PipeChat Digest #4963 - Saturday, December 4, 2004
 
Re: purity
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: screaming mixtures
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Mixtures
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: purity
  by "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net>
FWD from The Diapason Editor
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
Re: Theories of relativity
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: (nomenclature)
  by "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net>
Re: (nomenclature)
  by <Georgewbayley@aol.com>
What is Acoustic Sealant Paint?
  by "Ned Benson" <nbenson@stjohnschurch.org>
Standard Convention vs. Standard Deviation
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
RE: (nomenclature)
  by "T.Desiree' Hines" <nicemusica@yahoo.com>
Re: 4/5'
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
RE: (nomenclature)
  by "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca>
 

(back) Subject: Re: purity From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 04:00:50 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   If we perform the Mozart K608, should we just use nothing other than a 4ft Flute?   Is it wrong for Jos van der Kooy to completely "re-engineer" French Romantic works when he performs them on the Bavo orgel? (To brilliant musical effect, I would add)   Do we include all the mistakes Dupre made in his recordings?   What does a Bach organ sound like?   Of COURSE we re-orchestrate, because no two organs are ever the same. Only the French romantics would ever register things so specifically that they cannot be played outside France, unless one has a rare and original Cavaille-Coll at one's disposal. (We have a few in the UK)   Like it or not, we are all arrangers/performers.   Let the composers compose, and let the rest of us worry about how it should sound.   Regards,   Colin MItchell UK         --- Arie Vandenberg <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> wrote:   > Does that mean no > one today plays this piece as Widor intended it to > be played? Does anybody > care about how Widor played it?       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page =96 Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: screaming mixtures From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 04:23:00 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I have always been puzzled by Mixtures and the voicing of them, but that's probably because I have never had to voice one.   I have heard all sorts of Mixtures in several countries, and some of them are quite celebrated examples.   Perhaps the most famous Mixture in the world is the five rank Schulze Mixture at St.Bart's, Armley, which has all the subtelty of Desert Storm. Here is a more or less straightline chorus, from 16ft to 2ft, and the Mixture is about one note smaller in scale. It is at the "wrong" end of the windchest; being right at the front....hence the impact. The pipework is large scale, low pressure (under 3"), low cut-up, wide mouthed and very, very bright. Add the Mixture to the full Great chorus, and it is like adding a second organ; which is what it does in the treble.   Although a very loud Mixture, it blends perfectly with the bright voicing of the chorus.   Verdict? A "resounding" success.   Now go to the F C Schnitger at Alkmaar.....a subtle instrument of not overwhelming power. The choruswork is bright and ever so interesting in quality, but the superb Mixtures are almost universally dull in tone; though plentiful and quite high-pitched.   This is a "must hear before I die" instrument.   Verdict? Perfection personified.   It's a million miles away from the sound of Schulze.   T C Lewis was good with Mixtures; never quite copying Schulze in scale or outright power, but of the same general "school". In his Quint Mixtures, the Quints have the top lip slightly arched, just to take off the edge.   Verdict? Excellent.   The above cover about 200 years of organ building history (a bit less actually), and range between high Baroque and high Romantic.   So why do we find so many new or re-built instruments in which the Mixtures are too coarse to blend?   Who's idea was it?   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- John Foss <harkat@kat.forthnet.gr> wrote:     > > I think that, generally speaking, the secret to > mixtures lies in the unison > ranks - crystal clear 15 and 22 harmonics. The > quints should be blended to > these, with the 15 + 22 breaking back at the same > place, an octave below the > top note, perhaps. Do not use octave couplers with > mixtures - then they will > scream.       