PipeChat Digest #3958 - Saturday, September 13, 2003
 
Re: She probably wore earplugs!
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
RE: here we go, yet again
  by "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: some further points, and no, I'm NOT going to give up (chuckle)
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: here we go, yet again
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: here we go, yet again
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Here We Go Again, Tolerantly so
  by "F Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Here We Go Again, Tolerantly so
  by "F Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Voicer training (RE Mike Gettelman's post)
  by "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <agunther@cantv.net>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Voicer training (RE Mike Gettelman's post)
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
GOD doesn't care; *I* care
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: some further points, and no, I'm NOT going to give up (chuckle)
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by <Myosotis51@aol.com>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: She probably wore earplugs! From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:05:59 EDT   In a message dated 9/12/2003 11:33:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, quilisma@cox.net writes:   > It is really tiresome (not to mention bad theology) to excuse all manner =   > of poor performances in the name of "God likes it" or "they're doing > their best."   Why is it bad theology to do your best for God?   > > > GOD probably doesn't much care one way or the other; but LISTENING to it =   > was pure PENANCE for the congregation.   Again, if the congregation did not graduate from CCM do they know it is = not a first rate-all paid choir rendition.   > > When my health reached the point I couldn't offer my BEST to God on > Sunday morning, I STOPPED PLAYING   I only pray that i will be given the gift of knowing when to quit.   Here is to hoping you remain our conscience for a long time..   dale in Florida    
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:07:58 EDT   In a message dated 9/13/2003 1:27:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, ameagher@stny.rr.com writes:   > Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to play electrics. = Then > churches would have to get pipes or they wouldn't have an organ   Then they would have 2 guitars a tambourine and a sax..   No, we should play so they HEAR good stuff!   dale in Florida    
(back) Subject: RE: here we go, yet again From: "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 06:09:39 -0500   At 01:20 AM 9/13/03 -0400, you wrote: >Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to play electrics   You can bet there's a bunch of guitar players ready to take their place.   jch      
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:28:03 +0800   Bud, I have no doubt that is true but I think the inference here was that one of these would pass for use as the only organ in a church. Maybe I got it wrong? Bob Elms.   ---- Original Message ---- From: quilisma@cox.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: here we go, yet again Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:38:19 -0700   >Um, Bob, look in the OHS catalog of recordings ... I'm sure there >are >some recordings of various cabinet organs that consist of Stopt >Diapason >8' and Principal 4' ... and they are DELIGHTFUL. > >T    
(back) Subject: RE: some further points, and no, I'm NOT going to give up (chuckle) From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:29:55 +0800   I am resisting answering, Bud. Bob   ---- Original Message ---- From: quilisma@cox.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: RE: some further points, and no, I'm NOT going to give up >(chuckle) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:50:32 -0700   >(1) How many serious classical pianists play digital pianos in >concert? > >(2) How many churches and temples can you name where an outstanding >music program has been built around a digital instrument? > >The answer to (1) is "none." > >The answer to (2) is "none that I know of." > >There are some HUMONGOUS digital instruments out there, Trinity Wall >Street being the latest addition, but I'm not aware of ANY of them >sparking a revival of interest in the organ or organ music. They are >expensive curiosities, nothing more. > >Stamford's Church of the Holy Whale was among the first; it created >a >great stir when it was installed, then sank into obscurity; at age >20 or >30, it has been on the market repeatedly for a fraction of its >original >cost in 1970s dollars. It has been replaced by a pipe organ. > >Given the choice, I'd have a two or three-stop tracker practice >organ at >home. > >There's ALWAYS a solution