PipeChat Digest #3963 - Sunday, September 14, 2003
 
Re: here we go, yet again
  by <Gfc234@aol.com>
Re: Question for PipeChat People
  by "Shelley Culver" <culverse@westminster.edu>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "Eric McKirdy" <emckirdy@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
RE: here we go, yet again
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Re: Question for PipeChat People
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by <Gfc234@aol.com>
Re: Funeral Parlor organs revisited
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
"Procession of the Nobles" from the opera Mlada by  Rimsky-Korsakov
  by "Hugh Drogemuller" <hdrogemuller@sympatico.ca>
Re: "Procession of the Nobles" from the opera Mlada by  Rimsky-Korsakov
  by <Gfc234@aol.com>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by "Eric McKirdy" <emckirdy@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Re: digital instruments
  by "Larry Wheelock" <llwheels@mac.com>
RE: digital instruments
  by "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net>
RE: Two ranks, heck!
  by "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net>
RE: here we go, yet again
  by "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by "Adrianne Schutt" <maybe@pipcom.com>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by <Gfc234@aol.com>
RE: GOD doesn't care; *I* care
  by "ameagher@stny.rr.com" <ameagher@stny.rr.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: <Gfc234@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:10:39 EDT   In a message dated 9/13/2003 7:45:43 PM Central Daylight Time, reedstop@charter.net writes: I'm not going to argue the point of what can be done with two = ranks...because I'm sure it can be quite lovely. What I will argue is the inability to = play "A Mighty Fortress" on Reformation Sunday at fortissimo--- full to mixture =   plus reeds. :) (Or is that a sign of being spoiled by having those ranks available??)   This discussion is not about what ranks are available for playing hymns in =   church. It is about not using devices such as pistons, stops, swell boxes =   etc...to "make music." Two 8' ranks on my practice organ have made me = realize that they allow you to hear the purity of counterpoint and composition-and not = toy with an organ's controls. It forces you to play accurately and VERY musically. BTW-I have a big loud 3 manual organ at church and I use it = all every week-after I have carefully learned the music at home. Gregory Ceurvorst M.M. Organ Performance Northwestern University Director of Music and Organist St. Peter's U.C.C. Frankfort, IL 847.332.2788 home 708.243.2549 mobile gfc234@aol.com    
(back) Subject: Re: Question for PipeChat People From: "Shelley Culver" <culverse@westminster.edu> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:12:37 -0400   >>> jlspeller@mindspring.com 09/13/03 7:52 PM >>> The scholarly consensus for the best part of a century has been that the   8 Little Preludes and Fugues, though from the "school of Bach", are unlikely to have been written by the Great Man himself. Various suggestions have been made as to their actual authorship, and I think about the most widely touted suggestion is that they may have been composed by Bach's pupil Johann Ludwig Krebs.     .....Actually, this is quite untrue. The latest research (which is actually several years old) tells us that Bach did indeed write the 8 Little. They were written for pedagogical purposes. He wrote them to teach his son Carl Philip Emmanuel how to play the organ, or rather the pedal clavichord, as this is what Bach would have practiced on. They were of questionable authenticity because at the time they were written, Bach was writing much grander pieces and scholars didn't think he would have taken time to write pieces like the 8 Little. However, research done proves that J.S. Bach wrote these. They actually analyzed the ink and waterspots on the paper to find this out. Christoph Wolf, chair of the music department of Harvard and Bach scholar, did this research.   Shelley  
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: "Eric McKirdy" <emckirdy@gladstone.uoregon.edu> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:26:20 -0700   On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:58 AM, Alan Freed wrote:   > Is anyone acquainted with his instrument in Central Lutheran Church, > Eugene, > Oregon? Must have a single-digit opus number; I saw it in 1961. I > have a > delightful CD of it, and would be interested in any comments.   I've played it -- the church is directly across the street from the U of Oregon School of Music, where I hang my hat. It's an ornate, opulent and tonally pleasing instrument, to say only the very least. The organ is John Brombaugh's Opus 19.      
(back) Subject: RE: here we go, yet again From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:00:48 -0400   Exactly. A good clarinetist or a good flautist can make the most = wonderful music on a single pipe, let alone an entire rank, but you can't play the world's = great organ literature on it. To support a church service properly, you need an instrument designed for performance, not one designed for practicing = scales.   -WG   > "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net> wrote: > > I'm not going to argue the point of what can be done with two > ranks...because I'm sure it can be quite lovely. What I will argue is = the > inability to play "A Mighty Fortress" on Reformation Sunday at = fortissimo--- > full to mixture plus reeds. :) (Or is that a sign of being spoiled by > having those ranks available??) > > Jeff > > re: "A good organist can make 2 ranks sound the most wonderful music in = the > world. Once the music is happening, enhance it with however many ranks = you > have."    