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 06:24:31 -0600     On Dec 2, 2004, at 4:25 PM, Colin Mitchell wrote:   > 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. > But Colin, that is exactly my point. I have got to assume that you're not comparing this small instrument to an equivalent 11 speaking stop digital organ. As soon as the pipe organ gets to a stop-list, number of manuals, etc. even approaching a typical digital, the numbers analysis simply falls apart.   The pipe organ must stand on its artistic merits, not a financial comparison which works only by juggling the numbers in the pipe organ's favor. Simply limiting the size of one instrument in the comparison does not make it more cost effective, any more than, for instance, illustrating that a house constructed of stone is less expensive than a wood-frame house, provided of course that the stone house is one-third the size (so that the numbers come out right)!   Cheers, Russ Greene    
(back) Subject: Mixtures From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 07:38:02 EST   John Foss wrote: >I think that, generally speaking, the secret to mixtures lies in the = unison >ranks - crystal clear 15 and 22 harmonics. The quints should be blended = to >these, with the 15 + 22 breaking back at the same place, an octave below = the >top note, perhaps. Do not use octave couplers with mixtures - then they = will >scream.   Yes this is true, but the mixture still has to blend with the rest of the chorus. You would think that the voicer had ears to hear that the mixture = didn't make a cohesive sound with the 8, 4, 2. If the mixture stands out, = instead of just being the cap on top of the chorus, something is wrong. Part of = this lies in the fact that builders will use 1' mixtures in the Swell, even = though there is no 2' Principal in the division, so there is an obvious tonal = gap, or that the scaling and breaks of the mixtures, while the pitches might be correct, are wrong. God gave us brains and ears so we would use them. If = something doesn't sound right, it's probably not. :)   Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 04:53:47 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   A perfectly good point!   However, (this is getting so complicated!) I had in mind the more or less "standard" specs of the organs avalaible from the digital manufacturers, which tend to have quite large stop-lists.   In fact, has anyone ever marketed an 11 speaking-stop digital organ? I somehow doubt it!   Of course, to widen the point a little, I know a simply wonderful organ of two manuals, and about twenty-stops, which (like Alkmaar!!) was cobbled together from old and new pipes. It speaks into an incredibly poor acoustic and does lack a little impact in the body of the church as a consequence. However, old and new have been beautifully matched, and the old pipework is not heavily regulated at all; coming from the stables of a fairly obscure builder of the mid-19th century.   It is an object lesson in what to do with an old organ of no great historic importance.   Allowing for inflation, and bringing it up to the values of to-day, this organ only cost =A360,000 or so to buy, re-build, improve and install.....the cost of only THREE decent electronics with adequate amplification and speakers, which might reasonably last not less than 75 years between them.   Musically (and that is what really matters) this is an organ I could live with day in and day out, and never grow tired of it. Furthermore, it has given excellent service for the past 40 years or so.   In other words, the financial gap between pipe and electronic is closing all the time, and the difference is now quite small (=A320,000 as we speak), with the prospect of a THIRD electronic in the hypothectial equation only ten years away.   OK, the pipe organ would then also require work, but would this exceed =A340,000 for cleaning, overhaul and general electrical work?   This beautiful instrument was created by a small, inexpensive, provincial builder, who just happened to call in a really good voicer for the new pipes.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Russ Greene <rggreene2@shaw.ca> wrote:     > But Colin, that is exactly my point. I have got to > assume that you're > not comparing this small instrument to an equivalent > 11 speaking stop > digital organ. . > > The pipe organ must stand on its artistic merits, > not a financial > comparison which works only by juggling the numbers > in the pipe organ's > favor.     __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250  
