PipeChat Digest #4955 - Thursday, December 2, 2004
 
RE: pipe organs in chapels of churches
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
Theories of relativity
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: an advert of interest
  by "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: pipe organs in chapels of churches
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: End the manipulation and twisting of words
  by "alantaylor1" <alantaylor1@members.v21.co.uk>
Praise him on the loud organs
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
Re: Praise him on the loud organs
  by "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Praise him on the loud organs
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
Re: Nomenclature
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Re: Nomenclature
  by "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk>
 

(back) Subject: RE: pipe organs in chapels of churches From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:12:59 -0000   Do you mean Chapels as opposed to their main worship sanctuaries? If so, then I don't know of any of our churches which have organs in chapels, except for Truro Cathedral and a number of portative/continuo organs etc. If not, then we have (or had) the following in Coventry.   Coventry Cathedral of St. Michael 4 manuals 74 stops Harrison & Harrison Warwick Road United Reformed Church, Coventry 4 manuals 61 stops Aolian (Removed a few years ago) Holy Trinity Church, Coventry 4 manuals 59 stops Willis St. John the Baptist Coventry 4 manuals 71 stops Noterman   Will Light Coventry UK   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of RMB10@aol.com Sent: 02 December 2004 21:39 To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: pipe organs in chapels of churches   Other than Peachtree Road United Methodist Church, Atlanta, GA, do any of you pipechatters know of churches with 4 manual pipe organs in their chapels?   Monty Bennett   ****************************************************************** "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>    
(back) Subject: Theories of relativity From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:25:52 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I stand by what I said, because I HAVE worked out the figures for the organ I play, which is an exceptionally fine, 11 speaking stop neo-baroque, mechanical action instrument.   From being built in 1974, it has required two tunings per year at a cost (in the values of today) of exactly =A3140....in other words, =A34,200 in real terms.   It is quite a large church, and would require a very substantial speaker set-up if we were to install a digital organ.   By now, I suspect that we would be looking at a second digital organ at a cost of what? Perhaps =A320,000? (Please bear in mind that most things cost a lot more in the UK than they do in the US)   So in real terms, the digital alternative would, by now, have cost perhaps =A340,000 plus any maintenance required over the 30 year period. Let's be kind, and suggest a figure of =A31,000 for any running repairs necessary. That would amount to =A342,000 over a sixty year period, compared to a cost of =A3120,000 for the organ, plus =A38,400 in tuning and repairs. A large difference of =A385,600.   Now project forward a further thirty years,(now 90 years) at which point the pipe organ ( at to-day's values) would require a =A330,000 refurbishment....it's a very simple instrument. We would by then need a fourth electronic......the difference now increasing slightly to around =A395,600   Add another 90 years, and all being equal, the pipe organ would only cost a further =A38,400, whilst we would have to buy yet another two electronics at a cost of =A340,000 plus =A33,000 maintenance, and would then be looking towards buying a replacement electronic once again at year 180.   The difference now falls to around the =A360,000 mark.   However, all this assumes that the electronic could compete on quality of sound, and with the current state of off-the-shelf technology, I would very much doubt it. Quality for quality, the figures for the cost of a real-time synthesis organ would probably be double those I quote, so it is only over a relatively short period that there would be a big financial difference. Using the quality end of custom electronic products, those figures would probably intersect at around the 60-80 year point....and I was assuming the best quality rather than the inferior stock electronics.   To compete with one of the finest small organs ever built in the UK, and truly a heritage instrument, only the best electronic would even begin to compete on musical terms.   The only thing I haven't taken into account is the depereciation on capital, which obviously makes a significant difference in favour of the less expensive alternative.   My point was (I probably stated it badly) that many pipe-organs were donated by individual benefactors, at a time when the concept of "church" was an everlasting one. So it really boils down to faith and wanting to provide the best in the service of God.   