PipeChat Digest #3467 - Sunday, February 16, 2003
 
Wood VS non-Wood Music rack
  by "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net>
ADMINISTRATION NOTE!! Re: TWO SUGGESTIONS
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
music racks
  by "Gary Black" <gblack@ocslink.com>
RE: Huge Church Organs
  by "Bill Sebring" <baircub@austin.rr.com>
RE: Huge Church Organs
  by "Bill Sebring" <baircub@austin.rr.com>
 

(back) Subject: Wood VS non-Wood Music rack From: "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:26:06 -0600   TubaMagna@aol.com wrote:   > I have never seen a plastic music rack that did not cloud over from > thousands of micro-scratches over time. Such materials take on the = appearance > of old bus windows and greatly detract from the beauty of a console.   That is why I suggested Polycarbonate. It is much more durable than Plastic (usually acrylic) and doesn't exhibit the properties you suggest. I've got LOTS of them out there.   And if they ever do yellow or haze, they certainly can be easily and inexpensively replaced in 10 years or so.   Marquetry is very pretty, but I've seen some of them "self-destruct" over the years also due to the differences in expansion/contraction between the veneer and the substrate beneath. Granted, something exotic like that may be a "statement", but it may be like throwing "Pearls to Swine" as a practical matter when it comes to something as utilitarian as a Music Rack.   Faithfully,   G.A. -- Richard Schneider, PRES/CEO SCHNEIDER PIPE ORGANS, Inc. Pipe Organ Builders 41-43 Johnston St./P.O. Box 137 Kenney, IL 61749-0137 (217) 944-2454 VOX (217) 944-2527 FAX mailto:arp@schneiderpipeorgans.com SHOP EMAIL mailto:arp@starband.net SHOP SATELLITE EMAIL mailto:arpschneider@starband.net HOME OFFICE EMAIL http://www.schneiderpipeorgans.com WEB PAGE URL    
(back) Subject: ADMINISTRATION NOTE!! Re: TWO SUGGESTIONS From: "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:04:16 -0600   Folks   Although I am breaking the rules - which "I" can do - by copying all of Dennis' message below I really want to reinforce what he wrote.   I just checked one of today's Digests and ran it through a Text Editor program where I could add line numbers to it. Out of a total of 503 lines of text in that digest there was only 67 lines of new material! All the rest of it was either copies upon copies upon copies of previous postings or HTML formatting garbage.   I keep bringing up this request about these two problems but some of you won't listen to me so maybe you might listen to one of your fellow list members when he makes the request.   Enough said.   David   At 11:36 AM -0600 2/15/03, First Christian Church of Casey, IL wrote: >Folks, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE help us out and do two things when you = post: > >1. Don't merely hit "reply" and send back an increasingly long message = that >has tons and tons of earlier messages. We're now getting "Digests" made = up >of only two or three new messages! > >2. Turn OFF the HTML! Neither do we need reams and reams of pointless >data about the format of your email. If you use AOL, it takes some = special >techniques to get rid of it, but it can be done, and I believe we covered = it >here recently. > >I LOVE PIPE ORGANS--so let's concentrate on the essentials and not get >bogged in extra junk! > >Thanks so much! ;>) > >Dennis Steckley     -- **************************************** David Scribner Owner / Co-Administrator PipeChat   http://www.pipechat.org mailto:admin@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: music racks From: "Gary Black" <gblack@ocslink.com> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:18:23 -0600   HI list, I have a 1923 Hinners console and they were used to making a lattice type of music rack with large open areas between smaller pieces of wood. It sure looks nice but if you are trying to write on your music and you are using a single copy, it is difficult because the pencil has = nothing to rest against for the most part. Gary      
(back) Subject: RE: Huge Church Organs From: "Bill Sebring" <baircub@austin.rr.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:37:56 -0600   I have to admit, I don't have any problem with big organs like the Wanamaker, nor do I consider it or any other instrument to be "folly". = For what the Wanamaker can do, it does well, and I rather enjoy the romantic style organs; however I don't always consider "bigger is always better". You can get a very wonderful sound with less ranks of pipes if the = acoustics are good...and unfortunately there are quite a few organ builders out = there who aren't aware of that, or don't care. Visser-Roland being one, that rather bugs me quite a bit...there is sadly enough, organs that are very very weak in the bottom end, or just don't have the wind pressure to = develop it very well. Also a very big gripe of mine. I live in Austin Texas, and at