PipeChat Digest #3968 - Sunday, September 14, 2003
 
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Out of the closet!
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Bach Recordings
  by "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net>
JSB and the evil twins?
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
Bach Recordings
  by "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net>
Re: The AGO's Function-long
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Small Organs
  by <Kzimmer0817@aol.com>
Re: Remembering an AGO meeting
  by "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>
Small Organs - Artiste
  by <Kzimmer0817@aol.com>
Re: Small organs
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Re: GOD doesn't care; *I* care
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Re: Small Organs
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: Small organs
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: Small Organs
  by "firman1" <firman1@prodigy.net>
da beat goes on
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: here we go, yet again
  by "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:00 -0400   On 9/14/03 12:29 AM, "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com> wrote:   > If you figure it out, please let me know. J > =20 > Dave > =20 >> Lately, I have found myself questioning what it does exist for. >>=20   I=B9d say that even if he figures it out 15 percent, it would be interesting to hear his thoughts.   Alan        
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:24:01 -0400   On 9/14/03 12:40 AM, "Gfc234@aol.com" <Gfc234@aol.com> wrote:   > 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. >   They knew they were up against some really macho-tough . . . ORganists? = (A gangland shootout for sure!)   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Out of the closet! From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:38:24 -0400   On 9/14/03 4:59 PM, "Dr. Amy Fleming" <docamy@alltel.net> wrote:   > As a veterinarian I have trouble getting paid what I am worth as well. = Many > folks think I should help their pets just because I love animals or = because > "it's only a stray that I found" (most of my clients have pets that were = once > only a stray) and want me to do the work for free or complain that we = charge > too much.   Amy Fleming: You talk real good sense, from beginning to end.   Alan    
(back) Subject: Bach Recordings From: "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:58:02 -0400     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Question for PipeChat People     > Hello, > > For Bach I think I will stick with Michel Chapuis or > Ton Koopman. > > The latter is a brilliant scholar who adds NOTHING > which isn't absolutely researched as historically > acceptable.....there is much to learn in what seem > like spontaneous gestures. > > Michel Chapuis just played Bach in the most unaffected > manner, but always with great panache and involvement. > > Also, in addition, I would suggest that the old Biggs > recordings are magnificent examples of Bach > performance, as too are the complete set by Peter > Hurford. > > Regards, > > Colin Mitchell UK > > > --- Gfc234@aol.com wrote: > > Being a Chicagoan, > > I am sure you know David Schrader, his recordings > > and performances of Bach are > > the best I've ever heard > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.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: JSB and the evil twins? From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:37:12 -0500     Dear Andres and others, speaking as a drinking buddy of JSB in another life, I am aware that he had a secret evil twin, also named Johann, and an identical cross-dressing sister, named Johanna. It was hard after knocking back a few brewskies to determine with which one was I imbibing. =20   Now their descendants are fighting over the rights to the music, Johann's and Johanna's descendants of course claiming ownership of the D minor, as well as several other potentially lucrative works. I of course had to decline representation because of the conflict of interest: I was in fact the composer of some of JSB's ditties, as well the owner of others through my successful negotiation of poker games with Johnnie. =20   There is the additional problem of determining which of JSB's children were really his, and which were Johann's or Johanna's. All in all, this is a messy situation. I can say that only one of Johnnie's kids was mine - ah, the dangers of mixing beer and whiskey in the wrong order. You wouldn't know this child - she was a secret serial ax murderer, but played a mean Perpetual Immobilum.   Regarding the Eight, I think it will eventually come out that Johanna was the actual author, during a period of time when she was experimenting with various types of men's underwear.   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Andr=E9s G=FCnther   This leads us to the dead-or-life sholarly question if Bach's works really were written by Johann Sebastian Bach the Thomaskantor in Lepizig or another guy whose name was johann sebastian bach the ghostwriter. Further researches will bring out it these contested works will 1) conserve their alledged value as artworks, and 2) if their Public Domain Status should be retrieved and royalties go to prospective descendants of the ghostwriter, previous exhaustives DNA Analysis of course.          