That way of thinking has now totally vanished in much of Europe, and certainly here in the UK. Because of it, the choice is now almost invariably falls upon the cheapest and least agreeable type of organ available....and that is a musical disaster.   I suppose we were very lucky, for in 1974, electronics sounded ghastly, the church was full four times a week and money was plentiful.   They couldn't raise the cash today!   As Russ Greene knows only too well, there are certain fixed costs in anything, and once income dips towards this level, there is no money available for even the smallest of luxuries, and cheapest will win every time.   That explains the terrible decline in UK organ-building, which is now concentrated in the capable hands of a very few, with the "also-rans" scrabbling to pick up the contracts for maintenance and overhauls. Without heritage funds, lottery grants and a few major public contracts, even the top builders would now be facing very bleak prospects indeed.   I'm afraid we are all living in reduced circumstances, and sadly, even craftsmanship is not immune from the market forces of supply, demand and competition.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   (Former Credit Management Consultant for several Blue Chip companies ;-)   --- Russ Greene <rggreene2@shaw.ca> wrote:   > Hi Colin, > I truly wish your economic analysis were even close > to fact. > Unfortunately, your numbers, grains of rice, > dollars, pounds or euros, > simply don't make sense.       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: an advert of interest From: "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:27:51 +0100   Andy Lawrence wrote: > On a loosely related note (nothing to do with Russ's post, but with some =   > others on this thread), why is it that we say a large church "needs 4 > manuals" and a small church "needs just 2 manuals". What on earth does = the > number of manuals have to do with how well a pipe or electronic organ = can > fill a church? In my experience filling a room is about scaling, = complete > choruses, etc. Amen! Having played the 2 manual, 30 stop 1742 Wagner in Nidaros Cathedral, the largest Gothic church in Northern Europe (at least claimed to be), I can confirm that. For almost 300 years it was the only organ there, with little (if any) complaints about it lacking volume. In fact, the only major rebuild before the 1993 restoration made it sound softer!   - Jarle http://jarle.moo.no  
(back) Subject: RE: pipe organs in chapels of churches From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:39:44 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Liverpool Cathedral has a large two manual Willis/Kennedy organ in the Lady Chapel. It's not 4 manuals, but it does have a 32ft reed!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Will Light <will.light@btinternet.com> wrote:   > Do you mean Chapels as opposed to their main worship > sanctuaries? > If so, then I don't know of any of our churches > which have organs in > chapels, except for Truro Cathedral     __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250  
(back) Subject: RE: End the manipulation and twisting of words From: "alantaylor1" <alantaylor1@members.v21.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:46:01 -0000   I suspect you would be much happier working in the UK, Sebastian. It isn't as you suggest it is in the USA, here. There is room for good organ = builders in the UK.   Get packing.   Alan Taylor London   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TubaMagna@aol.com Sent: 02 December 2004 15:15 To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: End the manipulation and twisting of words   Is it really insulting to repeat what tens of thousands of organ-players say?   I was dealing with the truth, which is that most organists, including = many, many on these chat lists, are very proud of their electronic organs, and express open contempt for pipe organ builders and those with an interest = in the history of the instrument.   It is very much part of public record that these chat lists speak of conscientious pipe organ builders with disgust and condescension. One can access thousands of posts from organ-players who insist that even if they could tell the difference, they simply don't care. It is part of the permanent electronic =   record that many organ-players refuse to play instruments they deem too small for their needs, and that they insist on very, very large artificial = instruments   to MEET their needs. I am not insulting them, but they MAY be insulting themselves.   Is it not the depths of hypocrisy to proudly state one's inability to discern between real and fake, and THEN turn around and make pronouncements about the comparitive quality of various pipe organs? Of organ performances? Of musical compositions?   The re-statement of facts may be clearly made to make the reader THINK, = and therefore draw CONCLUSIONS, which can be either another set of facts, or a set of opinions. But the statement of facts cannot be an insulting act.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City   ..   ****************************************************************** "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>     --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004   --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004    
