PipeChat Digest #4956 - Thursday, December 2, 2004
 
Re: End the manipulation and twisting of words
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: End the manipulation and twisting of words
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
(no subject)
  by <ahremsen40@aol.com>
Re: Emigration
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
RE: Nomenclature
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches
  by "Sand Lawn" <glawn@jam.rr.com>
Re: Emigration (bis)
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
Re: an advert of interest
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
RE: How does one inspire lust?
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
Re: PipeChat Digest #4953 - 12/02/04
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
 

(back) Subject: Re: End the manipulation and twisting of words From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:50:29 +0800   Maybe you should emigrate Sebastian. I have not heard anything like the attitude you describe here.Are you guilty of generalization? Bob Elms. ----- Original Message ----- From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:15 PM 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> >    
(back) Subject: RE: End the manipulation and twisting of words From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:53:16 -0500   I dont' think its come to THAT yet. Perhaps its not a bad idea, but there =   are an aweful lot of organbuilders still in the US, and I don't know of = any anymore who are building bad organs (I'm sure there are a few). We do = seem to be approaching another slump, and a few will go under, but the best = will remain. The ones who do the best job of meeting the customers needs and rolling with the times. I suspect the smaller ones who can keep overhead low will do best.   One thing I think we'll see a lot more of is organs made from supply house =   chests and other parts. This is regarded by many to be a bad thing, or = less artistic, but I'm not really sure why. OSI makes excellent quality chests =   of pretty much every type, reserviors, etc for prices that are tough to beat, and made to your specs. The organbuilder can then concentrate on = the scaling and voicing of their own pipework. I'm getting ready to duck, but = I think it makes a lot of sense in a world where cost really matters, and I don't see what the negative would be, except that its fun I suppose to = build them yourself. I guess in times where the supply houses are backed up, = the advantage might be that you can build them sooner. Right now I think OSI = is waiting by the phone to get started on your project! Fisk is well respected and they often assemble their organs from various sources. I guess they would argue that the sources originally apprenticed =   with them and its therefore different. I suppose there's a case for that, =   but its still kind of the same thing.   Andy   On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:46:01 -0000, alantaylor1 wrote > 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 >   A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:55:52 +0800   Your figures are a bit sus., Colin. Did you include the initial cost of you= r=20 pipe organ in that assessment? Thirty year life for the electronic organ?= =20 Electronic gear has no well defined life. Most likely problems would be in= =20 the key switches which have to be replaced in the pipe organ anyway. 30 000= =20 pounds for an electronic organ? For one with the approximate resources of= =20 your pipe organ they cost much less than that. You cannot compare costings= =20 in the way you have done. Maintenance on the electronic organ should be nil= ..=20 There is no tuning to be done and electronic gear these days is very very= =20 reliable. Bob Elms.   ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 6:25 AM Subject: Theories of relativity     > 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 > > ****************************************************************** > "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> >=20   >  
(back) Subject: (no subject) From: <ahremsen40@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:56:14 EST   Would you please remove me from your list. Many Thanks, Allan Remsen  
(back) Subject: Re: Emigration From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:01:39 EST   I assure you that my plans  
(back) Subject: RE: Nomenclature From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:09:52 +1300     [big snip] >If the organists were better informed, they would be able to stand up for =   what they wanted and not have things foisted on them by some of the reps = of builders. When organs are installed and a stop is not voiced like it = should be, they would be able to say, "no, go back and make it right." Our ears are our most important tools we have as musicians, but unfortunately, organists don't seem to use them as often as they should. We need to listen carefully to stops, how they work together, and how we use them. It makes a difference to the =   congregation, it makes a difference in the hymn singing, and it makes a difference in how we play literature.   Good posting, Monty, though I have very little on-site (as it were) experience of American organs and organists. It's a pet beef of mine that = so many music practitioners (deliberately not using the term "musicians" = here) do not have trained ears.   