(back) Subject: Bach Recordings From: "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:43:02 -0400   Dear Colin and List,   In addition to those you mention, I have great respect for the performance and recording of Bernard Lagace. He played during the OHS Convention in Montreal a few years ago, playing the Great Eighteen. It was riveting from beginning to end. I have a couple of his recordings, which I think are wonderful.   Having taken the advice of Fenner Douglass some years ago, when in Paris, where I found myself reasonably often, I went to morning Mass at St. Severin, and heard Michel Chapuis. Part of the reason for the suggestion that I go there was to do with the liturgy, which took advantage of the musically intelligent congregation to do music liturgically that might not work in other places. The Mass was always preceded by a rehearsal with the congregation, and the last time I was there, this rehearsal was led by a very confused, or at least very disorganized nun, who gave very unclear directions, and then, when chaos ensued, would start all over again with little improvement. Chapuis was expected to accompany all of this, and = there was a moment at which we heard the door to the Organ loft slam, marking = the departure of the man himself. He returned in time for Mass, and played magnificently, as always.   Sorry about the blank posting that got away from me a few minutes ago.   Cheers,   Malcolm   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Question for PipeChat People     > Hello, > > For Bach I think I will stick with Michel Chapuis or > Ton Koopman. > > The latter is a brilliant scholar who adds NOTHING > which isn't absolutely researched as historically > acceptable.....there is much to learn in what seem > like spontaneous gestures. > > Michel Chapuis just played Bach in the most unaffected > manner, but always with great panache and involvement. > > Also, in addition, I would suggest that the old Biggs > recordings are magnificent examples of Bach > performance, as too are the complete set by Peter > Hurford. > > Regards, > > Colin Mitchell UK >      
(back) Subject: Re: The AGO's Function-long From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:06:04 -0400   Gregory, I don't care whether or not you use heels for Bach - you are OK = in my book. Between this and your aknowlegement of Joey Defrancesco's genius, = you and I have finally found our common ground. Hear, Hear!     > <Gfc234@aol.com> wrote:   > I recently sent an email to the AGO national headquarters concerning the = AGO > placing a clause in its documents concerning compensation ...        
(back) Subject: Small Organs From: <Kzimmer0817@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:04:49 EDT   Responding to Bud,   > MOST small to medium-sized churches today ... Roman Catholic, Anglican, > Lutheran AND Protestant ... require little beyond a principal chorus to > lead hymns, a couple of softer stops to accompany the liturgy, soloists, =   > cantors, anthems, etc., an Oboe for a solo stop, and THAT'S IT.   Having grown up in Southern Baptist churches, I don't understand some of = the terms, but I agree with the above. I think church organists have tried to =   become concert organists. Organs for worship certainly don't need all the = stops that a concert organ needs.   > There's a DELIGHTFUL *new* one-manual Ott in Founders' Chapel at the > (Roman Catholic) University of San Diego ... the disposition (as I > recall it): > > MANUAL - all stops divided at middle c > > 8' Principal - complete to low C > 8' Gedeckt > 4' Octave > 4' Flute > 2' Octave > Mixture / Cornet - mixture in the bass, cornet in the treble > 8' Oboe > > PEDAL > > 16' Bourdon   <snip>   > What will that organ play?   <snip various composers and pieces listed>   > There are REAMS of FUN 19th century and early 20th century American > music "for pipe organ or harmonium" ... OHS is reprinting a lot of it; a =   > lot is available from the Library of Congress. > > Isn't that ENOUGH for the AVERAGE church organist???   Probably true. Actually, I prefer the two-manual extension of it that Bud =   included below. It probably would take a considerable amount of = retraining for the average organist to learn how to do all this on a single manual - even = if it is divided. Another rhetorical question is how much of the music = listed is really appropriate for a worship service?   <snip>   > That organ, built as a series instrument (as Bedient, Bigelow, Juget, > and others have done) could probably be had for around $100K   This is the part where I say that the pipes-only people are out of touch = with reality. Please, I don't mean that in disrespect. You're saying that my church of 200 exercised poor stewardship in its purchase of the Rodgers = 702 (small two manual, nothing pretentious at all) two years ago for < $15,000 = and should have literally done without an organ until we could have saved = $110,000 for a 7 stop pipe organ!?!?! The church would have to wear out 7 - 8 electronics before they would equal the cost of a single pipe organ, and = there's no guarantee that the pipe organ will not be replaced by the time the church = would be considering it's 9th electronic.   