(back) Subject: Re: purity From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:51:48 -0800       Arie Vandenberg wrote:   > At 02:31 PM 2004-12-03 -0800, you wrote: > >> When someone says "I don't CARE how it sounded in France," that raises >> a HUGE red flag for me. >> >> First of all, you SHOULD, if you propose to correctly interpret the >> music AS THE COMPOSER WROTE IT. It seems to me we have an obligation >> as musicians to do that. One does not re-orchestrate Beethoven. > > > Bud, > > I just bought a disc of Widor, Vierne, Dupre, and Messiean playing their =   > own works. > > Widor plays his famous toccata on this disc. He was 88 when he recorded =   > it. My point here is we have the composer playing his own work, and yet =   > I have never heard any organist today play it that way. Does that mean > no one today plays this piece as Widor intended it to be played? Does > anybody care about how Widor played it?   Arie,   Widor is a somewhat special case, in that it takes a fair amount of RESEARCH to determine which version of a given piece to accept as "authentic," as he was constantly revising his compositions. Conventional wisdom (legend?) has it that he simplified some things as he got older, so the LAST version of a given piece is not necessarily the BEST version to take.   That said, our own listowner, David Scribner, studied with Arthur Becker (David, do I have the name right?), who STUDIED with Widor, who himself complained that Americans played his works (and particularly the Toccata from Symphonie V) too fast. David has Widor's tempi and interpretations from Becker, if I'm not mistaken.   I wouldn't judge Widor, Schweitzer, Vierne OR Dupre's playing based on digitally-remastered 78s (or wax cylinders?) made in the twilight of their careers. That's where readings of contemporary accounts become important. > > Personally, I find most of the playing on this disc rather pedestrian > sounding in terms of performance.   Again, I cite the technology of the recordings, which at the time couldn't begin to capture the ambience of a huge church like St. Sulpice, OR an organ of 100 stops (the two Pedal stops were added in Widor's honor at his retirement) ... what sounds pedestrian in an early recording was probably very exciting in person in Widor's prime.   We have contemporary accounts of the clergy complaining of great crowds coming to hear the Sortie at the END of Mass (which was actually a short recital of 20-30 minutes BETWEEN Masses)and then LEAVING (not staying to hear Mass), not only at St. Sulpice, but at other churches where major Paris organists were Titulaires. THAT certainly bespeaks a popularity and a following for their playing and their music. One doesn't see that happening in US churches today, certainly.   > > Why go to arcane lengths to sort out how Bach should be played, when we > disregard composers who played their own music and had it recorded for > posterity sake?   There's nothing particularly arcane about Bach performance practice ... organs of the period are extant; one goes to them, and to an urtext, and discovers what WORKS. Many have done so, and documented their findings.   Not everyone disregards composers' intentions. The fact that we play them faster, and with more registration changes, says more about the inadequacy of the acoustics of our churches, and the deficiencies in our organs.   I for one think it's an exercise in futility to play Messiaen outside the context of the Roman Catholic liturgy, or in a dry acoustic. One CANNOT separate Messiaen's deep and very mystical Catholic faith from the liturgy that inspired both that faith and the music he wrote for that liturgy, or the acoustics that are as much a part of the music as the notes themselves.   One may, of necessity, play Bach chorale-preludes, Couperin Masses, Tournemire's L'Orgue Mystique, or Messiaen as "absolute-music" in concert in order to have the works HEARD, but one should at LEAST attempt to recreate SOME of the context ... the singing of the chorales and the chants upon which the organ music is based, for instance.   One of my pet peeves is organists who play the Couperin non-stop as "suites" without the alternatim chants inserted. If nothing else, at least the TEXTS of the versets Couperin set need to be printed, along with the texts of the missing chants, to give some idea of the whole.   Organ-playing divorced from the Roman Catholic and Lutheran liturgies (in particular) is a relatively recent phenomenon. Concert-hall organs didn't appear (for the most part) until the 19th century, and even then the majority of the music by Parisian organists was written for their churches, and not the Trocadero, for example.   Yes, I know, there were organs in English theatres in Handel's day, and yes, they were used as solo instruments in the Concerti, but the Concerti were "incidental" music to be performed with his oratorios, which were basically unstaged sacred operas, since opera wasn't permitted during Lent.   To throw up one's hands and say "I'm not going to TRY to reproduce the composer's intention" does the music a disservice.   Cheers,   Bud      