to "we can't afford/find space for a pipe >organ." You just have to look for it. One Presbyterian church I >consulted with chose a three-manual digital because they did >oratorios >without orchestra. Well, first of all, that choir had no BUSINESS >doing >oratorios (chuckle) ... the result was EXCRUCIATING. There was space >for >a small two-manual tracker, which would have accompanied what they >were >CAPABLE of singing quite well. > >Sometimes it's the ego of the choirmaster/organist/minister/whoever >that >gets in the way. > >Cheers, > >Bud > > > >"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: here we go, yet again From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:38:19 +0800   I have the soul, Gregory and two very good ears, but TWO ranks? Bob.   ->bobelms@westnet.com.au writes: >TWO ranks, Gregory?? You have got to be kidding!! >Bob Elms >No Bob, make it one, along with two good educated ears, and one soul. > >Gregory Ceurvorst >M.M. Organ Performance >N    
(back) Subject: RE: here we go, yet again From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:47:32 +0800   I have no wish to keep this old, old, old argument going BUT I suggest that Andrew compare some prices, and play a good electronic, and only THEN comment.   "Lower" seems to be to be well over the top., Andrew. I play in a Uniting Church (ex-Methodist) which has a good small pipe organ which these days would cost about $120 000. Tonight I played for mass in a Catholic Church where they have a well known make of electronic which cost them $16 000. I "lowered" myselt enough to play at a church to which I do not belong, played an electronic, and strange to say I enjoyed the experience and didn't have one little bit of eeling I had "lowered" myself. I prefer my pipe organ, but the electronic did a very good job, which is why it was bought. There is no way that church could afford any sort of pipe organ.   I think to say that anyone who says and electronic organ is "lowering" him or herself is an insult. Bob. ---- Original Message ---- From: ameagher@stny.rr.com To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: RE: here we go, yet again Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:20:22 -0400   >Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to play electrics. > Then >churches would have to get pipes or they wouldn't have an organist! >It >always astounds me the number of organists (some very well educated) > who >are willing to lower themselves to the level of playing an electric. > >Andrew >    
(back) Subject: RE: here we go, yet again From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:49:18 +0800   Amen Jeff, Amen! Thank you! Bob   ---- Original Message ---- From: reedstop@charter.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: RE: here we go, yet again Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:06:45 -0500   >> >> Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to play >electrics. Then >> churches would have to get pipes or they wouldn't have an >organist! It >> always astounds me the number of organists (some very well >educated) who >> are willing to lower themselves to the level of playing an >electric. >> >> Andrew > >Right, Andrew, so the people in those churches should not have >talented >musicians to lead their worship because they didn't buy a pipe >organ? The >CHURCH does not exist for the ORGAN...it's the other way around. >They >"LOWER" themselves to lead people in worship. > >I personally thank God that there are those who see their ministry >is more >important than the instrument. Let's not forget that it's the >Church who is >our primary employer. > >*sigh* > >Jeff > >"    
(back) Subject: Here We Go Again, Tolerantly so From: "F Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:03:59 -0500   Good Morning, PipeChatters: It seems there are enough churches who want pipe organs enough to keep a few pipe builders in business, at least above the poverty level. That's good. However, if you consider the number of new churches building new buildings, the cost of a new pipe organ in most of them is beyond expectations for a brand new building. The vast majority of the new church starts in my part of the world are in a small building that will house, perhaps, 150 people, more or less in a multi-purpose space. When we talk with them about a new organ, I always ask, "Will you demand pipes or a lesser priced instrument of digital design?" Up front I show them the courtesy of their preferences. Almost all of them reply, "This is a temporary worship facility. As we grow, this will become a gymn or educatational space with due rearrangements. A pipe organ sounds like a very permanent instrument, and we won't need that until we build a permanent worship space; maybe in 10 or 20 years." If they do not already have a band among the members, they can recruit one. Many of the kids coming through high school learn