These people do like organ music, but the other organist, a couple other organ appreciators, and I almost felt that we had to fast and pray to get = this little organ thru the church committee. We were sooooo thankful that we = could get this one and be rid of the old living room Baldwin that had been there = for many years.   Are churches like this, who like organ music and its accompaniment, not allowed to have a synthetic organ sound without being looked down upon? Additionally, there are not enough churches with pipe organs to even allow =   practice/bench time to those amateur organists such as myself who would = not even have a substitute on which to practice if there were not such substitute.   > And it would be FAR more satisfying to play than ANY, I repeat ANY > electronic substitute. Its resources COULD be expanded by using the > "either-or" stop system that makes the resources available on two > manuals and pedal.   No contest. How many average church organists are there out here who = would much rather be sitting at the bench of a fine pipe organ? But . . . realistically, our churches can't afford a $100K+ organ. So we make do = and dream of some day being at a pipe organ somewhere that's consistent with our = theology.   > And last a LOT longer.   That's debatable. So many pipe organs are almost literally thrown out the =   window to make room for a new one within one generation. Perhaps, that's = a mis-statement. The organ may be in very workable condition, but fashion = may have worn it out. The bottom line is that it may become obsolete. Another = $100K will be spent upgrading or updating. I agree that this "shouldn't" = happen.   <snip>   > Or, with "judicious unification" it could be built as a two-manual > organ, thus: > > RESOURCES > > 1 - 16' Bourdon/Gedeckt > 2 - 8' Principal > 3 - 4' Octave > 4 - 4' Flute > 5 - 2' Octave > 6 - Mixture > 7 - Cornet > 8 - Oboe > > MANUAL I > > 2 - 8' Principal > 1 - 8' Gedeckt > 3 - 4' Octave > 4 - 4' Flute > 5 - 2' Octave > 1 - 2' Gedeckt > 6 - Mixture > 8 - 8' Oboe > > MANUAL II > > 4 - 8' Flute (1-12 common with Gedeckt) > 1 - 4' Gedeckt > 2 - 4' Principal - 12 pipes > 4 - 2' Flute - 12 pipes > 3 - 2' Octave - 12 pipes > 7 - Cornet > 8 - Oboe > > PEDAL > > 1 - 16' Bourdon - 12 pipes > 3 - 8' Principal - 12 pipes > 4 - 8' Flute - 1-12 common with Gedeckt > 5 - 4' Chorale Bass - 12 pipes > 1 - 4' Gedeckt > 8 - 8' Oboe > > "Small" only implies ONE THING: number of stops. An organ of that > disposition, if scaled, voiced and PLACED properly, could fill a > 500-seat church with NO problem.   While I haven't gone over that scheme with a fine toothed comb, I really = like the concept. Many of you are going to have to accept some degree of unification and/or duplexing. I like Michael Bigelow's "either/or" = tracker organs, but they are still quite costly.   > But I'd rather WAIT for a REAL organ (grin).   Again, as others have mentioned, some of you can wait. Some of you can = just move around to at least attend churches that have pipe organs in case you = can at least get some time on the bench.   <snip>   Anyway, just my thoughts - as an amateur who dreams of playing a pipe = organ in a church some day.   Keith    
(back) Subject: Re: Remembering an AGO meeting From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:06:54 -0400   No, Alan. Actually I base my belief on many hours of personally playing = all sorts of music on several new digital organs in several acoustically different rooms, and = 30-plus years experience playing pipe organs from one manual to five all over this great = country. To be fair, most of us would be able to tell that something is different - there = are no ciphers or wheezing regulators and everything is in tune. No doubt there are other = subtle differences that some people would pick up. I wonder whether those differences are = musically significant.   All else being equal, I dearly love pipes, but all is seldom equal.   -WG   > "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On 9/13/03 8:37 PM, "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net> wrote: > > > Now with a 2003 Allen I would have no trouble at all believing that an = expert > > could be fooled, but the organ in question is now 20 year old = technology. > > Really? Based on a five-minute sample of ordinary literature? You know > far, FAR better than I, so I'll believe you if you say, "Yes"; but I'll = be a > bit surprised.    
