PipeChat Digest #5002 - Wednesday, December 15, 2004
 
The Fr.Willis legacy
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Glenda's Shoes and Willis organs
  by "First Christian Church of Casey, Illinois" <kzrev@rr1.net>
Re: Willis organs
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: I superglued my hand back together!
  by "Jan Nijhuis" <nijhuis@email.com>
RE: Blenheim Palace (Willis)
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
RE: Blenheim Palace (Willis)
  by "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com>
RE: Blenheim Palace
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Glenda's Shoes and Willis organs
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: Blenheim Palace (Willis)
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
Re: Comparing great builders, NOT!
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
St. Matthew Lutheran, Hanover, Pennsylvania [x-posted]
  by "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com>
Cavaille-Coll(tangent from Willis thread)
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Cavaille-Coll(tangent from Willis thread)
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: Blenheim Palace (Willis)
  by "Jerry Richer" <jerry@ChirpingBat.Com>
 

(back) Subject: The Fr.Willis legacy From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:15:21 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I don't believe Fr.Willis properly understood tonal architecture, but in that, he was certainly not alone.     William Hill had to be "guided" by Dr. Gauntlett and the whole "German organ" movement....a fascinating but brief development in British organ-building history.   ALL the British builders more or less followed the 18th century Snetzler style of doing things, but the advent of mechanical blowing enabled them to dabble with ever larger instruments and higher wind-pressures.   Hill knew absolutely NOTHING about organ-building traditions beyond the shores of the UK.   Fr.Willis was at least aware of the work done both by Schulze and Cavaille-Coll, but he was perhaps more influenced by the latter.   Cavaille-Coll organs have rather scratchy choruswork, dominated by the chamades, and therefore Symphonic rather than strictly classical; even though he paid attention to what organ builders like Clicquot had achieved. Cavaille-Coll therefore used history as the starting point for his symphonic organ style.   Fr.Willis was a MAGNIFICENT organ-builder, a capable organist, a reed voicer par excellence, a fine engineer and inventor.....these were his great strengths.   So to be fair to Fr Willis, criticism of his house style is really not justified, because he was the victim of a particularly backward looking style of organ-building which had remained more or less static after Snetzler. In collaboration with S S Wesley, he built fine organs in a unique style, with some half-decent pedal organs, some beautiful solo reeds, a fair blaze of rich, fiery reed tone and with a musical sonority which hadn't been heard previously.   Even his arch-rival, William Hill, never managed to produce a truly breathtaking "German style," but he left some wonderfully musical instruments, which fall somewhere between the old Snetzler concept, and the bigger effects which had started to creep into the work of Walker as well as Gray & Davison.   It was Lewis, almost by accident, who went to hear the magnicent Schulze chorus-work at Doncaster Parish Church (1857), and declared that Schulze was the greatest organ-builder of all time.....or words to that effect.   Schulze had brought the early German romantic tradition to England, and built a masterpiece out of bits assembled in Germany, pipes made in the UK and with help from Charles Brindley and his staff, from Sheffield here in the UK.   Thus, again by accident rather than by design, Lewis heard for himself the powerful effect of open foot voicing, complete German choruses, big scales and quint mixtures with real power and brilliance. It was to shape his whole thinking as an organ builder.   In reality, were it possible that we could ask Hill, Fr.Willis, Walker, Gray & Davison or Lewis about the work of Schnitger; they would all look blank!   They knew nothing between them about classical organ-building other than the 18th century legacy mentioned previously. That was where Cavaille-Coll had the advantage, for he knew and respected the work of Cliquot and other French classsical-style organ builders.   So to answer the question, "Was Fr Willis a great organ-builder?"   Of course he was! He was, in fact, an outstanding organ-builder, just as Lewis, Hill and Walker were.   What we CANNOT do is to apply later scholarship as criticism of these Victorian organ builders, but that doesn't alter the fact that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now realise that Lewis was nearer the mark then any other, when it came to the literature of the organ and the demand for adequate, fully developed choruses.   Willlis must have had a marvellous instinct, for without detailed knowledge, he created some remarkaby fine instruments; guided only by his experience at Gray & Davison, his work with harmoniums and what organists told him.   Not bad for someone who was still only in his mid-twenties when he confidently set up on his own as an organ builder!   Of course, he soon learned how to be corrupt in business, which did him not the slightest harm!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK       --- Daniel Hancock <dhancock@brpae.com> wrote:   > So you're making distinctions between the > generations of Willis'--which > seems logical to me. Do you unfavorable comments of > a previous posting, > apply to Father Henry Willis' instruments?       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250  
