PipeChat Digest #4957 - Friday, December 3, 2004 Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches by <RMB10@aol.com> Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches by <Steskinner@aol.com> RE: Theories of relativity by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Re: an advert of interest by "F. Richard Burt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Organists' Ball by "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org> nomenclature by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches by "Sand Lawn" <email@example.com> Re: Theories of relativity by "Roy Redman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Pipe organ Pricing (was Theories of Relativity) by "Roy Kersey" <email@example.com> Re: Nomenclature by "T.Desiree' Hines" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Stop Nomenclature by "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <email@example.com> Re: Harts of oak by "Jan Nijhuis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Theories of relativity by "F. Richard Burt" <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:51:35 EST Will Light asked: >Do you mean Chapels as opposed to their main worship sanctuaries? Yes, I meant Chapel as the smaller worship area, not the main worship = space. I know that plenty of churches have IV manual instruments in their sanctuaries, but I'm talking about in their chapels. I'm interested more = in the United States, but if there are any in other parts of the world, I'd be curious = to know, also. Monty Bennett
(back) Subject: Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches From: <Steskinner@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:54:31 EST In a message dated 12/2/2004 4:40:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, = RMB10@aol.com writes: 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? I believe Pasadena Presbyterian (CA) has a 4 manual in their chapel, and = East Liberty Presbyterian in Pittsburgh, PA. Steven Skinner Minister of Music First Presbyterian Church of the Covenant Erie, PA
(back) Subject: RE: Theories of relativity From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:20:57 +1300 >I know for a fact, that a number of UK organ-builders use supply houses for many components, Not sure if this is in fact true, but I've been told that the Metzler = organ in the Zurich Grossmunster was built using supply-house parts and pipes, = and that that is what that firm usually does. Nothing at all wrong with using supply houses as long as the parts are of good quality. In fact it may well be advantageous, because there's likely = to be a fair degree of consistency over time. Too, nothing wrong with a = supply house for pipes, either, as long as the pipes are well made of good material, have had all the details specified well by the organ firm = putting the organ together, and as long as they have a voicer/finisher to complete the tonal work when the pipes are installed. Given all that, I don't care where the bits and pieces and pipes come = from. Reliability and tone are what concern me, not provenance. Remember that a good voicer/finisher can do staggering things with = pipework. I've heard before-and-after where there's been a good "piper" (to coin a word) and have been truly amazed at the result. Here in NZ, Croft used to buy cheap pipework and thus outbid Lawton & Osborne who used much more expensive stuff. As Croft was very good indeed with pipes, though, in to providing good chests and action, he usually wound up providing a better organ than the more expensive ones from L&O. Ross
(back) Subject: Re: an advert of interest From: "F. Richard Burt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:29:45 -0600 Hi, folks: I need to change how this statement came out. Let's reprint this paragraph: > 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 TO many a fine pipe organ builder, by well meaning people who are ignorant of what the tonal effect will be after the room acoustics have been killed. Sorry, but killing the acoustics in meeting rooms is quite fashionable right now, and it has a devastating effect on any organ, pipe or imitation, installed in it. F. Richard Burt ..