the University of Texas campus we have this Visser-Roland monstrosity that is EXTREMELY top heavy, and very asthmatic sounding. The bottom end = is very very weak. If you've ever wondered what a 16' duck call pipe sounds like, come to Austin...and be embarrassed. UT having practically the largest student enrollment in the US, couldn't have the decency of putting in a very nice sounding organ, though I will TRY to be kind to them and = say that the last time it was tuned and revoiced, it sounded a LOT = better...but it's still lacking. The Director of music at UT has waxed SO enthusiastically about the instrument, calling it "the Rembrandt of = organs." (Oy vey!) Warhol yes, Rambrandt NO! In defense of the Wanamaker, I have = to say that when the organ was first installed at the Wanamaker store, it's sound was judged inadequate for the accoustics of the building, so it was expanded. It was not expanded just for the sake of being big. not big = for bigness sake. I've got a cd of Virgil Fox playing the Wanamaker, and the fur on my arms stands up...and that is a good thing. Big or small, I have no problem with the size of the instrument, nor do I see any reason to get embarrassed about big organs vs. small, vs. whatever. The organ at UT, oh it's pretty, it looks impressive, but it sounds awful. And Colin, the US = is not all about big this or big that...Personally I LOVE English organs because they at least have BEAUTIFUL sounding reeds that mean business....and there are quite a few American instruments that just can't get it right...too blatty sounding.   Ah well, I don't want to start an argument...just wanting to give some perspective.     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of Colin Mitchell Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 3:32 PM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Huge Church Organs     Hello,   Oh dear! I seem to be reacting against anything Tuba Magna writes!   I would have thought that anything written with big Romantic German organs in mind, might well include a huge pallette of colour.   Of course, the design of German organs from the early to mid-19th century did not rely on the powerful Swell organ and the expression box. Hence the mass of shaded, foundation stops which could make "louder" and "softer" a musical possibility; but not of the "seamless" type we associate with French/English/American organs.   When Germany eventually switched on to Swell boxes, the size remained....in fact, got even bigger! Hence, there is an almost unbelievable range of romantic colour available on many German Romantic instruments. Surely, the Unda Maris was a very common stop at this time?   Lest we forget, composers such as Karg-Elert and Reger were writing for BIG German Romantic instruments.   Of course, others had to equal or exceed the size of these leviathans.....we have the biggest, the best, the loudest etc etc. Atlantic City and Wanamaker were the ultimate expressions of organ folly, but even in the UK, Liverpool Cathedral was bordering on the ludicrous; made bearable by the sheer quality of the sound.   Anyway, the US wouldn't be the US without monster consoles. When they've all gone, we'll all realise what has been lost!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK (Who has a tiny organ)     --- Kzimmer0817@aol.com wrote:     > > Monty said: > > > I'm designing a 5 manual 100+ rank organ for a > church right now, and we are > > going to have some digital stops in it, because of > space issues. > > Please, in no way, take this question to be my > passing judgement on any > individual, certainly not the one who is designing > this organ, but....... > > 1. What possible use can a church have for a 5/100+ > pipe organ?     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com   "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: RE: Huge Church Organs From: "Bill Sebring" <baircub@austin.rr.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:00:06 -0600   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0059_01C2D55F.20D38E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   I myself do not have a problem with digital anything, as long as someone knows how to do it correctly. Personally my VERY humble opinion, is that perhaps maybe organ builders have a little bit more knowledge to get under their belt, with regards to the technology, in the way that most = synthesizer (OH, I said a NAUGHTY word! eg) manufacturers have, with regards to wave shaping, ambient qualities, etc. I certainly have the greatest respect = for the art and science involved with pipe organ building, and would hate to = see the craft vanish. Nor do I think that technology can ever completely replicate what a pipe organ can do. Technology has it's limits after all. I figure if the church can afford it, then why the heck NOT, get a 5 = manual organ? I am in no way meaning to pass judgement either, but why should it