Recently, I played an lp to a musician friend of mine. He said he doesn't like the Scots fiddle. I pointed out that the fiddler was in fact Ron Gonella playing an Amati violin. Rubbing vinegar in, I told him that if he didn't know who Amati was, well, he taught Stradivarius how to make = violins and most classical musicians would kill for such a fiddle.   I've had the same sort of trouble with piping friends of mine (i.e. the Highland bagpipes). I ask them, seriously, have they really listened to = the sound of the plastic chanters? It doesn't surprise me in the slightest = that many solo pipers have gone back to wooden chanters. I understand why bands use them: it's a great deal easier to get a matched set and they're = probably cheaper these days as well.   Ever tried to explain to anyone that an American organ (i.e. suction job) just doesn't, ever, sound as good as a French harmonium? Most people will tell you there's no difference tonally so the term "harmonium" is = applicable to all.   There are also two other problems (and probably a lot more). First, the bigger the organ, the less subtlety there often is in the voicing and differentiation of tone colours. With that, registration tends to be in handfuls (as dictated by anon's piston settings) rather than in singles, = or twos or threes. Secondly, churches which are dead acoustically (and I'm = told many American churches don't have measurable reverberation) do great = damage to organ tone and subtlety in voicing and colour is wiped out.   Even on the 1m Ahlborn-Galanti in the church I play for sometimes in this parish (the other 2 churches both have 2m Allens about 10 to 12 years old) registration needs to be very careful. I'm told the sounds I make on this little electroid are very different from anyone else who plays it.   I remember when I first started on the organ, the local church organist = told me you always grab Sw-Gt, Sw-Ped, the Sw. Gamba and Gedackt, and the Gt Dulciana as a matter of course. Once, when there were a few electrical faults in the organ, the Gamba wouldn't turn on. You know, I think people were amazed at how that perky wooden Rohr Flute sounded when played by itself, and how grand the Great Diapasons were without the string, too. = The organ, by the way, was an altered 1905 of 12 rks, 14 stops, on slider chests, with only a Sw.Piccolo above 4ft pitch.   Ross    
(back) Subject: Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches From: "Sand Lawn" <glawn@jam.rr.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:16:35 -0600   Monte, I believe the 2nd Baptist Church, Houston, TX retained their three =   manual 59 rank Casavant for use in the former sanctuary when the new building was erected. There are few churches with three manual organs constructed specifically as their chapel organs. Park Cities Baptist, Dallas, TX has a 3/44 1972 Schantz (main building contains a large Reuter; =   Highland Park Presbyterian, Dallas, TX has a 1992 3/37 Schoenstein (main building has a large Casavant) and Bryn Mawr Presbyterian in Pennsylvania has a 1997 3/42 Petty Madden (main church is to receive it's second large Rieger soon.) Also of interest, is Southside Baptist Church in = Birmingham, AL which contains a 1927 3/9 Kimball pipe organ in their gymnasium.   Sand Lawn >    
(back) Subject: Re: Emigration (bis) From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:35:05 EST   I assure you that my plans for an eventual return to Europe have = nothing to do with organbuilding here in the United States. There is no reason at = the present time to move my business overseas, even if I would prefer to live there. I am also confident that there are fine pipe organ builders in England =   and on the continent as well. If organists wish to play those builders' instruments, they will be commissioned, and those builders will remain = solvent. It is comforting to know that everything that I THOUGHT I read about "boutique builders," "arrogant snobs," "stick organs," "boring academics," =   "primitive technology," "out-of-touch pseudo-scholars," and "stuck in the = past" was just a hallucination. I am also pleased to know that there is no "bashing" = of pipe organ builders on chat lists, and that all of the posts about how = pipe organ builders are criminals and crooks and thieves and butchers and hacks = and frauds were simply figments of my imagination. Keep in mind, however, that when only a fraction of the church-use keyboard instruments in this country are all-pipe, and that thousands of institutions are on their third or fourth electronic instrument, and many, = many organ-players swear to God Almighty that they are completely incapable of distinguishing between a pipe organ and an electronic, and that = organ-players have now banded together to demand documents and committees on "digital = inclusiveness," it MAY give the impression that they are making choices. Any beginning logician would have a difficult time reconciling the inability to know the difference with claims that the difference is = glaring enough to want one over the other. Then again, a logician might have difficulty = with the term "perfectly adequate," another phrase I seem to believe I read = often on chat lists. What started all of this? A post about a marketing campaign. A = marketing campaign that offered a product that they were very sure had a huge = market. They made no attacks, but merely presented a safe, broad, set of figures = -- and an admonition to make the right choice. The right choice. Who makes those choices? Not the marketing director. Not the manufacturer.   The customer and their advisors make those choices.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City   ..  