(back) Subject: Re: Organists' Ball From: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:31:18 -0800 (PST) Excellent~! Would some kind member on the list keep a list of these noted individuals, e. g. Mr. Toe Stud, Mr. Unison Off and Mr.Sfzorzando Piston (no, no relation to Walter Piston)... and send the cumulative list of noted individuals to our list after Xmas? I would do so, but I'm currently dealing with a health problem, and I need to save my strength at this time... If I didn't have this health problem, I would do it on my own initiative... Many thanks... Morton Belcher fellow list member... =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --- Roy Kersey <email@example.com> wrote: > Hello, Distinguished Musicians, > I can no longer resist telling . . . I also > attended the Organists' Ball . . . it really was a > very small affair, you know that organisits have > small balls . . . because hardly any of them can > dance. > At the Ball, I saw the Italian Ambassador, > Sforzando Piston and the dashing young Englishman, > Toe Stud. Unfortunately, people kept stepping on > Toe Stud, who changed all night. Sforzando kept > bursting out rudely and talking about his German > nephew, Rollerschwell. I met a deaf fellow, Mr. > Unison Off who was very nice, but the brothers Bigsy > Legacy and Foxy Legacy argued the whole night. The > Ball came to a premature end when cousins E. Org and > Pip Org started brawling and wouldn't stop, as wild > charges and counter-charges filled the air. It was a > pitty things had to end like that, as most of the > organists had only come to play and were not that > concerned about E. Org and Pip Org's endless > disagreement. Some of the organists were heard to > say the both E. and Pip are prone to misquote each > other and to jump to conclusions. > Most of the organists adjourned to the En > Chamade Lounge, where the music was too loud, but > the conversation was good. Most of the Principals > were there and got very jolly, all talking at once. > It made a wonderful sound. They are very > well-tempered. > I hope I get to go to the Organists' Ball again > next year. The problem seems to be that those big > fellows Contra Bombarde and Double O. Wood both want > to come and no one has found a chamber big enough > for both of them yet. I ugess the Organists' Ball > is like a lot of other things in life, its hard to > get everybody to fit in and sound right. > Best Regards, > Roy Kersey > Organ Enthusiast and Amateur Trumpeter > > > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital > organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Administration: mailto:email@example.com > List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:email@example.com> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
(back) Subject: nomenclature From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:31:44 EST 1. If each organ had these diapasons scaled differently, I suspect it = would be best to name each one accordingly. 2. I'c call it a Forever Dulciana 16', Forever Dulciana 8', Forever... = etc. Stan Krider In a message dated 12/02/2004 11:44:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, email@example.com writes: To a certain degree, I think, but not so that you have confusing an non-consistent nomenclature all in the same organ. I wouldn't have a problem with naming the 4' Octave rank in a large organ the same thing in every division: 4' Octave. Is it necessary to call it 4' Octave in the Great, 4' Principal in the choir, and 4' Geigen in the Swell? Which brings to mind another question: If a particular organ had an extended Dulciana rank, at 16, 8, 4, pitches, should they all be called "Dulciana," or "Double Dulciana," "Dulciana," and "Dulcet?"
(back) Subject: Re: pipe organs in chapels of churches From: "Sand Lawn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:58:28 -0600 East Liberty Presbyterian, Pittsburgh, PA does have a 1973 3/37 organ in = their chapel; Pasadena Presbyterian, Pasadena, CA has the remains = (incomplete) of the organ formerly in the home of Dr. Raymond Mixell.... = some pipework and the four manual Aeolian-Skinner console; there is also = in Immauel Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles, CA a 1977 3/39 Schlicker in = their Westminster Chapel. Sand Lawn
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "Roy Redman" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:35:10 -0600 I suppose it is of no use to tell you again that your pricing is not accurate. Perhaps it is necessary to mention this for other members of the list, however! Roy Redman ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> To: "PipeChat" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Theories of relativity > Colin, > > If you calculate present value your economics does not make sense. Musical > value is something separate from monetary value. What I am trying to say > is that if a person or a parish wants a pipe organ they will get one, > rather than an E-org. > > Let's say for convenience sake that we are in the market for a 2 manual and > pedal organ of 20 stops. Let us say we want very good quality in the > instrument. Let us say we look at a tracker, a pipe organ with a remote > 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 > 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. > > For comparison purposes, let us say that the ep pipe