how to strum three or four chords in two or three keys. A contemporary song service can be kept on key and rhythm with no more talent than that. Deride this as you will, but 80 percent of the churches in the largest evangelical denomination in the United States thrived through rural America in buildings seating no more than 100 to 200 people from the latter 19th Century until after World War-II. The styles in Appalachia, the Smokies, across the Deep South, and onto the western plains thrived on gospel songs as the bread and butter of their musical worship experiences with only three or four chords in the songs. A gospel that used the modulation through the dominant of the dominat was more interesting, but not a necessity. The heritage of these older churches was drained from the styles of the Irish, the Scots, and the English, where to this day a fiddle, guitar, and occassional banjo can hold people's attention in pubs and gathering places in Britania. These rural people added their own flavor to that heritage, and we have an enormous musical force across the South and into the Western Plains the needs no organ at all. What a fertile field for developing modern songs in a more contemporary style, ...using the heritages passed down from our ancestors from Britain (now the U.K.). When I was a child in this environment, if the church collected enough money for a new organ (never having one before), the question was "which" model to buy from which manufacturer. Hammond got the nod most of the time. If a few folks raised their "convictions" that an organ ought to sound more "churchy," they considered Baldwin or Conn. A pipe organ was never a consideration in one of these smaller rural churches. My love for the pipe organ, therefore, has been mutated by my desire that an organ ought to sound more "churchy" than an Hammond. Today, we can have that. Allen and Rodgers has provided two generations with alternatives to the Hammond sound, but a new generation of evangelicals have developed a new style that demands the Hammond over the more traditional church styles. The new Suzuki Hammonds may enjoy another generation or so in contemporary style musical expressions. I think the jury is still out on which will prevail, if the decision is left to those who create, play, and express their musical worship in churches. I do not like some of the new stuff, but that may be as much a rejection of "what's new" as it is my dislike for a style that leaves out the most universally recognized church music instrument of all time, ...the organ. As I read comments questioning the sanity of various members of this (and other) discussion groups, we seem to be justifying why we differ from one another without considering even the "possibility" that a church could have music without an organ. As I grew up (in this rural Deep South), the most pervasive instrument (if there was one) was the piano. Not surprisingly, we have a very rich heritage in church piano playing, too. If you ask where I am coming from, I grew up in a very rural part of the Deep South. My love for church music sought proper training. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in music from Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas. I learned the classics. I sang in opera and oratory. When I became a music director in a church, every one of them had Hammond organs and they loved to sing gospel songs. Oratory music and oratory style was out. Even the religious art songs, ...say of John Prindle Scott, were marginally acceptable. The styles of Stewart Hamblin, Ernie Ford, and George Beverly Shea were much more appreciated. These are not contradictory musical forces, ...just different. The church is the people who meet together. When we honor their styles and charity, then we honor God, too. Did I stay there? No. Tomorrow we will dedicate a new organ in The Reformed Church in Plano, Texas. Bradley Welch will play the inaugural concert tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 p.m. Come here this new instrument if you can. It's a good one.   As we discuss these variables in our musical styles, let's be a bit more tolerant of those who are not as widely traveled and widely experienced. Exposure to other styles and experiences often have a broadening effect in our perspectives. The opposite seems to be true, for some of us seem to have polarized on the pipe organ to the excusion of any or all other possibilities of making music. Does this help? Appreciatively, F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs ..  
(back) Subject: Re: Here We Go Again, Tolerantly so From: "F Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:14:56 -0500   Hello, PipeChatters: Sorry, but my fingers are not following proper mental instructions. Please read through my typing and grammar errors. I'm not expressing things well today. F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs ..  
