nov. 3, 1942. In 1971 Charles McManis = built a replacement for this organ, using extant historical records. = The Tannenburg was removed in 1864 and stored in the attic of Home = Moravian Church where it was joined in 1913 by the two manual = Tannenburg. Around 1965, the one manuel Tannenburg was placed in the = Saal of the Single Brothers House in Winston-Salem. Again, Charles = McManis did the first work on restoring the organ, using parts that were = found in the attic of Home Moravian. This is the organ being used = today, although there are plans for a more historic restoration like = that being done to the two manual Tannenburg at this time.   Hope this all makes sense.   Sand Lawn  
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:17:40 EDT   Bud:   I didn't mean YOU were hard on Charles, but some of our other collegues were. I think it was cleaver of Charles to work in a cornette 12, 17th from middle C. Being that it was really a replication of sorts, why doesn't Taylor and Boody just build another one just like it with the corrected specification. Neither one really qualifies as a Tannenburg anyway. It would be interesting to hear two replications side by side. The 1395-1410 Zion, Switzerland organ is no different as hardly any material exists from the original instrument anyway. That's in essence a replication of an original instrument. No one knows how the original sounded. The metal pipe work was based on best guesses.   My question is, Where do we draw the line? restoration, rebuild, or replication. To me a restoration consists of pipe replication where most of the rank still exists due to pilfering. A rebuild is where all the material still exists and is really a repair to put an instrument back into service, releathering, replicate broken parts etc. Replication is still based on a best guess, when most of the parts metal and wood are reduced dust or ashes like the Tannenburg.   Ron Severin    
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: "James R McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:25:12 -0400       Dear List:   I have acted in a pseudo-advisory capacity with Bruce Shull of T&B who heads up the restoration of the Home organ. I thought the list might find it interesting that every single original pipe for the home organ was found!   Jim McFarland         On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:17:13 -0500 "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@mindspring.com> writes: > > > quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: > > > I'm confused ... I thought I remembered reading in Sticks And > Whistles > > (aka The Tracker) that Charlie McManis had built a REPLICA of the > > > one-manual organ (as best he could with the information he had at > hand > > at the time), since the original was all but destroyed (by fire?) > ... > > he re-used what survived, but as I recall the rest was new, > including > > most of the pipes (?). > > > > My memory is ... well, yeah (grin). > > I would think "reconstruction" would best suit what Charles McManis > > attempted to produce. It incorporates the chest and casework of the > > original, but almost all the pipework is new (I think in fact with > the > exception of one pipe.) I believe the new pipes came from Laukhuff, > > though they are supposedly built to Tannenberg scales. The problem > was > that all the bits of the 1798 and 1800 Tannenbergs were lying about > all > mixed up, and -- as as you will note from my previous e-mail -- > there > were quite a few stops with the same names in both organs. In any > case > McManis had the original stop list wrong so was looking for the > wrong > pipes anyway. In the end Charles McManis decided it was impossible > to > tell which if any pipework belonged to the instrument and bought > new. > There is some hope that Taylor & Boody will be rather better at > figuring the stuff out, and that there may be a little material -- > and > certainly a lot more knowhow -- to attempt a much better > reconstruction > of the one manual instrument later. > > Charles McManis was faced with a chest that had five stops, two of > them > tenor C. Now it would on the face of it have be logical for > Tannenberg > to have built an organ which was like his four stop organs at > Nazareth > and Lititz -- 8' Gedackt, 8' Gamba, 4' Flute and 2' Octave, with the > > addition of a 4' Principal in the facade. (This is in fact what Ray > > Brunner suggested in his book"That Ingenious Business.") However, I > > have seen Charles McManis's notes and one thing that he did find was > > that the slider for the Quintadena was marked in Tannenberg's > writing > "Quint[...]. From this, McManis deduced erroneously that the stop > had > been a 3' Quinte and that the original stop list had been: > > 8' Gedackt > 4' Principal > 4' Flute > 3' Quinte TC > 2' Octave > 1.3/5' Terz TC > > In fact, however, both the TC ranks were 8 foot stops, a Quintadena > and > a Gamba, and there were never any mutations. The correct stoplist > has > subsequently been found in a document written by Frederick Marshall > of > Salem in 1801. It is a pity McManis did not have access to all the > > information that Taylor & Boody have, since he was for his day quite > a > fine craftsman and if he had known more about the history he would > have > been able to produce a much better reconstruction of the instrument. > I > am glad to say that Charles McManis, now aged 90 and living in > Vermont, > is still going strong, and he and his wife paid us a visit at QPO > when > they were down here a few weeks ago. > > John Speller > > "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 > > > >