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:14:08 -0400   Gregory, the gods of jazz organ disagree with you, and respectfully, so do = I. Then again, I seem to disagree with you on just about everything regarding classical = and liturgical organ as well. As someone else wrote here recently, it is a big tent with room = for many. As for the casework, granted - they are built to be truly portable, instead of = theoretically. This is really not the place to be discussing Hammond. There are many other = lists for that, to which I subscribe, and I would be happy to read your Hammond-related = opinions there.   Peace be with you all. WG   > walterg@nauticom.net writes:   > Hammond Suzuki has just released a new digital B3 that is literally = perfect, >   Gregory responds:   > IT IS NOT LITERALLY PERFECT-The case is cheap crap, the percussion is = not > quite right, and the chorus/vibrato is TERRIBLE. > > Gregory Ceurvorst > M.M. Organ Performance > Northwestern University blah blah blah    
(back) Subject: Re: Question for PipeChat People From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:34:50 -0400   Biggs recorded a small Bach fugue in C major, subtitled "Fanfare", which = does not appear in most editions I have seen. What is the thinking on it's = origin? The theme goes like this:   c c c c cccc = cccc cgc c cgc c cecgege cecgege bagfedc cccc = ccccedfegf#ag   etc...   -WG   > "Fran Walker" <fwalker@northwestern.edu> wrote: > > I recently purchased Lionel Rogg's 12 CD set of Bach's complete organ > works. Absent from the set, however, are the 8 Little Preludes & > Fugues. I emailed Mr. Rogg to ask about this and he emailed back that = they > were not composed by Bach. Is he right? Anyone know who the real = composer > is?    
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: <Gfc234@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:41:14 EDT   The Gods of Jazz organ are: Jimmy Smith, Don Patterson, Larry Young, Larry =   Golidngs, Mel Rhyne, Joey DeFrancesco, and Richard Groove Holmes. Go out = and buy one of their records and read the liner notes. I am a gigging jazz organist, and the son of a jazz guitarist (with albums-who traveled the = world in a b3 quartet. I own two b3's and 4 leslies, HUNDREDS of jazz organ CDs, and = LPs and KNOW several people in the above list, and am friends with several = people that worked in their groups in the 60s and 70s. It is the standard organ = PERIOD. 99.999999% of the famous jazz organ recordings were reorded in = Rudy Van Gelder's recording studios in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey on a Hammod = C3-and EVERY famous and good jazz organ cd,and performance is done with either a = b3, c3 or A100. They all have the same guts, and a 25 note pedal board. The = B3 is a spinet, the C3 has a church cabinet, and the A100 has internal = speakers (that no one uses). All jazz players have one or mer of those instruments = in their posession-as well as jazz clubs and recording studios in NYC, = Chicago, and all over the world. The only exception is Joey DeFrancesco( has over = 50 tonewheel hammonds in his home), who is getting a HUGE, FAT endorsement = from Suzuki to use the new stuff-whose vibrato, percussion, case finish and construction are poor. Im sorry to be so argumentative, but I am a = specialist in this field. It's in my blood, and has been a big part of my life since I was a = boy. Respectfully, Gregory Ceurvorst M.M. Organ Performance Northwestern University Director of Music and Organist St. Peter's U.C.C. Frankfort, IL 847.332.2788 home 708.243.2549 mobile gfc234@aol.com    
(back) Subject: Re: Funeral Parlor organs revisited From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:43:24 EDT   Hi John:   Organists from the Orange County Chapter of the AGO were invited to play the Quimby during "Open House" June 1, !99? I was the first organist, and played for the first hour of the all day event. It really is a honey of an organ. It was an exceiting thing to be invited to do. Ah memories!   Ron Severin    
(back) Subject: "Procession of the Nobles" from the opera Mlada by Rimsky-Korsakov From: "Hugh Drogemuller" <hdrogemuller@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:05:33 -0400   List,   Does anyone know of a organ arrangement of this music ? If so name of publisher etc. would be appreciated.   Thanks,   HD    
(back) Subject: Re: "Procession of the Nobles" from the opera Mlada by Rimsky-Korsakov From: <Gfc234@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:08:04 EDT   In a message dated 9/13/2003 10:06:48 PM Central Daylight Time, hdrogemuller@sympatico.ca writes: Does anyone know of a organ arrangement of this music ? If so name of publisher etc. would be appreciated. Tom Murray would know.   Gregory Ceurvorst M.M. Organ Performance Northwestern University Director of Music and Organist St. Peter's U.C.C. Frankfort, IL 847.332.2788 home 708.243.2549 mobile gfc234@aol.com    
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: "Eric McKirdy" <emckirdy@gladstone.uoregon.edu> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:45:24 -0700   I need to include Dick Hyman in that list -- for proof, check out his recording with trumpeter Ruby Braff.   Eric -- my grandmother tried to give me a Hammond B-3, but I couldn't play Bach on it    