(back) Subject: FWD from The Diapason Editor From: "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:10:44 -0600   Request a free sample copy of the December issue of The Diapason.   Cover: Martin Ott Pipe Organ Company; First United Methodist Church, Jackson, Michigan (3 manuals, 61 ranks, 56 stops).   Features: "Festival van Vlaanderen Brugge, July 24-August 7, 2004," by Karyl Louwenaar Lueck; "August Gottfried Ritter (1811-1885)," by La Wanda Blakeney; "Dietrich Buxtehude: Samtliche Orgelwerke, Vol. 1 and 2, ed. Klaus Beckmann," by Leon W. Couch III.   News, appointments, reviews, recital programs, new organs, calendar, classified ads.   Send your request to editor Jerome Butera jbutera@sgcmail.com (ph 847/391-1045), www.TheDiapason.com -- **************************************** David Scribner Owner / Co-Administrator PipeChat   http://www.pipechat.org mailto:admin@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: Re: Theories of relativity From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:13:13 +0800   It may be closing in the UK Colin but it certainly is not in Australia. The= =20 difference in price between a digital and an equivalent comprehensive pipe= =20 organ is huge.   BTW I have an 18 stop digital - 15 stops on the single manual. it sounds=20 very good too. And it cost under $A5000 Bob Elms.   ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:53 PM Subject: Re: Theories of relativity     > Hello, > > A perfectly good point! > > However, (this is getting so complicated!) I had in > mind the more or less "standard" specs of the organs > avalaible from the digital manufacturers, which tend > to have quite large stop-lists. > > In fact, has anyone ever marketed an 11 speaking-stop > digital organ? I somehow doubt it! > > Of course, to widen the point a little, I know a > simply wonderful organ of two manuals, and about > twenty-stops, which (like Alkmaar!!) was cobbled > together from old and new pipes. It speaks into an > incredibly poor acoustic and does lack a little impact > in the body of the church as a consequence. However, > old and new have been beautifully matched, and the old > pipework is not heavily regulated at all; coming from > the stables of a fairly obscure builder of the > mid-19th century. > > It is an object lesson in what to do with an old organ > of no great historic importance. > > Allowing for inflation, and bringing it up to the > values of to-day, this organ only cost =A360,000 or so > to buy, re-build, improve and install.....the cost of > only THREE decent electronics with adequate > amplification and speakers, which might reasonably > last not less than 75 years between them. > > Musically (and that is what really matters) this is an > organ I could live with day in and day out, and never > grow tired of it. Furthermore, it has given excellent > service for the past 40 years or so. > > In other words, the financial gap between pipe and > electronic is closing all the time, and the difference > is now quite small (=A320,000 as we speak), with the > prospect of a THIRD electronic in the hypothectial > equation only ten years away. > > OK, the pipe organ would then also require work, but > would this exceed =A340,000 for cleaning, overhaul and > general electrical work? > > This beautiful instrument was created by a small, > inexpensive, provincial builder, who just happened to > call in a really good voicer for the new pipes. > > Regards, > > Colin Mitchell UK > > > --- Russ Greene <rggreene2@shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> But Colin, that is exactly my point. I have got to >> assume that you're >> not comparing this small instrument to an equivalent >> 11 speaking stop >> digital organ. . >> >> The pipe organ must stand on its artistic merits, >> not a financial >> comparison which works only by juggling the numbers >> in the pipe organ's >> favor. > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > > ****************************************************************** > "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: RE: (nomenclature) From: "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:44:15 -0600   Does it do anything like the same drawknob on a III/43(?) Noehren in Chicago?     Michael     _____   From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Georgewbayley@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:01 PM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: (nomenclature)     On the new Choir/Solo divison to be installed next month in my church, = there will be a Chivas Regal 4/5. Draw your own conclusions.     George    
(back) Subject: Re: (nomenclature) From: <Georgewbayley@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:12:15 EST   Yes it does. It works the tremolo. Bob Noehren put in on the organ he = built in 1974 for St. Andrew's in Newport News, VA when I was organist there.  