matter if church organ music was written to be played only on a 3 manual organ, or not? Who cares? in a certain way, and further does it REALLY matter? Think Riverside, think Mormon Tabernacle. Let the organist have = a jolly good time romping at the manuals and making the rafters shake. I don't mean to get off on a tangent here, but oh...what the heck. I am = tired of the trend towards musical "authenticity" and musical "purists". "authenticity" meaning people who get some self-righteous bug up their @$$ and decide that classical music is WORTHLESS unless played on instruments sounding like they did 400 years ago. (read HORRIBLY out of tune) Some musical snobs think that's the greatest thing since sliced bread...more power to them, but my ears deserve better. I am also weary of people who have decided that Bach's music was only meant to be played "a certain = way", and that organists like Virgil Fox were the devil incarnate. = Please...give me a break. Bach never wrote specific registrations to all of his pieces...and unfortunately there are too many people who love to = categorize him, and pigeonhole him and his music, to fit in with what they consider proper and correct. (pardon me, I'm GAGGING as I write this.) Ugh, it's just disgusting to me. Music is supposed to free the senses, and dare us = to dream and to feel, and to maybe be the slightest bit naughty. Musicians = who love to pigeonhole Bach, or anyone else for that matter, are no worse than most annoying music critics out there whom we ALL loath. >:-{)} My apologies to all, but I just HAD to get that rant out.   You may now resume normal programming. :-{)}   Cheers to all.   Bill, the angry keyboarding bear. -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of Kzimmer0817@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 3:12 PM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Huge Church Organs     Pipechatters:   Monty said:     I'm designing a 5 manual 100+ rank organ for a church right now, and = we are going to have some digital stops in it, because of space issues.     Please, in no way, take this question to be my passing judgement on any individual, certainly not the one who is designing this organ, but.......   1. What possible use can a church have for a 5/100+ pipe organ? = (unless the sanctuary will double as a concert hall). 2. Is there any music for worship (contemporary or traditional, conservative or liberal, whatever) that cannot be played very well on a large 3 manual or, at most, a 4 manual? I remember a chapter in a pipe organ book I read many years ago that, in discussing organs for worship, said that there is no need for more than 3 manuals on a church organ. I realize that he made a rather sweeping statement there. 3. What would "actually" be missed if the 5th manual division were omitted and the desired pedal ranks provided? After all, how many manuals can one really use in a given piece of music? If several different registrations are needed throughout a piece, can the changes not be made in a more cost-effective way by using pistons? 4. How many $millions does an organ like this cost? I won't ask the obviously judgemental question of "is that good stewardship?".   Anyway, those questions are not meant to start a war, just for me to understand some logic behind this.   Thanks, Keith   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0059_01C2D55F.20D38E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"us-ascii" 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=3D3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3D3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial = color=3D3D#0000ff =3D size=3D3D2>I=3D20 myself do not have a problem with digital anything, as long as someone =3D knows how=3D20 to do it correctly.&nbsp; Personally my VERY humble opinion, is that =3D perhaps=3D20 maybe organ builders have a little bit more knowledge to get under their = =3D belt,=3D20 with regards to the technology, in the way that most synthesizer (OH, I = =3D said a=3D20 NAUGHTY word!&nbsp; eg)&nbsp; manufacturers have, with regards to wave =3D shaping,=3D20 ambient qualities, etc.&nbsp; I certainly have the greatest respect for = =3D the art=3D20 and science involved with pipe organ building, and would hate to see the = =3D craft=3D20 vanish.&nbsp; Nor do I think that technology can ever completely =3D replicate what=3D20 a pipe organ can do.&nbsp; Technology has it's limits after all.&nbsp; I = =3D figure=3D20 if the church can afford it, then why the heck NOT, get a 5 manual =3D organ?&nbsp;=3D20 I am in no way meaning to pass judgement either, but why should it =3D matter if=3D20 church organ music was written&nbsp; to be played only on a 3 manual =3D organ, or=3D20 not?&nbsp; Who cares?&nbsp; in a certain way, and further does it REALLY = =3D   matter?&nbsp; Think Riverside, think Mormon Tabernacle.&nbsp; Let the =3D organist=3D20 have a jolly good time romping at the manuals and making the rafters=3D20 shake.