(back) Subject: Re: digital instruments From: "Larry Wheelock" <llwheels@mac.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:25:54 -0500   On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 12:58 PM, John Foss wrote:   > I scoffed at > electronic pianos - however Philip said I was wrong, > and that modern technology had resulted in first class > "imitations". He has given recitals for Yamaha on > their electronic pianos. I bought a Yamaha on the > strength of our discussion - it is not a top of the > range model, but it is very good.     John -- I, too am impressed with the tonal quality of many of the digital pianos. When I was forced to sell my beloved and beautiful grand I cried, but not because I didn't have an instrument which was pleasing to play. I purchased a Kawai MP9000 ($1500US) and a set of $250 Sennheiser wireless headphones (so as not to bother the neighbors in the small apartment) and I find the setup very satisfying. The touch is as-good-as or better-than that of many grands I have played, and the sound (through the Sennheisers at least) is rich and quite beautiful. In addition, I can use this piano to enter music directly into my computer and produce scores, or arrangements or what-have-you, and I certainly couldn't do that with my acoustic grand, no matter how much I loved it. If I had the room, I would have an acoustic grand again in a flash -- but I'm not giving up the digital -- it is just too convenient.   I say this to establish my credentials as an acoustic piano lover -- AND a digital piano lover. I completely understand the advantages and disadvantages of both.   > My music school has > a Kawai grand piano, and, at the end of the day, I > admit it is ultimately more satisfying, but to dismiss > electronic pianos out of hand and say no concert > pianist plays them is not correct. > John Foss   Your statement is indisputably correct, since you have named a (as in one) concert pianist who does. BUT - that's as far as it goes. No classical artist of note has yet made a classical recording on a digital piano that I know of (or that is labeled as such -- it might have happened and they fooled all of us) and I am not aware of any major or minor symphony orchestra that has abandoned their acoustic grand for the undisputed convenience of a digital. It may happen some day -- but I doubt it. OTOH there are many orchestras which have used organ-substitutes, even when it was not necessary. Why the double-standard? If the quality is there in the digital pianos, why are they not in use for the same reason as the digital organs -- much lower cost, no tuning requirements, only one stage hand instead of three to move them, consistency (a digital could travel with the orchestra guaranteeing the quality of the instrument) and on and on.   And while we're at it, where are the digital harps? If you've ever moved a modern concert harp, the idea of a digital instrument that would almost fit in your briefcase is quite appealing. Digital drums are state-of-the-art in the popular music industry, and are accepted as equal to their acoustic counterparts. Once again, if you have ever had to move 4 copper tympani in and then out again for a concert, a drum-pad seems much more attractive. Given time, I'm sure we could come up with digital Tubae and Contras-Bass which would be much more convenient and cheaper, and maybe 'cellos too.   If this line-of-thinking seems perfectly OK to you, then, congratulations, you are truly a person of the digital age, and as a matter of principle you should always endeavor to play a digital instrument when it is more convenient for you.   If, on the other hand, the idea of digital instruments used in this way seems absurd, or makes you uncomfortable, it seems to me that you are left with only two choices; either you must admit that the organ inherently somehow lacks equal standing with any of these other instruments, and so does not matter as much, or, you should be equally bothered by its replacement with a substitute. Personally, between these two, I can find no middle ground.   Larry Wheelock Director of Music Ministries Kenwood United Methodist Church Milwaukee, Wisconsin musicdirector@kenwood_umc.org          
(back) Subject: RE: digital instruments From: "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:18:57 -0500   All things being equal, I wonder how many of them would choose to perform = on a digital instrument if they weren't receiving a fee specifically to do = so. I don't suppose we will know.   IMHO, a true professional wouldn't care. :)   Jeff    