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:59:58 -0600   At 6:19 PM -0500 12/2/04, Arie Vandenberg wrote: > >Trackers cost on average $25,000 per stop so a 20 stop instrument >would cost $500,000 >Electro-pneumatic pipe organ - average $20,000 per stop - so the >instrument would cost $400,000 >Electronic organ average $1,000 per stop plus console - so figure in >the neighbourhood of $50,000 > >These are fairly reliable figures. I have heard of tracker builders >that charge well over $30,000 per stop. Also in general expensive >small specification electronic organs are rare, so this would be a >custom high end price.   Arie   I wish people won't quote all sorts of outlandish figures for pipe organs, it is just another "tool" that eorg sales people use for "scare tactics" to push their product.   Yes, maybe a specific organ cost $500,000 and has 20 stops but what else does it have? What kind of fancy facade and/or case does it have? How many full length 16' stops does it have and if they are in the facade are they Tin? All of these factors will raise the cost of an organ. It could be that the same size instrument in a plain case and maybe with polished zinc facade pipes will cost less.   The same with an EP organ, one specific organ might have worked out to $20,000 a rank based on the price that someone told someone else that their organ cost. But again, that same instrument could maybe also come in at $15,000 a rank because of a difference set of parameters regarding the installation.   And also maybe the "total" price that someone quotes also includes various renovation work done by the specific church to house the new organ. And let's face it, there are people out there that exaggerate the amount that their church paid for the new instrument.   I don't think anyone can quote an "average" price per rank for any organ builder in this country. There are way too many variables between builders and between various organs by the same builder. It could be and can be that a builder using all new materials might have to charge something that works out to XX dollars per rank and the same builder reusing "experienced" materials from a previous organ charges YY dollars per rank for that organ. And there is probably a wide gulf between XX and YY.   Let's avoid these blanket statements as it does a disservice to many pipe organ builders.   David  
(back) Subject: Re: an advert of interest From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:47:16 -0600   Hi, Andy: You wrote very pereceptively: > * * * > 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. Yes, Yes! YES!!! Pipe scaling, abundant wind availability, and proper pressure settings to bring the voicing to life works wonders. On the electronic side of the equation, I see too much sound being pushed by weak amplifiers through two speaker systms without regard to the volume (measured in cubic feet of air space) without regard to how efficiently these sounds ". . . fill the room." The biggest gripe I hear from most pipe organists is that the typical digital sound ". . . doesn't move the air," and they are correct in their analysis. To move the air, we need adequate power in the amplifiers, adequate cone movement without distortion by overdriving the cones off center too far (sounds like you pushed the wind pressure up too far) without other compensations to keep the sound free and clear. For instance, I can show you a perfect example of what I am talking about. This organ is nicely dispersed into many audio channels, to present each sound into the room cleanly of the other sounds being amplfied. However, we are on the low edge of adequate scaling of the overall system. It is a good sounding organ, but you CAN push the ensemble hard enough that it begins to say "electronic" sound, and you don't have to guess. What we will do about that will require some very serious discussions with the people who will continue to play the organ for the next generation. It is fully paid for in its present condition. While I said you CAN push the organ, the probability that it will ever be pushed that hard in the way it will be used at this church is very, very infinitesimally small. Then we have to apply the common sense judgement of the financial analyists to determine if the cost of completing the scaling is worth it, just to say you can't push this one too hard. It will stand the scaling test 100 percent of the time.   Hey, I've only been listening to organs for about 40 years. You can hear underscaled pipe organs, too. However, most of the respectable builders will make sure that the "heart of the organ" is properly scaled to fill the room. Not so with every pipe organ builder, all of the time. A pipe organ builder can do an excellent job of scaling and voicing, to have it rendered defunct by some wealthy person who wants the floor warmer and pays to carpet the place from coast to coast and pads the pews, too. It is not always the fault of the pipe organ builder. Lastly, we still have a huge learning curve to climb to properly understand how scaling affects the sound of an E-org. We are working on it, and I suspect that this will become more obvious as we continue to increase the dispersement, the power to sufficency, and the efficiency of the speaker systems that present the sound to the rooms. We might have to insist that the rooms not be sound proofed, <grins> which has been done by many a fine pipe organ builder. At the core of this scaling issue, the digital E-org builders have to learn how to scale the sound used in memory, from which the sounds that are radiated into the meeting room are derived. A bigger sound is more than a louder sound. F. Richard Burt ..    