(back) Subject: Voicer training (RE Mike Gettelman's post) From: "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <agunther@cantv.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:03:48 -0400   Andres Gunther agunther@canv.net   Now that Mike brought this on topic, I am 43 and still dreaming of = becoming a voicer/tonal finisher. My handycap isn't the age or lack of abilities (which I know I *have*) but the darn legal stuff. A 'Homeless' has more chance to become Pres-CEO of the Chase Manhattan Bank than a third world = guy without a College or University degree to get a work permission in Europe = or USA, it seems.   On the other side, many great artists use to be lousy pedagogues. I know that from Master piano and organ performers, sculptors and painters. = Perhaps some of the great Master Voicers face this problem as well? - a Master is created by training first, but then by experience after voicing several millions of pipes. My second dream is to train young people for our = business once I would have the proper degrees myself... as first thing I would = demand from them to become active members in one, better several organ forums.   I am glad too that "Nate the Apprentist" is an active List member. It's a bold step for an apprentice or an un-degreed / unknown guy to start active discussions in forums where their opinions are read, hencefore discussed = and sometimes criticized by highly degreed Masters. I guess that many apprentices remain as hidden "lurkers" in our organ lists...   Food for thought. Andres =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D First was the cat, then was the Orgler. The Orgler got a pet and the cat got something to wonder about.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Gettelman <mike3247@earthlink.net>   SNIP > And folks wonder why at age 53 I can think of no more noble thing to do > with my life than learn all about the organ, and find out if perhaps I have the > ear and the sensibility to tonally design, voice, and finish pipe = organs. If > only I could find a Master willing to teach me. SNIP > Where are the young voicers? Why haven't we heard from or about = them? I was > thrilled to see "Nate the apprentist" begin posting to the list. He is living > the life I dream about, so everything he shares with us seems more important to > me. I wish there were a hundred more on the list like him.   > As far as myself, I have to be realistic about my age and abilities. > Turning a 53 year old auto mechanic into a Master Voicer is probably a pipe > dream, and I have grown to accept this as some of you well know.      
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:31:34 -0400   On 9/13/03 2:04 AM, "Gfc234@aol.com" <Gfc234@aol.com> wrote:   > Lately, I have found myself questioning what it does exist for. >=20 Well, I=B9m not sure whether you chose the U.C.C. out of some conviction, or personal heritage, or because it was an employment opportunity, or for some other reason. Would you choose it again, if the opportunity to arise? Fo= r many people, it=B9s =B3the right place.=B2 Some others find it a bit vapid. (Which gets back to your question.) By all means, of course: to each his own. No matter WHAT it is!   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Voicer training (RE Mike Gettelman's post) From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:40:51 -0400   On 9/13/03 10:03 AM, "Andr=E9s G=FCnther" <agunther@cantv.net> wrote:   > I guess that many apprentices remain as hidden "lurkers" in our organ lis= ts...   Too often, those who needn't, DO. And others (like me), who should, DON'T.   Alan    
(back) Subject: GOD doesn't care; *I* care From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:18:49 -0700   (1) Don't hide behind God. I doubt seriously that (S)He has an opinion one way or the other.   It's interesting how the pro-electronics crew always casts the pro-pipe-organ crew as godless pagans because we have *musical* STANDARDS.   Frankly, if I'm turning into a godless pagan, it's the CHURCH that's the cause, after fifty years of kicking me in the private parts. Most of y'all know the saga of my last position, and it WILL be my LAST position, whether or NOT I recover to the point that I can play again.   (2) Look at the minister/priest/rabbi's salary and benefits package   (3) Look at the organist's salary and benefits   (4) Tell me why this church/temple can afford to pay in excess of $100K in salary and benefits to the minister/priest/rabbi, $25K to the organist (NO benefits, of COURSE), and "can't" afford a pipe organ.   (5) As I said earlier, no OTHER serious musicians play an electronic substitute.   I don't see Rostropovitch playing an electronic 'cello.   If you want to see the pipe organ go EXTINCT, then keep right on shilling for your electronics and making excuses about why you're not willing to put out the EFFORT to EDUCATE people.   Bud         >>Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to play electrics. = Then >>churches would have to get pipes or they wouldn't have an organist! It >>always astounds me the number of organists (some very well educated) = who >>are willing to lower themselves to the level of playing an electric. >> >>Andrew > > Jeff White wrote:   > Right, Andrew, so the people in those churches should not have talented > musicians to lead their worship because they didn't buy a pipe organ? = The > CHURCH does not exist for the ORGAN...it's the other way around. They > "LOWER" themselves to lead people in worship. > > I personally thank God that there are those who see their ministry is = more > important than the instrument. Let's not forget that it's the Church = who is > our primary employer. > > *sigh* > > Jeff >      