(back) Subject: RE: Two ranks, heck! From: "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:21:34 -0500   I think it's becoming standard practice to hear that from that age = bracket. Maybe there's some validity, but the organ should be played as it was = meant to be. Does that mean everything should be at full organ + reeds? Certainly not. Maybe it's not a matter of too loud as opposed to too = full, or maybe the higher pitched notes irritate their hearing? I wonder?   Jeff   Dennis,   When I had my first church job as organist at my home parish, St. Pius V Catholic Church, McKeesport Pa. I played an Estey Organ which included 4 ranks of pipes with extensions. I was sometimes told by older parishioners that I was TOO loud. Go figure. The building holds about 500 people.   Swell   Gedackt 16' Gedackt 8' Salicional 8' Flute Gedackt 4' Salicet 2'   Great   Principal 8' Octave 4' Super Octave 2'   Pedal   Bourdon 16' Principal 8'   Swell to Great Swell to Pedal Great to Pedal   It was a great little organ to play and practice on. I still have registrations from this organ on some of my OLD music. LOL I played from age 12 until I left for college. According to my parents the organ was enlarged and rebuilt a few years back to include: Oboe 8', Mixture IV, Trumpet 8'. Its not always the size of the instrument nor the number of ranks which makes a great sound, but also the room, registration and organist. I have heard organists play large instruments LOUD LOUD until = you could scream. Pipes are pipes and appreciate the fact of the matter. Well, off to my Vigil Mass to play my awesome sounding Rieger-Kloss.   Cheers,   Daniel      
(back) Subject: RE: here we go, yet again From: "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:28:32 -0500   No argument Greg...but I was referring to a previous comment made about having a tiny pipe organ as opposed to a big full electronic. I = definitely agree that there is benefit to learning music on soft stops...even on an individual rank.   Jeff -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of Gfc234@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:11 PM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: here we go, yet again     In a message dated 9/13/2003 7:45:43 PM Central Daylight Time, reedstop@charter.net writes: I'm not going to argue the point of what can be done with two ranks...because I'm sure it can be quite lovely. What I will argue is the inability to play "A Mighty Fortress" on Reformation Sunday at = fortissimo--- full to mixture plus reeds. :) (Or is that a sign of being spoiled by having those ranks available??)   This discussion is not about what ranks are available for playing hymns = in church. It is about not using devices such as pistons, stops, swell boxes etc...to "make music." Two 8' ranks on my practice organ have made me realize that they allow you to hear the purity of counterpoint and composition-and not toy with an organ's controls. It forces you to play accurately and VERY musically. BTW-I have a big loud 3 manual organ at church and I use it all every week-after I have carefully learned the = music at home. Gregory Ceurvorst M.M. Organ Performance Northwestern University Director of Music and Organist St. Peter's U.C.C. Frankfort, IL 847.332.2788 home 708.243.2549 mobile gfc234@aol.com    
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:29:28 -0400   Damned pertinent question, my young friend, and one to which I have no = satisfactory answer. If you figure it out, please let me know. J   Dave   Lately, I have found myself questioning what it does exist for.  
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: "Adrianne Schutt" <maybe@pipcom.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:45:12 -0400   At 05:40 PM 13/09/2003 -0400, Keith wrote: > In the discussion of appropriate organs for types of churches and > music, he mentioned the use of the Hammond organ for Gospel style of > music so prevalent in the South. He justified his recommendation of = this > particular [Hammond] electronic by stating that the sound was produced > mechanically by rotating tone wheels. So the Hammond organ is a > legitimate instrument for which there is a legitimate body of literature =   > composed. Yes, yes, and yes....more than one.   > Truly, I don't mean this to represent any disrespect to Bud, but in his =   > acceptance of the Hammond organ as legitimate, I wonder if he's erred. . = .. I don't think so. This "pipe is the only organ" stuff is like "clarinets are the only woodwinds".   > Hasn't Hammond replaced its tone wheel method of tone production > with electronically produced tones - still using the drawbars as the > method of control? IOW, the modern Hammond is no longer using > electronics simply to amplify a mechanically produced sound, but the > entire Hammond sound is generated electronically. Perhaps I'm wrong, = I'm > sure there are those who can correct me. Yes, Hammond stopped doing tonewheels around 1974. We're about 3 =   generations post-tonewheel, and the digital generation itself has had several incarnations. I've been caretaker of the Hammond technical list for 6 years...is that good enough? :))   > If this is true, and we follow the same logic as we've been using > in this thread, then we must condemn the use of these newer Hammonds on > the same grounds. Believe me, that's been happening for years. :)     At 02:56 PM 13/09/2003 -0700, Bud wrote: >And, having played (gasp!) a digital Hammond-Suzuki, I can attest to the >fact that they DONT'T sound like a classic tonewheeler, despite all the >vibrato and key-click and attack adjustments possible. Bud....that abomination you got saddled with