(back) Subject: Small Organs - Artiste From: <Kzimmer0817@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:16:08 EDT   List,   Thinking about the Moller Artiste, some seem more unified than others - to =   the point that the reed is even synthesized. I think the Artistes came = with a 4' Principal, 8' String, and 16-8-4-2+ Flute.   Taking on Bud's small organ idea, is there not a way that one could revive =   this organ? For church use, I would think that one would need to expand = it somewhat:   Principal 16 . . 2 Flute 16 . . . 2 String Celeste Oboe 16-8-4   If voicing is everything (almost), why couldn't these organs be mass = produced - at least in a couple configurations for different sized sanctuaries? = They could then be voiced onsite.   Can an organ like this be had for $30K - 40K? It still places it well = above most 2-manual electronics. I'm certain that many congregations would be willing to pay some amount more for the real thing, but not 8 - 10 times = more.   Anyway, I'd like to hear of some realistic and reachable choices for = churches wanting pipe organs but having limited funds - but who still want the = organ sound for choirs, solos, offeratories, and hymn accompaniments (with variations).   Thanks, Keith    
(back) Subject: Re: Small organs From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:24:49 +0800   Well Bud, that organ of yours can play a lot of ancient music but very little of the modern repertoire. and the cost of that number of ranks would still be over $100 000 here. You still have not made your point as far as I am concerned. Bob Elms.   ---- Original Message ---- From: quilisma@cox.net To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: Small organs Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:40:45 -0700   >I love Tournemire; I used to play a lot of Tournemire; MANY of the >shorter pieces only require two manuals, and flutes-strings-celestes. > >But let's take a look at that: > snip   > > >MANUAL - all stops divided at middle c > >8' Principal - complete to low C >8' Gedeckt >4' Octave >4' Flute >2' Octave > Mixture / Cornet - mixture in the bass, cornet in the treble >8' Oboe > >PEDAL > >16' Bourdon > >T    
(back) Subject: Re: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:38:06 EDT   In a message dated 9/14/2003 12:42:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, Gfc234@aol.com writes:   > ...were less than friendly, and were acting like mobsters-with = cigars...the > whole 9 yards.   perhaps because this is true? no. not really and do not forget their courageous foray into classical organs again including a 3 man DK--cough = and sputter   dale in Florida    
(back) Subject: Re: GOD doesn't care; *I* care From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:38:55 EDT   In a message dated 9/14/2003 2:24:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, giwro@adelphia.net writes:   > > Seem to remember Naji HAKIM playing > the Allen Cavaille-Coll clone at AGO National in Seattle... > > Might wanna check them facts > >   nice touch-----    
(back) Subject: Re: Small Organs From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:44:16 -0700   Responding to Keith:   ALL the music I listed was COMPOSED for the church service, and PLAYED in the church service for hundreds of years. That list was to prove to "professional" organists that you CAN play "organ literature" on a small organ.   I know EXACTLY the kind of Southern Baptist Church you're talking about (grin) ... there was one across the street from my mother's Methodist Church, and another across the street from my St. Luke's Episcopal Church.   One had an AGO console Wurlitzer electronc; the other had a Wurlitzer spinet; St. Luke's had a Hammond spinet (chuckle); only the Methodists boasted a pipe organ, an Estey Model L of seven stops.   Lorenz published (and continues to publish) REAMS of music for the amateur organist in the small church, playing a small organ.   Now: I have a question for organ-builders:   Somebody who actually has the Estey catalog please check my numbers, but for purposes of argument let's say a Estey Model L stock pipe organ, six complete manual stops and one complete pedal stop, cost $1000 in 1900. Adjusted for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index, that same organ SHOULD have cost $20,756.01 in 2002. Yet a seven-stop pipe organ TODAY costs closer to $140,000.00.   Why?   But, to be fair, let's apply that to reed organs as well.   Reed organs are widely touted as the "substitute" organs of the 19th/early 20th century for purposes of price comparison.   Say that a 2-manual and pedal Vocalion, Estey, or Hinners reed organ (the three largest builders of reed organs) cost $250 in 1900.   Fine.   A comparable electronic "substitute for a pipe organ" SHOULD have cost $5,189.00 in 2002. Yet the SMALLEST church electronic substitute with an AGO console and adequate speakers/amps will run you close to $20,000.00 TODAY.   I know two things:   (1) there are NO rich pipe organ builders, unless they inherited it, or married it (grin).   (2) the mark-up on electronic organs is HORRENDOUSLY high. Somebody forgot to take a tag out of the back of an analog Rodgers 750 I used to tune ... the church paid $27K+ for it ... extra speakers and some customizing ... the dealer cost was something like $11,500, if that much.   Why?   Why has organ-building, both pipe and "other", FAR outstripped the rate of inflation?   Why CAN'T pipe organ builders mass-produce stock models of the quality and durability of the hundreds of Hinners, Hook and Hastings, Erbens, Johnsons, Esteys, Mollers, Wicks (yes, Wicks!), Kimballs, Kilgens, Austens, etc. that are still doing yeoman service after a hundred years or more?   Anticipatoriously awaiting an answer,   Bud              