(back) Subject: Re: some further points, and no, I'm NOT going to give up (chuckle) From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:44:42 -0400   Bud,   In the interest of fairness and correctness, the Stamford Fish Church = organ was built in 1958, and was at that time completely analog - = basically 1040's technology. A single digital division (the Choir, I think) was added circa 1970, using Allen's = first generation digital technology, which was about as un-pipelike as you = can get. An interesting side note - a few weeks after the Stamford organ last appeared on eBay, a = 4-manual pipe organ in Chicago sold in the same venue for about $800, = surely a fraction of its original cost. Guys, this, too happens all the time. You know it does. As for choosing = 3 ranks for ones home, to each his own. As for me, the Stamford console = will be in my home by the end of next year. <BIG Grin>   -WG     > <quilisma@cox.net> wrote: > > There are some HUMONGOUS digital instruments out there, Trinity Wall > Street being the latest addition, but I'm not aware of ANY of them > sparking a revival of interest in the organ or organ music. They are > expensive curiosities, nothing more. > > Stamford's Church of the Holy Whale was among the first; it created a > great stir when it was installed, then sank into obscurity; at age 20 or > 30, it has been on the market repeatedly for a fraction of its original > cost in 1970s dollars. It has been replaced by a pipe organ.   ....    
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: <Myosotis51@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:03:27 EDT   Hello ameagher@stny.rr.com,   In reference to your comment:   =E8 Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to =E8 play electrics. Then churches would have to get pipes =E8 or they wouldn't have an organist! It always astounds =E8 me the number of organists (some very well educated) =E8 who are willing to lower themselves to the level of =E8 playing an electric. Andrew   I don't generally join in on this shouting match, but......   I play for a VERY small AME Zion church that in no way can afford a pipe=20 organ (the MINISTER is half-time) and would not have room for one in the san= ctuary=20 even if the money WERE there. Besides, the Gospel music tradition does not=20 mesh well with a traditional pipe organ anyway, and the Hammond they have wo= rks=20 for them.   Do you REALLY think that this congregation doesn't DESERVE accompanied music= =20 during worship? They have a pledge drive to buy PAINT to keep their buildin= g=20 together.   Victoria    
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:14:52 -0700   No, of COURSE not. The Hammond is the ONLY electro-mechanical organ-like instrument that DOES have a legitimate body of literature written (or improvised) FOR it: Gospel, rock, jazz, etc. A pipe organ would be totally UNSUITABLE for them, UNLESS they wanted to do traditional mainline protestant church music AS WELL. But given the mix of music I've experienced in AME Zion churches (I love to go to their Gospel sings on Sunday nights), that's probably not a problem.   Cheers,   Bud   Myosotis51@aol.com wrote: > Hello ameagher@stny.rr.com, > > In reference to your comment: > > =E8 Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to > =E8 play electrics. Then churches would have to get pipes > =E8 or they wouldn't have an organist! It always astounds > =E8 me the number of organists (some very well educated) > =E8 who are willing to lower themselves to the level of > =E8 playing an electric. Andrew > > I don't generally join in on this shouting match, but...... > > I play for a VERY small AME Zion church that in no way can afford a pipe =   > organ (the MINISTER is half-time) and would not have room for one in the =   > sanctuary even if the money WERE there. Besides, the Gospel music > tradition does not mesh well with a traditional pipe organ anyway, and > the Hammond they have works for them. > > Do you REALLY think that this congregation doesn't DESERVE accompanied > music during worship? They have a pledge drive to buy PAINT to keep > their building together. > > Victoria     -- =FFWPC=BF      
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:21:31 EDT   In a message dated 9/13/2003 8:48:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bobelms@westnet.com.au writes:   > > I think to say that anyone who says and electronic organ is > "lowering" him or herself is an insult. >   AMEN....i am not lowering myself to play--i am returning and using my = gifts and graces as given to me by God.....   oh well   dale in Florida