(back) Subject: Praise him on the loud organs From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:47:55 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I reported on 13 speaking stop Flentrop at the East End of Doesburg Cathedral in the Netherlands, which made a big sound even at the other end of the building.   Regarding relative sizes of Gothic buildings, I think Jarle will discover that the largest true Gothic Cathedral North of the Alps, is York Minster, and the largest South of the Alps is Seville, in Spain.   Of course, the Gothic-Revival cathedrals of Liverpool in the UK and St John-the-Divine NY, simply dwarf them!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK       --- Jarle Fagerheim <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:   > Having played the 2 manual, 30 stop 1742 > Wagner in Nidaros > Cathedral, the largest Gothic church in Northern > Europe (at least > claimed to be), I can confirm that. For almost 300 > years it was the only > organ there, with little (if any) complaints about > it lacking volume.     __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:19:06 -0500   Colin,   If you calculate present value your economics does not make sense. Musical= =20 value is something separate from monetary value. What I am trying to say=20 is that if a person or a parish wants a pipe organ they will get one,=20 rather than an E-org.   Let's say for convenience sake that we are in the market for a 2 manual and= =20 pedal organ of 20 stops. Let us say we want very good quality in the=20 instrument. Let us say we look at a tracker, a pipe organ with a remote=20 console run with an electric transmission relay, and an electronic= instrument.   We will use US dollars as currency   Trackers cost on average $25,000 per stop so a 20 stop instrument would=20 cost $500,000 Electro-pneumatic pipe organ - average $20,000 per stop - so the=20 instrument would cost $400,000 Electronic organ average $1,000 per stop plus console - so figure in the=20 neighbourhood of $50,000   These are fairly reliable figures. I have heard of tracker builders that=20 charge well over $30,000 per stop. Also in general expensive small=20 specification electronic organs are rare, so this would be a custom high=20 end price.   For comparison purposes, let us say that the ep pipe organ console is the=20 same quality, same componentry as the electronic instrument. In other=20 words the only difference would be the chamber end of things. In the case= =20 of the pipe organ you would have blower, resevoir, chests, swell box,=20 pipes, etc. In the case of the electronic organ you would have tone=20 generators, speakers, amplifiers, etc.   Let us say for purely financial purposes, that you have $250,000. What is= =20 not spent is banked, what you don't have is borrowed. One could easily see= =20 that on a cost analysis basis an electronic organ is cheaper. One could=20 actually replace the electronic organ every 10 years and still be way ahead.   Maybe in Britain, things are way less expensive I don't know. It seems to= =20 me that the costs of tunings, in North America are way more than what you=20 quote. Refurbishing pipe organs in North America is even=20 expensive. Prices quoted for electronic organs in Britain, are quite low=20 in comparison to North America.   I'm sure that if you could persuade the powers that be of churches, that=20 pipe organs were cheaper, even in the long run, many more churches would go= =20 that route. In fact many churches are going cheaper than electronic organ= =20 and switching to digital pianos, digital keyboards, drum sets, canned music= =20 etc.   Maybe organ purists would be further ahead if they and maybe their friends= =20 would help underwrite the cost of pipe organ purchases or the cost or=20 rebuilding or restoring. It seems many organists want someone else to=20 pay. They want the gain without the pain.   It may be a sad fact these days, but many parishes don't place a very high= =20 value on organs, sometimes even if they have a good one. So why would they= =20 spend big bucks on one.   Arie V.         At 02:25 PM 2004-12-02 -0800, you wrote: >Hello, > >I stand by what I said, because I HAVE worked out the >figures for the organ I play, which is an >exceptionally fine, 11 speaking stop neo-baroque, >mechanical action instrument. > > >From being built in 1974, it has required two tunings >per year at a cost (in the values of today) of exactly >=A3140....in other words, =A34,200 in real terms. > >It is quite a large church, and would require a very >substantial speaker set-up if we were to install a >digital organ. > >By now, I suspect that we would be looking at a second >digital organ at a cost of what? Perhaps =A320,000? >(Please bear in mind that most things cost a lot more >in the UK than they do in the US) > >So in real terms, the digital alternative would, by >now, have cost perhaps =A340,000 plus any maintenance >required over the 30 year