PipeChat Digest #4708 - Sunday, August 22, 2004
 
Re: two diapasons in England
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Pipe/digital combinations
  by "noel jones" <gedeckt@usit.net>
Re: Pipe/digital combinations
  by "Andrew Barss" <asbarss@eastlink.ca>
Re: Pipe/digital combinations
  by "Jim McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com>
combo organs
  by "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: Pipe/digital combinations
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Pipe/digital combinations
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Pipes with Digital
  by <Devon3000@aol.com>
Re: Pipe/digital combinations
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Christmas music for strings/Notes Inegales
  by <DERREINETOR@aol.com>
Notes Inegales
  by "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: two diapasons in England From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:57:27 -0600   Good Morning, Collin, et al: > My concern was purely the latter-day existence of > multiple diapasons, which took on a quite different > character during the 19th century and reached a peak > (trough?) of development around 1930-40. For those of us who cannot afford to travel to Jolly Ole England to audition these organs ourselves, you have provided a substantial academic overview of how these organs might sound. For me, this is important. Thank you. Appreciatively, F. Richard burt ..    
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe/digital combinations From: "noel jones" <gedeckt@usit.net> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:53:10 -0400   "I certainly wouldn't want to sleep with a horse..."   I am sure that many horses will sleep better tonight knowing this, Colin.   --   noel jones, aago        
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe/digital combinations From: "Andrew Barss" <asbarss@eastlink.ca> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:02:10 -0300   Colin,     On Saturday, August 21, 2004, at 05:28 AM, Colin Mitchell wrote:   > Perhaps a more literary name such as, Watts-n-Ohms and > Pipes?     "Watts-n-Ohms" didn't they solve mysteries or something -- a pipe and deerhunter, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle and all that?    
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe/digital combinations From: "Jim McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:08:52 -0400     On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Colin Mitchell <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > Hello, > > Maybe I'm just a puritan at heart, but why would > anyone want to spoil a perfectly good digital organ > with pipes?       Deal List:   Bob Walker has discovered that his "organs" sound more life-like when the speakers are placed amongst some pipework, whether the pipes are playing or not.   Jim           *There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that understand binary, and those that don't.*  
(back) Subject: combo organs From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 07:43:00 -0700   The problems, like most marriages, come AFTER the wedding. The majority of electronic sales-people have little or no experience with pipes; neither do most electronic techs; most pipe organ techs don't want to deal with combos; neither do most pipe organ builders.   I've played a number of combo organs; I've even installed a couple (mea culpa). What USUALLY happens is that the organist uses one or the other. The electronics are what they are ... good, bad, or indifferent; the PIPES are usually the problem ... they're either out of tune with THEMSELVES, which means all the fuzzy logic gadgets to make the electronics follow the pipes aren't going to do much good ... or they're poorly made in the first place ... OR the electronics are added to a vintage pipe organ that needed a thorough rebuild FIRST ... in which case it probably wouldn't NEED the electronics.   It's VERY difficult to get the electronics to have the same PRESENCE in the room as the pipes ... that requires extensive arrays of speakers and amps ... meanwhile the cash register is ringing.   If I was faced with a situation where there wasn't going to BE a pipe organ, no way no how (and I have been), I'd spend the money on additional speakers and amps, rather than on one or two ranks of pipes .... and voicing and finishing time for the electronic ... AND *natural* acoustical enhancements for the church, which would also improve the singing of the choir and congregation ... removing carpet, hardening the walls, floor, and ceiling, etc. ... AND spacious mixing chambers for the speakers if at all possible. Chambers are kinder to electronics than they are to pipe organs.   There's no point in fighting electronics ... they're here to stay ... but I'm more inclined to accept them on their own terms for what they can and cannot do, rather than making some kind of Frankenstein's Monster out of two VASTLY different technologies and sounds.   Cheers,   Bud      
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe/digital combinations From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:44:51 -0600   Hello, Jim, et al:   You wrote:   > Bob Walker has discovered that his "organs" sound more life-like when the > speakers are placed amongst some pipework, whether the pipes are playing > or not.   That was already common knowledge before Walker "discovered" it. It may have been good to confirm it for himself, but this was already a known property of sound dispersion at Saville as early as the late 1960s.   I think that the more we ALL learn about organ sound dispersion the better ALL digital organs will begin to sound. Keep up the good work, experiment when you can, press the audio technologies further, reap the results in better sounds. <grins>   I like positive attitudes like this.   F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs     ..      
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe/digital combinations From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:12:06 EDT   In a message dated 08/21/04 8:53:38 AM, gedeckt@usit.net writes, in = response to Colin Mitchell's: << "I certainly wouldn't want to sleep with a = horse..." I am sure that many horses will sleep better tonight knowing this, Colin. = -- noel jones, aago   Just for the record, it was my passionate affair with a giraffe that = prompted me to purchase my first string/digital banjo, and I have never looked = back. Actually, I have been advised never to look back. In fact, I'm scared to = look back...    