organ console is the > same quality, same componentry as the electronic instrument. In other > words the only difference would be the chamber end of things. In the cas= e > of the pipe organ you would have blower, resevoir, chests, swell box, > pipes, etc. In the case of the electronic organ you would have tone > generators, speakers, amplifiers, etc. > > Let us say for purely financial purposes, that you have $250,000. What i= s > not spent is banked, what you don't have is borrowed. One could easily see > that on a cost analysis basis an electronic organ is cheaper. One could > 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 t= o > me that the costs of tunings, in North America are way more than what you > quote. Refurbishing pipe organs in North America is even > expensive. Prices quoted for electronic organs in Britain, are quite low > in comparison to North America. > > I'm sure that if you could persuade the powers that be of churches, that > pipe organs were cheaper, even in the long run, many more churches would go > that route. In fact many churches are going cheaper than electronic orga= n > and switching to digital pianos, digital keyboards, drum sets, canned music > etc. > > Maybe organ purists would be further ahead if they and maybe their friend= s > would help underwrite the cost of pipe organ purchases or the cost or > rebuilding or restoring. It seems many organists want someone else to > pay. They want the gain without the pain. > > It may be a sad fact these days, but many parishes don't place a very hig= h > value on organs, sometimes even if they have a good one. So why would they > 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 > > > > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:email@example.com > Administration: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com> > List-Digest: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com> > > > >
(back) Subject: Pipe organ Pricing (was Theories of Relativity) From: "Roy Kersey" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 5:30:25 +0000 Dear Learned Musicians and Craftspersons, Here we are again with figures being bandied about as to the per rank = cost of a new pipe organ. Arie V. quotes ~ $25,000 per stop, but I cannot = see where this figure has come from. Perhaps the delicacy of the cost = issues regarding some new installations prevents some of us from quoting = real numbers, but I really think we can do better than these "ballpark" = figures and should do so. It might help some organists and committees = approach reality better in their deliberations. I am going to try to start a thread here in a minute, but first I = want to give my own real life figures. I know of an organ that was built = by a local builder near me with some new pipework and much recycled, older = (or perhaps historic would be a better word) pipework. The console was = also a refinished antique fitted with new trackers and electric stop = action. The case was new, but exquisite and using the Aristotelian Golden = Section proportions in an original design. This very successful = instrument was of two manuals and pedal, about thirty ranks, and the per = rank cost was under $6,200 per rank. I would like to mention the builder, = who is very talented and builds exquisite instruments, but I do not have = his permission at this time. Some of you can probably guess who it is. = On the other end of the scale is the famous Mander at St. Ignatius Loyola = in NYC. This is a world-class instrument of ninety ranks. You really = should go hear it. I think the cost was somewhere! around $1.3 million US. This works out to a cost of under $15,000 per = rank (actually $14,444.44). I may be somewhat off on my price here, but I = am relatively sure that the price did not exceed $1.5 million, so the = $25,000 per stop figure does not match for a small builder with recycled = material nor does it match for one of the premier builders in the world = with one of the largest and most famous and lauded tracker action organs = built in modern times. Incidentally, the St. Iggie organ should probaby = be considered a money maker, and that should be figured into the cost, = since it rather routinely helps fill the church for wonderful concerts by = world-class artists. At ten dollars a pop or thereabouts. Think about = that in your time value of money calculations . . . Let us go just a bit further here. One could browse the Organ = Clearing House for instruments with offers to install and refurbish them = and I have no doubt that we could equal or better my ~$6,000 per rank = figure in some special cases. Sebastian's horror stories (and they are = well taken in most cases) about DIY organs not withstanding, there are = cases in which congregations or individuals have been given organs or = purchased functioning organs for very low prices and been able to move and = set them up for very small amounts. I am willing to grant that electronic organs have come a long way and = are the instrument of choice for some congregations or individuals, but I = do think that there is a very broad specturm of choices when it comes to = pipe organs and I wish that people who have no real experience in the = matter would quit quoting figures out of the air and leave the field to = those who have some experience with real organs in real installations that = were paid for with real dollars in