period. Let's be kind, and >suggest a figure of =A31,000 for any running repairs >necessary. That would amount to =A342,000 over a sixty >year period, compared to a cost of =A3120,000 for the >organ, plus =A38,400 in tuning and repairs. A large >difference of =A385,600. > >Now project forward a further thirty years,(now 90 >years) at which point the pipe organ ( at to-day's >values) would require a =A330,000 refurbishment....it's >a very simple instrument. We would by then need a >fourth electronic......the difference now increasing >slightly to around =A395,600 > >Add another 90 years, and all being equal, the pipe >organ would only cost a further =A38,400, whilst we >would have to buy yet another two electronics at a >cost of =A340,000 plus =A33,000 maintenance, and would >then be looking towards buying a replacement >electronic once again at year 180. > >The difference now falls to around the =A360,000 mark. > >However, all this assumes that the electronic could >compete on quality of sound, and with the current >state of off-the-shelf technology, I would very much >doubt it. Quality for quality, the figures for the >cost of a real-time synthesis organ would probably be >double those I quote, so it is only over a relatively >short period that there would be a big financial >difference. Using the quality end of custom electronic >products, those figures would probably intersect at >around the 60-80 year point....and I was assuming the >best quality rather than the inferior stock >electronics. > >To compete with one of the finest small organs ever >built in the UK, and truly a heritage instrument, only >the best electronic would even begin to compete on >musical terms. > >The only thing I haven't taken into account is the >depereciation on capital, which obviously makes a >significant difference in favour of the less expensive >alternative. > >My point was (I probably stated it badly) that many >pipe-organs were donated by individual benefactors, at >a time when the concept of "church" was an everlasting >one. So it really boils down to faith and wanting to >provide the best in the service of God. > >That way of thinking has now totally vanished in much >of Europe, and certainly here in the UK. Because of >it, the choice is now almost invariably falls upon the >cheapest and least agreeable type of organ >available....and that is a musical disaster. > >I suppose we were very lucky, for in 1974, electronics >sounded ghastly, the church was full four times a week >and money was plentiful. > >They couldn't raise the cash today! > >As Russ Greene knows only too well, there are certain >fixed costs in anything, and once income dips towards >this level, there is no money available for even the >smallest of luxuries, and cheapest will win every >time. > >That explains the terrible decline in UK >organ-building, which is now concentrated in the >capable hands of a very few, with the "also-rans" >scrabbling to pick up the contracts for maintenance >and overhauls. >Without heritage funds, lottery grants and a few major >public contracts, even the top builders would now be >facing very bleak prospects indeed. > >I'm afraid we are all living in reduced circumstances, >and sadly, even craftsmanship is not immune from the >market forces of supply, demand and competition. > >Regards, > >Colin Mitchell UK        
(back) Subject: Re: Praise him on the loud organs From: "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:19:24 +0100   Colin Mitchell wrote: > Regarding relative sizes of Gothic buildings, I think > Jarle will discover that the largest true Gothic > Cathedral North of the Alps, is York Minster, and the > largest South of the Alps is Seville, in Spain. That's why I wrote "claimed to be"! Maybe those behind the claim define "Northern Europe" to be Scandinavia and northern continental Europe... I *think* I'm on safe ground saying that Nidaros is the largest Gothic church in Scandinavia. It's certainly huge!   Anyway, York (Jorvik, that is) and the rest of Britain would have been a part of Norway, had the Vikings been clever enough to invade _after_ the Normans, back in 1066 :-D   - Jarle http://jarle.moo.no  
(back) Subject: Re: Praise him on the loud organs From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:28:26 -0500   At 12:19 AM 2004-12-03 +0100, you wrote: >Colin Mitchell wrote: >>Regarding relative sizes of Gothic buildings, I think >>Jarle will discover that the largest true Gothic >>Cathedral North of the Alps, is York Minster, and the >>largest South of the Alps is Seville, in Spain. >That's why I wrote "claimed to be"! Maybe those behind the claim define >"Northern Europe" to be Scandinavia and northern continental Europe... I >*think* I'm on safe ground saying that Nidaros is the largest Gothic >church in Scandinavia. It's certainly huge! > >Anyway, York (Jorvik, that is) and the rest of Britain would have been a >part of Norway, had the Vikings been clever enough to invade _after_ the >Normans, back in 1066 :-D > >- Jarle >http://jarle.moo.no Jarle,   Whoa! The world has enough wars going on. Don't need to stir up nationalistic passions here. <LOL>   Arie V.      
