PipeChat Digest #3901 - Sunday, August 24, 2003
 
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by "James R McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com>
looking for a strong 87. 87. 87 tune (X-posted)
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: the one-manual Tannenberg
  by "James R McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com>
Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
IRC
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
 

(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: "James R McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:27:52 -0400   List:   After inventory, I believe T&B has enough material to make restoration of this organ possible. Recreation is not necessary.     Jim McFarland   On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:17:40 EDT RonSeverin@aol.com writes: 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: looking for a strong 87. 87. 87 tune (X-posted) From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 15:33:55 -0700   Needs to be in d dorian, SATB, workable in c minor, to use as a fauxbourdon with the proper "Crux fidelis" chant tune on Good Friday.   I've checked the Hymnal 1940 and The English Hymnal ... nada.   The Burgess fauxbourdon printed with Crux fidelis in the Good Friday Liturgical Choirbook is too lowly and growly, but you can't transpose it up because of the wide range of the CHANT.   What I HAVE done in the past is sing the CHANT verses to "Urbs beata Jerusalem" with F as the finalis, and transposed the Burgess UP a third .... THAT works, but I want to get back to the proper Crux fidelis melody, AND have something to alternate with it, since it's so LONG = (grin).   None of my old RC books have anything either ... ancient OR modern.   Cheers,   Bud      
(back) Subject: Re: the one-manual Tannenberg From: "James R McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:33:26 -0400   List:   The original was NOT lost in a fire, The 1772 Bullitchek was. Built for the Geminhaus in Salem, it was replaced by the organ in question in 1798. Used for awhile by the congregation in Bethabara, it burned in 1942. Charles McManis DID make a replica of this organ.   I came by MY information during the intensive research I did prior to our restoration of the two Tannenberg's in Lititz.   Jim McFarland       On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 15:55:58 EDT RonSeverin@aol.com writes: 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: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:35:51 +0800   Alan, I have never measured the variations in pitch but I do know of two cases in my state where a shift in temperature during the day has put pipework out of tune. IN one the change in tenmperature was 3 C. This was enough to make the reeds virtually unusable. The flues shift in pitch whereas the reeds move very little. IN the case of my church organ I put an indoor/outdoor thermometer (digital) with one sensor in the swell box and one in the great. The air temperature at round the great rose 1C during the service while the swell remained only slightly affected. That was enough to "separate" the great and swell in pitch so that there was an undulation when the two departments were coupled. There have been times when during the hymn singing I could use swell or great uncoupled but could not couple the two together. The separation in pitch had become rather unpleasant. No it would not be a semitone - maybe 10 Hz at middle C which is a significant shift.   Let me comment that we have not the huge churches you have over there. My church seats about 300 when full and there are no big spaces free of seating. With a full congregation the temperature in the church can rise significantly. We have no air conditioning (not needed) and the heating is infra red (halogen) which does not heat the air significantly. The heating is only necessary in the middle of winter.   The point I was making was that the pitch of the organ varies with the change in air temperature which alters the density of the air in the pipes. Rising temperature sends flues sharp, dropping temperastures send them flat.   How can a person with "perfect pitch" strike a note accurately if the note from the organ varies according to the temperature at the time? I am a sceptic! There must be a pitch to relate to. BOb Elms.   ---- Original Message ---- From: acfreed0904@earthlink.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect 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. > >    
(back) Subject: Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:00:02 -0400   On 8/23/03 8:35 PM, "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> wrote:   > Alan, I have never measured the variations in pitch but I do know of two = cases > in my state where a shift in temperature during the day has put = pipework out > of tune.   Easily believable. Now late at night here, and distressed to get the impression that you thought I was challenging you. Not at all!   Let's talk more on, like, Monday?   (Maybe sooner; let's see how the time goes. I happen to be a FAN of the ideas you are promoting. I'm WITH you)   Alan      
(back) Subject: IRC From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:24:21 -0700   I'm gonna go forage for food; then I'll be on.   Bud      
(back) Subject: Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:07:48 +0800   No. no Alan. I didn't get that impression at all! I can measure shift in pitch in cents with the measuring device but I would have to do a bit of homework to translate that into fractions of a tone shift. Intersting subject! Regards, Bob Elms.   ---- Original Message ---- From: acfreed0904@earthlink.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org, Subject: Re: (Long) Pitches - perfect and non perfect Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:00:02 -0400   >On 8/23/03 8:35 PM, "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> wrote: > >> Alan, I have never measured the variations in pitch but I do know >of two cases >> in my state where a shift in temperature during the day has put >pipework out >> of tune. > >Easily believable. Now late at night here, and distressed to get the >impression that you thought I was challenging you. Not at all! > >Let's talk more on, like, Monday? > >(Maybe sooner; let's see how the time goes. I happen to be a FAN of >the >ideas you are promoting. I'm WITH you) > >Alan > > >"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 > > >