(back) Subject: Re: Small organs From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:48:34 -0700   OK, I'll take you on, Bob (grin) ... name me WHAT of the "modern" repertoire that it can't play. I certainly played Dubois, Boellmann, Tournemire, and Dupre on that 1-manual Ott in Founders' Chapel.   Cheers,   Bud   P.S. - there's more "ancient" music written for organ (from the beginning through J.S. Bach) than there is "modern" (since J.S. Bach)   bobelms wrote:   > Well Bud, that organ of yours can play a lot of ancient music but > very little of the modern repertoire. and the cost of that number of > ranks would still be over $100 000 here. You still have not made your > point as far as I am concerned. > Bob Elms. > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: quilisma@cox.net > To: pipechat@pipechat.org > Subject: Re: Small organs > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:40:45 -0700 > > >>I love Tournemire; I used to play a lot of Tournemire; MANY of the >>shorter pieces only require two manuals, and flutes-strings-celestes. >> >>But let's take a look at that: >> > > snip > > >> >>MANUAL - all stops divided at middle c >> >>8' Principal - complete to low C >>8' Gedeckt >>4' Octave >>4' Flute >>2' Octave >> Mixture / Cornet - mixture in the bass, cornet in the treble >>8' Oboe >> >>PEDAL >> >>16' Bourdon >> >>T > > > "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: Pure Hammond - Mischief From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:50:14 -0700   That THANG! I played one at the NAM show in Anaheim ... what a HOOT! Sounded like the FIRST Johannus I ever played ... 30 years ago? 40 years ago? Anyway, it was pee-DREADFUL (chuckle).   Cheers,   Bud, who hopes The Suits don't know where I LIVE (grin)   Keys4bach@aol.com wrote:   > In a message dated 9/14/2003 12:42:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Gfc234@aol.com writes: > >> ...were less than friendly, and were acting like mobsters-with >> cigars...the whole 9 yards. > > > > perhaps because this is true? no. not really and do not forget their > courageous foray into classical organs again including a 3 man DK--cough =   > and sputter > > dale in Florida      
(back) Subject: Re: Small Organs From: "firman1" <firman1@prodigy.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:11:47 -0500   Regarding costs of organs.... Aren't wages/pricing dependent on the whims = of "guilds/unions " ? It's no different than the cost of a new car ... Who really believes that the actual cost of a chevy or dodge or ford is = upward of 28,000.00 for a basically stock model ? Unions in all professions are now causing more harm than good . B.A.F.      
(back) Subject: da beat goes on From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:38:16 -0700   I think Bob meant to copy the list; instead he sent it to me twice.       Bob sputtereth:   Dubois, Boellmann, TOurnemire and Dupre are modern??? They died a generation or four ago! Try Howells, Young, Lovelock, Messiaen, Hampton, Johnston, Williamson, some by English Cathedral organists (plenty of them around and still alive!!!) or one of the young turks of Australian modern organ music. There are many more. Or try some of the Anglican repertoire of church music.   Bob       Bob, with respect, you just don't get it.   Village organists don't PLAY Messiaen, Hampton, Williamson, at least. Howells' Psalm-Preludes CAN be played on a small organ.   Um, I think after fifty years of playing, teaching, directing and singing it, I have a FAIR idea of what's required to accompany the Anglican choral repertoire (grin).   Again, with respect, VILLAGE churches (I can't make that any BIGGER, or I WOULD) don't SING and PLAY the CATHEDRAL repertoire.   The PROBLEM is ORGANISTS who have FANTASIES of doing it "someday", and put in 75 digital "stops" in a 100-seat church that hasn't HAD a choir since the end of WWII on the off-chance that they MIGHT.   Here's what a TYPICAL Anglican Sunday service in a SMALL U.S. church looks like:   Voluntary - MAYBE Hymn of Praise - Scottish Chant Gloria in excelsis (Rite I), or a metrical hymn (Rite II) Psalm - probably SAID, not SUNG Offertory - maybe a voluntary, more likely a hymn Sanctus - Schubert or Proulx or Powell (Rite II); Willan or Merbecke (Rite I) - all UNISON congregational settings, except the Schubert, which the choir CAN sing in parts, IF there IS a choir Fraction Anthem - plainsong, VERY simple Communion - voluntary, followed by a hymn (Recessional Hymn - discouraged, but still in widespread use) Voluntary   Now ... how many stops does THAT require, ASSUMING that the village organist knows HOW to use the foot-pedals at ALL?   Cheers,   Bud      
(back) Subject: Re: here we go, yet again From: "Jim Hailey" <jhaileya10@charter.net> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:05:39 -0500   Thank you Jeff,   Jim H ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff White" <reedstop@charter.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:06 AM Subject: RE: here we go, yet again     > >   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 > > "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 > >