PipeChat Digest #4699 - Wednesday, August 18, 2004
 
Re: Gaither Band and Organ
  by "Bill Hauser" <bill.hauser@cox.net>
Re: Gaither Band and Organ
  by "Bill Hauser" <bill.hauser@cox.net>
Pipe Organ looking for a new home
  by "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com>
RE: Real versus Digital!
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Real versus Digital!
  by <OMusic@aol.com>
Re: Real versus Digital!
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
Re: Real versus Digital!
  by "Stephen Best" <stevebest@usadatanet.net>
Re: Real versus Digital!
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Real versus Digital!
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
Re: Real versus Digital!
  by <Gfc234@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Gaither Band and Organ From: "Bill Hauser" <bill.hauser@cox.net> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:08:18 -0500       If it's the one I've seen, it's not in a church, but Royal Albert Hall.      
(back) Subject: Re: Gaither Band and Organ From: "Bill Hauser" <bill.hauser@cox.net> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:56:04 -0500       Oops. According to the Gaither website, it was recorded in Westminster = Central Hall. http://www.c-h-w.com/roomhire/greathall.shtml      
(back) Subject: Pipe Organ looking for a new home From: "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:59:15 -0400   In my listing of extant organs, I find that the First Baptist Church of Watertown had a large 2 manual Kimball, Smallman & Frazee pipe organ with electric action invented by Smallman. This would put it somewhere around the 1920's I think. That's all the info. I have. Judy Ollikkala  
(back) Subject: RE: Real versus Digital! From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   It has been suggested before, that the only way of achieveing "perfect" pipe sound from a digital organ, would have to utilise lots of processors working in parallel.   However, let's not be over-awed by "thousands of pipes" in a large organ. Even with a large instrument, combinations rarely exceed twenty stops at a time, giving perhaps 35 ranks across (at most) 10 notes......in other words, a maximum of about 350 pipes speaking at any one time. Smaller instruments would probably see half that number.   Of course Will is right in suggesting that digital organs sound like recorded instruments. Very few (any?) start with a clean slate and build on the human ear and scientific analysis, without some sort of recorded data-bank as the first source of sampled sound.   However, let's give credit where credit is due. The digital organ makers have achieved an enormous amount in the past 30 years, and nowadays, their products are fulfilling the early promise of being fully musical instruments in their own rights. I don't think a single digital organ-maker would ever claim that they produce something superior to a real pipe organ!   As a musician, I will say it for them.........   I have, over the years, played some of the most God-awful pipe organs which, frankly, are fit only for the trash dump. I am not talking romantic/classical, or some fad of changing fashion: simply that they are NOT musical instruments. Some of them, tragically, have been NEW pipe organs built at considerable cost.   In recent years, it has become quite difficult to find truly BAD digital organs, with most now being really quite acceptable. As practise instruments, they are simply wonderful, for they overcome immediately the problem of confined living space acoustics, and produce a far BETTER sound than any pipe-organ could achieve (unless one happens to be the Duke of Marlborough).   It is my view that, given the choice between a pipe organ or a digital organ in a BAD ACOUSTIC, then I might just consider the digital organ the better solution!!!!   Perhaps the time has come to respect digital organs for what they.......very good simulators capable of producing worthwhile music. Like the state-of-the-art flight simulators, you may not leave the ground or crash, but you certainly get the IMPRESSION that such is possible. However, be assured that ALL pilots want to fly the real thing and reach for the skies.   If the digital manufacturers have done one thing in our favour, it is to eliminate the inept so-called "organ-builders" who buy in all the components, stick the pipes in the racks, tune it and then flee the scene.   The pipe-organ builders now have to COMPETE successfully if they are to make a name for themselves and survive.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Will Light <will.light@btinternet.com> wrote:   Every > single manufacturer of electronic/digital/analogue > organs sends out CDs of > their instruments and they ALL sound good. This is > because you are listening > to a Recording       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail  
(back) Subject: Re: Real versus Digital! From: <OMusic@aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:10:35 EDT   An electronic organ will not sound like a pipe organ because it is not a = pipe organ. This is like comparing oranges and apples. They are two separate instruments. Lee  
(back) Subject: Re: Real versus Digital! From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:08:32 -0400   At 02:10 PM 2004-08-17 -0400, you wrote: >An electronic organ will not sound like a pipe organ because it is not a >pipe organ. This is like comparing oranges and apples. They are two >separate instruments. Lee     Lee,   But we live in a make-believe world. So those in the E-Org world keep coming up with better products to fool more people. If Hollywood is alright, surely E-Orgs are alright. E-Org companies shouldn't lie, and = say their products sound exactly like a pipe organ. You are right, it is the difference between real flowers and and fake one.   Arie V.    
(back) Subject: Re: Real versus Digital! From: "Stephen Best" <stevebest@usadatanet.net> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:18:01 -0400   Could not copy the message to the digest, there was no plain text part
(back) Subject: Re: Real versus Digital! From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:01:33 -0400   On 8/17/04 11:28 AM, "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:   > The pipe-organ builders now have to COMPETE successfully if they are to = make a > name for themselves and survive.   And, to our pleasure, some of them (possibly even a fair number of them) = DO just that! (But you're certainly making a very good POINT!)   Alan    
(back) Subject: Re: Real versus Digital! From: "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:26:50 -0500   >Oh no! I hope we're not restartnig this "no win" debate for the >unpteenth time! > >Steve Best in Utica, NY   As Steve has pointed out this is a NO WIN debate so unless someone has something "really" new to add, which I really doubt is the case, let us drop this topic and move on to other topics that aren't so contentious.   David -- **************************************** David Scribner Owner / Co-Administrator PipeChat   http://www.pipechat.org mailto:admin@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: Re: Real versus Digital! From: <Gfc234@aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:31:51 EDT   In a message dated 8/17/2004 6:27:18 PM Central Daylight Time, admin@pipechat.org writes:   As Steve has pointed out this is a NO WIN debate so unless someone has something "really" new to add, which I really doubt is the case, let us drop this topic and move on to other topics that aren't so contentious.   David --       You beat me to the punch! cheers, gfc ___________________________________________________________________________= ___ _________ _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ _______________________________ ________________ Gregory Francis Ceurvorst 1921 Sherman Avenue # GS Evanston, IL 60201 847.332.2788 home/fax 708.243.2549 mobile _Home Email: gfc234@aol.com_ (mailto:gfc234@aol.com) _Mobile Email: gfc234@nextel.blackberry.net_ (mailto:gfc234@nextel.blackberry.net)