(back) Subject: Re: Nomenclature From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:32:08 EST   >There are cultural differences, most certainly, in stopnames. For many >Americans I've corresponded with over the years, Dulciana and Salicional ar= e >synonymous, yet to British or NZ ears (and also Australian, Canadian and >South African, I suspect) the Salicional is a string and the Dulciana most >decidedly is not.=20 > >As I mentioned a couple of days ago, anyone who knows British organs would >never confuse a Geigen Principal with a Violin Diapason, either. Too, there >is a tonal distinction between Clarabella and Claribel, often not realised >in practice albeit. I also believe there is a tonal difference between >Piccolo and Flautina, and between SubBass and Bourdon, and between Oboe and >Hautbois, and between Gedackt and Stopped Diapason, and between Cremona and >Clarinet (and even Clarionet) and Krummhorn and Cromorne.   Ah, someone who understands. Charlie also hit the nail on the head when he=20 said "An Hautbois is not the same as an Oboe or Fagot; a Trompette is not th= e=20 same as=20 a Cornopean or Trompeta; a Gambe [in the Cavaill=E9 Coll=20 tradition at least] is not a Gamba. And so on."   That's why I think nomenclature needs to be specific. If a stop says Gedeckt= =20 it should be a Gedeckt and not a Bourdon. A Viola and a Salicional are=20 different. A Diapason and a Principal are very different, as is a Prinzipal= .. A=20 Violin Diapason is much stringier than a Geigen Diapason. The difference be= tween=20 a Krummhorn and a Cromorne are like night and day, and don't forget Basset=20 Horn and Corno di Bassetto. Most American ears are just not used to listeni= ng=20 to specific tonal differences. Maybe it's because there have been so many=20 generic instruments built with vanilla tonal schemes and finishing--everythi= ng=20 sounds the same. Our ears here have just not been accustomed to listening f= or=20 the nuances between the various types of similar stops, which is sad. Unles= s=20 one has played abroad, has played excellent modern instruments by some of th= e=20 smaller builders, or played some of the older American organs that were=20 influenced by British builders that had some of these stops, one's ears are=20= probably=20 not used to being so attuned to the minute (and often quite major) tonal=20 differences between ranks of similar constuction. It's not bad if an organ= ist=20 doesn't know the difference becaue they haven't been exposed, but when they=20= don't=20 try to get out and hear the differences between a Trumpet, a Trompete, a=20 Trompette, a Trompeta and a Trommet or the differences between a Rohrflote a= nd a=20 Stopped Diapason and a KupferGedeckt, they are doing themselves a disservice= .. =20 Being an organist is more than just waltzing in, turning on the power, hitti= ng=20 a piston, and playing. There's a reason universities require courses in org= an=20 construction and keyboard history, etc. It's so we will learn a little more= =20 about why composers and performers did what they did. Then, when we have th= e=20 opportunity to design an instrument for a church, we can do it from an=20 informed postition.   There are reasons that the Quatre Fonds are on the Great/Grand Orgue and why= =20 the Bourdon and Flute Harmonique are often used together, just as the Hautbo= is=20 and Trompette are paired on the Recit. The French Hautbois and Trompette=20 work together colorwise, but often the American pairing don't blend together= in=20 the same manner, but yet so many builders will call them by the French name,= =20 even when voiced in a completely un-French way. =20   If the organists were better informed, they would be able to stand up for=20 what they wanted and not have things foisted on them by some of the reps of=20 builders. When organs are installed and a stop is not voiced like it should= be,=20 they would be able to say, "no, go back and make it right." Our ears are ou= r=20 most important tools we have as musicians, but unfortunately, organists don'= t=20 seem to use them as often as they should. We need to listen carefully to st= ops,=20 how they work together, and how we use them. It makes a difference to the=20 congregation, it makes a difference in the hymn singing, and it makes a=20 difference in how we play literature.   Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Re: Nomenclature From: "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:44:04 +0100   Monty wrote: > A Diapason and a Principal are very different, as is a Prinzipal.   I thought Prinzipal was just a modernized (modernised, if you'd like) spelling of Principal. The popular Norwegian spelling is Prinsipal. I wonder how the difference in sound is supposed to be?   Puzzled greetings, Jarle http://jarle.moo.no