(back) Subject: Pipes with Digital From: <Devon3000@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:30:00 EDT   Hi all,   Colin writes that he can't imagine pipes in the same living room as = digital with reverb. I wish that he weren't so far from the Chicago area, as I = have two fine examples of this both at home and at church.   At home, I have a 25 rank custom digital Allen, relayed to 14 ranks of = pipes. It's actually two complete organs, though the pipe organ doesn't have any =   reed stops. I have had many organists with critical ears who thoroughly = enjoy the possibilities, as do I. Some, like me, love the reverb, as it gives = some life to both worlds. Others just turn it off with the stop knob. Either = way, you can mix and match and have a great time with the possibilities.   At Christ Church, we have 80 ranks of Austin with 20 ranks of Allen added. = Having 16 ranks of strings instead of four is intoxicating for player and listener. Having filled in all the gaps that resulted from financial = limitations when the pipes were purchased has completed the instrument. I recall = telling the congregation that if they didn't like any of the digital sound, we = could replace it with pipes, and not one person has ever suggested doing that = yet!   As for musical benefits which Colin alluded to as lacking, I particularly enjoy having practically any stop or sound available through the organs or = the expanders. And you never have to tune the reeds! The flues are very = stable because of climate control in both places.   I think the Allen people are comfortable with combination organs now = because they find it so easy to blend the two together. And all the recent talk = about lousy installations has a positive side too. The nice thing about the Renaissance organs is that they can always be revoiced or adjusted at any = time in the future. The church or home owner should not expect this to be done = for nothing, though. It should not be a costly venture, though, and I have = thoroughly enjoyed voicing many of these as well as the earlier MDS models.   What I get from both organs I have close ties with, home and church, is = two sturdy consoles with optical keying in one, and sealed reed switches (in = the home one). Service is minimal, except for pipe tuning, but that is = budgeted. I'm preparing a fourth CD of the church organ. They're all available for = ($10 each, plus shipping).   The invitation is open for anyone to hear either instrument and draw your = own conclusions. So far, I've not seen anyone that hasn't enjoyed playing = both, with or without artificial reverb.   We're doing a wild thing at Christ Church, by connecting the Chapel Renaissance three manual with the Sanctuary console via MIDI. Because the = chapel congregation watches the service on TV, they weren't singing well. For congregational hymns, I play two organs at once. It took a while to get = that all set on pistons!!   In spite of all the differences of opinion, I love the organ, and all of = your opinions and even the nasty responses are fun. Keep it up as it keeps us = all sharp and able to defend and promote the King of Instruments.   Devon Hollingsworth, in DeKalb, Illinios  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe/digital combinations From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:31:20 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   Elementary Sir!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Andrew Barss <asbarss@eastlink.ca> wrote:   > Colin, > >   > > "Watts-n-Ohms" didn't they solve mysteries or > something -- a pipe and > deerhunter, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle and all that? > > > ****************************************************************** > "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 > List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> > >       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail  
(back) Subject: Re: Christmas music for strings/Notes Inegales From: <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:47:25 EDT   MANY young string players have experience with early music, including the French Baroque. Not to say that ALL do.   Here's a recommendation for anyone interested in a good, slim volume = packed with good information regarding Notes Inegales:   "Rythmic Alteration in Seventeenth-andEighteenth-Century Music: Notes Inegales and Overdotting", by Stephen E. Hefling Schirmer Books, New York, 1993.   Bill H. Boston.  
(back) Subject: Notes Inegales From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:14:01 -0700   It's pretty simple, actually ... it's the first subdivision that gets the inequality.   In 3/4 and 4/4 time, if the eighth notes move STEPWISE, you do long-short, long-short ... HOW short depends on the tempo.   In 2/2 and 3/2 time, it's the quarter notes.   In 6/8, it's the sixteenth notes.   If a passage is a MIXTURE of stepwise motion and leaps, it's up to the "good taste" of the organist.   VERY sharp double-dotting probably isn't historical, at least in fast movements and/or grand jeu movements. The reeds wouldn't speak that fast .... we know that because a lot of composers' prefaces call for adding the Bourdon and Prestant to the Trompette or Cromorne to mask the imperfections in the speech of the reeds.   Cheers,   Bud                                                                                                       DERREINETOR@aol.com wrote: > MANY young string players have experience with early music, including > the French Baroque. Not to say that ALL do. > > Here's a recommendation for anyone interested in a good, slim volume > packed with good information regarding Notes Inegales: > > "Rythmic Alteration in Seventeenth-andEighteenth-Century Music: Notes > Inegales and Overdotting", by Stephen E. Hefling > Schirmer Books, New York, 1993. > > Bill H. > Boston.