the recent past. I myself harbor delusions of eventually building a residence organ = and my current outlay on that project is under $2000. There are plenty of = pipes for an installation of about ten ranks and I may need a maximum of = another $2000 dollars worth of action components (direct electric) and = some wood to build the chests for about six ranks. I would find it very = strange if I topped $10,000 for the ten rank installation, porobably it = would be closer to $5K or $6K . . . which puts my per rank cost at $600. = So it depends on how much time and elbow grease you have, doesn't it? A = lot of my pipework was given to me, but it took a while to find it and I = did climb up into a barn to acquire two Vox Humanas and a variety of other = pipes . . . Let's try to be a bit more realistic in our figures for real world = instruments, shall we? I would ask whether any of you would be willing to = contribute to the list your knowledge of total cost and per rank cost of = REAL INSTRUMENTS that have been installed in the fairly recent past, say = the last ten years. I would be willing to send ten bucks to the first = person who can prove that somebody in the USA actually spent $25,000 per = rank for a real, normal, average pipe organ in the United States of = America. Gold leaf applied to the entire facade or console will not = count, nor will extravagant earthquake proofing in California. Maybe some = of the organbuilders on this list would "show and tell." Best Regards, Roy Kersey Organ Enthusiast and Amateur Trumpeter
(back) Subject: Re: Nomenclature From: "T.Desiree' Hines" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:19:53 -0800 (PST) Why have so many organ-builders named stops incorrectly? Why put 16 Contre Fagot with 8 Trompeta if they know it's two different = styles? TDH --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
(back) Subject: Stop Nomenclature From: "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:37:06 -0600 One can always argue that a stop name "ought" to mean a certain thing, = but, let's face it, when it clearly doesn't for a lot of folk (even if they are "wrong"!), then there's not a lot you can do about it--except listen to = the *SOUNDS* of whatever instrument you play and figure out how to use them to the most musical result. I'm reminded of the Caterpillar in "Alice Through the Looking Glass": "Words mean what I want them to mean. No more and no less." Any of us can use words however we like, and I'm in favor of precision, = but it's already way too late with terms such as principal vs. diapason; = gedeckt vs. stopped diapason, and dozens of others. Bottom line: encourage "standard nomenclature"--IF you can figure out what it IS!--but LISTEN to the SOUNDS! That's my 3 cents worth (I'm allowing for inflation). Dennis Steckley Lover of Cats, Pipe Organs & 1940-65 Sewing Machines
(back) Subject: Re: Harts of oak From: "Jan Nijhuis" <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:03:37 +0800 And here I thought mi was Indonesian for noodles. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: PipeChat <email@example.com> Subject: Harts of oak Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:54:33 -0800 (PST) >=20 > Hello, >=20 > Well my deers, I did know the difference! >=20 > Wordplay can be much more fun. >=20 > Doe, a deer, a female deer, > Ray, a fish that swims the sea, > M.E. a programme we all know, (etc etc) >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Colin Mitchell UK >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- Garrison Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >=20 > > The quotation is "Like as a hart." The hart being a > > deer. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20=09=09 > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > http://my.yahoo.com >=20 > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:email@example.com > Administration: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com> > List-Digest: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com> -- Jan Nijhuis firstname.lastname@example.org --=20 ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "F. Richard Burt" <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 03:31:12 -0600 Good Morning, PipeChatters: Tis the middle of the night. I should be asleep. However, when sleep vanishes and the mind demands engagement, what do you do? I have spent the past hour watching a graduate level course on Public Broadcasting about how we envision what we read, how envisionment takes form in our minds, and how we learn to validate what we have read. Then, one man in the group quoted another fellow (from his own past) who said: "All learning floats on a sea of talk." Wow! That's what we have been doing for the past few days. I believe it has been good. Some of our envisionment has been challenged. Some of what we thought was proper, has been expanded, and we now have room for a wider concept and underestanding of what we are doing. As our thoughts have been exchanged, we have continued to learn. The comprehensive context of building a machine on which we can make music needs reinforcement, focus, challenge, correction, and invitation to continue learning. I believe we have had the essence of learning as we "talked" via this forum, and I value everyone on PipeChat. The subject matter is vast. Let's keep "talking." Appreciatively, F. Richard Burt ..