(back) Subject: RE: How does one inspire lust? From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:58:10 -0600   I wrote a lust scene at an organ console once upon a time - somehow I don't think that applies . . . .   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of noel jones     What's your opinion on what it takes to inspire lust in the heart for a particular instrument...        
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #4953 - 12/02/04 From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 21:08:53 -0500   On 12/2/04 4:34 PM, "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   > But this goes far beyond organs, of course. It's a direct byproduct of Ma= dison > Avenue. Take a look at "personal care" products. If you're shopping for > "underarm de-armament," which label would be more appealing? "Stink-B-Gon= ," or > "L=E8s A=EEss=EBll=EAs D=E8s Fl=E9=FBrs" ?! [I've seen some hilarious misuses of accent= ed > characters on such products - this is not nearly the exaggeration it may > seem!] >=20 > Och, aye.=20   Ross: Thanks for good chuckles. I was briefly in the "cosmetics packaging= " industry. For a company based in Paris. A HOWL!   Alan  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:30:18 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Thank you David!   I happen to know what the organ I play actually cost, and it was something of a bargain. Even at $20,000 per stop as some have suggested, that works out at around =A3120,000 for this organ.....exactly the figure I quoted!   Changing the subject abruptly, lest I be cast into the outer-darkness of "less than credible," I would pick up on a theme suggested.   I know for a fact, that a number of UK organ-builders use supply houses for many components, and even sub-contract work to competent but smaller (less expensive) builders. I refrain from naming names, but certain cathedral organs and prestige projects in the UK are something of a "team effort" involving various suppliers and contractors.   In the days of the great organ-building boom, the largest builders often made components "in-house." I seem to recall that John Compton, in the UK, made every single part in the very large factory; including wound components. Such a manufacturing facility would be simply un-economic to-day.   I may be teaching Granny to suck eggs (I hope that translates well!), but outsourcing parts from supply houses is eaxctly how the clever Japanese have limited production costs in manufacturing, using the "just in time" philosophy of procurement.   Obviously, the same is not possible in organ-building, except for common components, but at least, the business of outsourcing might be a very useful means of reducing the costs of an extensive workshop facility.   I may be mistaken, but I believe this is the way that Kenneth Jones & Associates set up their operation....calling upon suppliers and specialists, to supply anything from action chests to pipe voicing services. As a result, they have built some unusually fine organs which sound surprisingly like the work of their rivals....nod nod, wink wink.   In an unpredictable world, is this a bad thing?   After all, an organ is only a machine up to the pipe-feet, and outsourcing quality machinery, is hardly the stuff of musical philistinism.   Now if I were to set up an organ-building entity, as things are now, I would look to places like Poland, the Czech Republic and elsewhere, and attempt to obtain quality parts ....this is especially true of pipework, which is always labour intensive and very costly to buy in. Get the timing right, and the organ could be assembled in the final building from almost a kit of parts, and most importantly, could avoid capital outlay over an extended period.   The trouble is, not many organ-builders are business-men!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   --- David Scribner <david@blackiris.com> wrote:   > > I wish people won't quote all sorts of outlandish > figures for pipe > organs   > I don't think anyone can quote an "average" price > per rank for any > organ builder in this country.   > Let's avoid these blanket statements as it does a > disservice to many > pipe organ builders.       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com