&nbsp; I don't mean to get off on a tangent here, but oh...what =3D the=3D20 heck.&nbsp; I am tired of the trend towards musical "authenticity" and =3D musical=3D20 "purists".&nbsp; "authenticity" meaning people who get some =3D self-righteous bug=3D20 up their @$$ and decide that classical music is WORTHLESS unless played = =3D on=3D20 instruments sounding like they did 400 years ago. (read HORRIBLY out = of=3D20 tune)&nbsp; Some musical snobs think that's the greatest thing since =3D sliced=3D20 bread...more power to them, but my ears deserve better. I am also weary = =3D of=3D20 people who have decided that Bach's music was only meant to be played "a = =3D certain=3D20 way", and that organists like Virgil Fox were the devil incarnate.&nbsp; = =3D   Please...give me a break.&nbsp; Bach never wrote specific registrations = =3D to all=3D20 of his pieces...and unfortunately there are too many people&nbsp;who =3D love to=3D20 &nbsp;categorize him, and pigeonhole him and his music, to fit in with =3D what they=3D20 consider proper and correct.&nbsp; (pardon me, I'm GAGGING as I write=3D20 this.)&nbsp;&nbsp;Ugh, it's just disgusting to me.&nbsp; Music is =3D supposed to=3D20 free the senses, and dare us to dream and to feel, and to maybe be the =3D slightest=3D20 bit naughty.&nbsp; Musicians who love to pigeonhole Bach, or anyone else = =3D for=3D20 that matter, are no worse than most annoying music critics out there =3D whom we ALL=3D20 loath.&nbsp; &gt;:-{)}&nbsp; My apologies to all, but I just HAD to get = =3D that=3D20 rant out.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial = color=3D3D#0000ff =3D   size=3D3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial = color=3D3D#0000ff =3D size=3D3D2>You=3D20 may now resume normal programming.&nbsp; :-{)}</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial = color=3D3D#0000ff =3D   size=3D3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial color=3D3D#0000ff =3D size=3D3D2>Cheers=3D20 to all. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial = color=3D3D#0000ff =3D   size=3D3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D3D845383707-16022003><FONT face=3D3DArial = color=3D3D#0000ff =3D size=3D3D2>Bill,=3D20 the angry keyboarding bear.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=3D3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3D3Dltr align=3D3Dleft><FONT =3D face=3D3DTahoma=3D20 size=3D3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =3D pipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]<B>On Behalf Of=3D20 </B>Kzimmer0817@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, February 15, 2003 =3D 3:12=3D20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> pipechat@pipechat.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Huge = Church=3D20 Organs<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT = lang=3D3D0 =3D face=3D3DArial=3D20 size=3D3D2 FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF">Pipechatters:<BR><BR>Monty = said:<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">I'm designing a 5 manual 100+ rank organ for a church = =3D right now,=3D20 and we are <BR>going to have some digital stops in it, because of =3D space=3D20 issues.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Please, in no way, take this question to = =3D be my=3D20 passing judgement on any individual, certainly not the one who is =3D designing=3D20 this organ, but.......<BR><BR>1.&nbsp; What possible use can a church = =3D have for=3D20 a 5/100+ pipe organ?&nbsp; (unless the sanctuary will double as a =3D concert=3D20 hall).<BR>2.&nbsp; Is there any music for worship (contemporary or=3D20 traditional, conservative or liberal, whatever) that cannot be played = =3D very=3D20 well on a large 3 manual or, at most, a 4 manual?&nbsp; I remember a =3D chapter=3D20 in a pipe organ book I read many years ago that, in discussing organs = =3D for=3D20 worship, said that there is no need for more than 3 manuals on a =3D church=3D20 organ.&nbsp; I realize that he made a rather sweeping statement=3D20 there.<BR>3.&nbsp; What would "actually" be missed if the 5th manual =3D division=3D20 were omitted and the desired pedal ranks provided?&nbsp; After all, =3D how many=3D20 manuals can one really use in a given piece of music? If several =3D different=3D20 registrations are needed throughout a piece, can the changes not be =3D made in a=3D20 more cost-effective way by using pistons?<BR>4.&nbsp; How many =3D $millions does=3D20 an organ like this cost?&nbsp; I won't ask the obviously judgemental =3D question=3D20 of "is that good stewardship?".<BR><BR>Anyway, those questions are not = =3D meant=3D20 to start a war, just for me to understand some logic behind=3D20 this.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Keith</FONT> =3D </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0059_01C2D55F.20D38E20--