is nothing like the newer beasts....there were a few really screwed up years between the first =   Hammond Organ Company and Hammond-Suzuki USA. ;)   >The ONLY reason SOME rock bands are accepting the digital substitute is >that they're lighter and more portable than the tonewheelers. There's a HUGE number of clones in the gigging-musician = area...and that's ok. Nobody faults a hardworking band for not shlepping several hundred extra pounds when they're doing it for the love of it. When they get big enough to support roadies, they get tonewheels. They likely have them at home. No problem. In the meanwhile, at least the (rough) sound = is getting out there. Think that's a big part of why you never see the "oh = my god, nobody knows we exist anymore, how do we recruit the youngsters" threads on Hammond lists.     At 08:58 PM 13/09/2003 -0400, Gregory wrote IN HTML FORMATTING <ahem>: >IT IS NOT LITERALLY PERFECT-The case is cheap crap, the percussion is not =   >quite right, and the chorus/vibrato is TERRIBLE. Tell us...when did you last actually lay hands on one, and = where????   Having heard the new organ Hammond-Suzuki USA is calling B-3, I'm =   impressed. They've even gone so far as to have an entire generator worth of constantly-idling digital "tonewheels", so that notes don't always = start at the same point in the wave...my jaw is still on the floor over that. = As for keying, they actually resurrected the old busbar system for the new = B3, so keyclick is absolutely authentic. Finally got it really right.   At 10:41 PM 13/09/2003 -0400, Gregory wrote IN YET MORE HTML: > The B3 is a spinet, Sorry, B3s old and new are both consoles. Spinets have 2x44 offset keys and 12 or 13 pedals depending on the model. Consoles are 2x61 =   and 25. Concert models are 2x61 and 32.   Could we ALL please take a moment to verify we're not sending HTML?? It really drives the people on digest nuts, David and Tim have all =   but begged us repeatedly not to. One post on Aug 29th even had an = embedded ..gif file!!   Have fun! Ad ;->    
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: <Gfc234@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:40:59 EDT   In a message dated 9/13/2003 11:33:04 PM Central Daylight Time, maybe@pipcom.com writes: Tell us...when did you last actually lay hands on one, and where???? About 3 months ago in Chicago last time I heard Joey DeFrancesco. The = Suzuki reps were there too...were less than friendly, and were acting like mobsters-with cigars...the whole 9 yards.   Gregory Ceurvorst M.M. Organ Performance Northwestern University Director of Music and Organist St. Peter's U.C.C. Frankfort, IL 847.332.2788 home 708.243.2549 mobile gfc234@aol.com    
(back) Subject: RE: GOD doesn't care; *I* care From: "ameagher@stny.rr.com" <ameagher@stny.rr.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:34:22 -0400   You and I think alike Bud=2E   Andrew   Original Message: ----------------- From: quilisma@cox=2Enet Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:18:49 -0700 To: pipechat@pipechat=2Eorg Subject: GOD doesn't care; *I* care     (1) Don't hide behind God=2E I doubt seriously that (S)He has an opinion=20=   one way or the other=2E   It's interesting how the pro-electronics crew always casts the=20 pro-pipe-organ crew as godless pagans because we have *musical* STANDARDS=2E=     Frankly, if I'm turning into a godless pagan, it's the CHURCH that's the=20=   cause, after fifty years of kicking me in the private parts=2E Most of=20 y'all know the saga of my last position, and it WILL be my LAST=20 position, whether or NOT I recover to the point that I can play again=2E   (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=20=   in salary and benefits to the minister/priest/rabbi, $25K to the=20 organist (NO benefits, of COURSE), and "can't" afford a pipe organ=2E   (5) As I said earlier, no OTHER serious musicians play an electronic=20 substitute=2E   I don't see Rostropovitch playing an electronic 'cello=2E   If you want to see the pipe organ go EXTINCT, then keep right on=20 shilling for your electronics and making excuses about why you're not=20 willing to put out the EFFORT to EDUCATE people=2E   Bud         >>Right on bud! I wish more organists would refuse to play electrics=2E = 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) wh= o >>are willing to lower themselves to the level of playing an electric=2E >> >>Andrew >=20 > 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? T= he > CHURCH does not exist for the ORGAN=2E=2E=2Eit's the other way around=2E= They > "LOWER" themselves to lead people in worship=2E >=20 > I personally thank God that there are those who see their ministry is mo= re > important than the instrument=2E Let's not forget that it's the Church = who is > our primary employer=2E >=20 > *sigh* >=20 > Jeff >=20     "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics HOMEPAGE : http://www=2Epipechat=2Eorg List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat=2Eorg Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat=2Eorg Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat=2Eorg       -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E