(back) Subject: What is Acoustic Sealant Paint? From: "Ned Benson" <nbenson@stjohnschurch.org> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:44:15 -0800   Steven Weyand Folkers wrote:   > We had to prepare the north chamber (bare > cinderblock walls) with insulation, wallboard, and acoustic sealant = paint, as well > as lighting.   We are preparing for installation of a recycled Aeolian-Skinner instrument in a 1969 A-frame worship space with "cottage cheese" acoustic crap on the ceiling, one side wall of fired brick, one of 3/4" hard plaster over 3/4" gypsum board lath, front wall of stone, rear wall of plaster over gypsum and glass. Carpet slathered everywhere.   The carpet is going, replaced by ceramic tile. The "cottage cheese" is going (it's also 20% asbestos - removal is EXPENSIVE!!); the ceiling, also hard plaster over gypsum board lath, will be skip-trowel finished. The walls have been sealed and painted at least twice with ordinary latex flat paint.   Brick and plaster surfaces will be repainted. But with what? Hence my question, what is "acoustic sealant paint"?   Every paint contractor and paint store with whom I have talked knows about paint to deaden a room, but none know what paint to use to make a room most reverberant. I asked a national paint resource lab, who suggested oil-based gloss enamel. We can't use gloss - it's a worship space not an education hall. Is oil-based enamel, either flat or egg-shell, what you mean by acoustic paint? The more specifics in your responses, the better.   Many thanks.   -- Dr. Ned H. Benson St. John's Presbyterian Church 1070 West Plumb Lane Reno, Nevada 89509 http://www.stjohnschurch.org    
(back) Subject: Standard Convention vs. Standard Deviation From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:05:06 EST   Well, there ARE conventions in nomenclature, some of which have been = in place for centuries, spanning generations of organbuilding within each particular culture. Organists, organbuilders, and consultants may ignore = them either by choice or by ignorance, but it does not mean that these traditions do = not exist. There are people who have spent decades studying the subject, while = there are those who repeat the errors with which they were raised and proclaim = them as fact. Likewise, published errors are often repeated, even though their might be scores of other references, including the instruments themselves, = that refute the one citation. Such errors have surfaced on this list in recent days, reinforcing = those errors, but there is nothing that can be done about it. Nomenclature DOES matter to people in every other field, but it seems that nobody cares in = ours. Imagine what would happen if your doctor, construction contractor, or = electrician didn't know or care what part was what? If the French have deliberately printed registrations in their scores = for nearly three centuries, is it something to be ignored? They knew what they =   wanted to hear. Composition and organbuilding went hand in hand, and they expected to find very specific stops or combinations thereof in specific = divisions. As an added element of the formula, they expected to find certain voices = in opposition to each other, clearly delineating which stops should be on = different manuals. It's not just that they didn't want their music transcribed and their musical intentions ruined -- they wrote out the formula, both for = their own reasons and as a courtesy to organists and builders. Likewise, the English =   conventions for stop names were so established that one can find organs = with no pitch indications on the knobs. Well, I'm not going to generate any more knee acid, or it will burn a hole in my lung lining. You know the type of ice-cream shin-ache you get, = right behind your spleen? When your hips start ringing and your elbows can't = focus? So you put a cold compress on your buttocks, close your kidneys for a few minutes, and just lie flat on your nose until you feel better? I just = don't want that. It's bad enough that the soft drive on my strudel is acting up, and = my cellular bicycle needs a new tangerine.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City   ..  
(back) Subject: RE: (nomenclature) From: "T.Desiree' Hines" <nicemusica@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:09:21 -0800 (PST)   What is a Chivas Regal? DH   ---------------------------------     From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of = Georgewbayley@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:01 PM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: (nomenclature)       On the new Choir/Solo divison to be installed next month in my church, = there will be a Chivas Regal 4/5. Draw your own conclusions.         George       __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
(back) Subject: Re: 4/5' From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:15:39 EST   If you want to hear a recording of a 4/5' stop in the Pedal, listen to = Bill Entriken's recording of the Bach "Nun freut euch, lieven Christen gmein," = BWV 734. The way it is scaled, voiced, and finished, it sounds like a clear, pungent, and very stable 4' Schalmei. The recording is available at our = website:   http://www.glucknewyork.com  
(back) Subject: RE: (nomenclature) From: "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:22:21 -0500   At 12:09 PM 12/4/2004, you wrote: >What is a Chivas Regal? > >DH       Desiree,   Chivas Regal is a fine 12 year old Scottish Whisky - if you haven't tasted =   it, you are in for a treat!   Bob Conway