(back) Subject: Glenda's Shoes and Willis organs From: "First Christian Church of Casey, Illinois" <kzrev@rr1.net> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:22:26 -0600   Glenda.....if the shoes are fairly new, I would contact Tic-Tac-Toe about returning them for replacement or refund. Surely, they would stand behind their product.   As for Willis, which one worked for Wicks? Was it IV?   Dennis Steckley   "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened."--Dr. Seuss        
(back) Subject: Re: Willis organs From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:47:28 EST   Dear Dennis: Willis III did some voicing and tonal work on the Atlantic City organ, but wasn't it Vincent Willis who worked with Wicks. Vincent didn't get along well with Willis III and his strange scaling ideas. That's what makes me think it might have been Vincent who left Dodge City(UK) for the US. IIRC it was G. Donald Harrison, who left Willis III for Skinner was treading water with W III and was happy to leave also for the US. W III was experimenting with spindly scales in an attempt to imitate German Baroque, it was all guess work and no actual experience with the real thing. GDH developed some strange ideas toward the end of his life too, German Museum, Longly School, and the Ernest White practice organ at Smoky Mary's basement. All these were weird in their own way. I'm sure he produced many other strange instruments that escape me at the moment. I guess with age GDH had to deal with the mush he learned early in life from W III. It was spindly 8' Diapasons or spindly Ged.'s and big scaled 4' Octaves. Everything was exaggerated and out of proportion. Ron Severin  
(back) Subject: Re: I superglued my hand back together! From: "Jan Nijhuis" <nijhuis@email.com> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:20:31 +0800   Dental ... (though the Tacoma Narrows bridge (Galloping Gurdie) might have = been an interesting super-glue fix.) Should've been more specific. To bring this back near topic. My father is more of an opera and symphonic = (not romantic: Chopin, et al.) fan than of organ music ... he did play free= reeds (accordion) "back in the day." I used a steak knife on the bellows = when I was about eight or ten to figure out how it all worked. I'm surprise= d I didn't need a little superglue mending afterward. :-)   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>   > Hello, >=20 > What kind of bridge? >=20 > A harmonic bridge? A dental bridge? A whole rail > bridge? >=20 > Enquiring minds etc. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Colin Mitchell UK >=20 > --- Jan Nijhuis <nijhuis@email.com> wrote: >=20 > I know my father has used CA to repair a > > broken bridge in an emergency situation. -- Jan Nijhuis nijhuis@email.com   --=20 ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm    
(back) Subject: RE: Blenheim Palace (Willis) From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:25:53 -0500   On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:22:05 -0500, Arie Vandenberg wrote > At 12:49 AM 2004-12-15 -0500, you wrote: > >There is a 1930's smallish (but kick-ass) 3 manual Casavant near here. > >See http://www.marykeanechapel.com:16080/organ/ > >for the stoplist. > > > >It is interesting... every time a British organist comes to play it, = they > >fall in love with it. I wonder if it is because it is what a Willis = organ > >should have been? On paper, it has many of the characteristics I'm hearing > >about Willis organs (the nomenclature is all French, but as we've discussed > >before this means little, and I do not really know what a Cavaille-Coll = is > >supposed to sound like), yet it sounds just gorgeous, and is great for = all > >sorts of things (Bach being its weak point, but I've heard clever > >organists... Roger Sayer especially, one of the British organists who > >couldn't get over the beauty of this organ, get around this nicely). = I've > >never actually heard it used to accompany a choir, since it has been = used > >only for organ recitals since the church closed many years ago. (It is =   now > >owned by the nearby shaker museum, though the chapel clearly is = completely > >unrelated to the shakers other than location), but it would be very = good at > >it. It does accompany a congregation very well, but between the = bottom- > >heavy stoplist and the reverberant accoustics one has to be careful not = to > >turn it into mud. It is quite possible without the reeds (as well as with). > > > >The stoplist fails to mention that all the standard super- and sub- couplers > >are present, including to pedal from all 3 manual divisions. > > > >This organ, with Thomas Brown at the console, produced the best = rendition of > >Vierne's "Carillon de Westminster" I've heard yet. Roger Sayer did it too, > >and it was just as awesome that time too. > > > >Andy > > Andy, > > I am living in Casavant country. Actually Toronto, Canada. Lots of > Casavants around here. > > The Casavants of that era were generally not the greatest, although > some were a whole lot better than others, at least tonally. I > suppose a lot has to do with correct installation, voicing, and room > acoustics. > > It is great though if you have a great Casavant in your > neighbourhood, where everything works together for a successful installation. > > Another thing about Casavants, they were generally very well built. > Some older Casavants around Toronto, are still original, and are now > almost a century old. > > Arie V. > It depends who you ask. If you ask a visiting British organist, you'll = get rave reviews, and I was speculating as to why this would be. I love the organ too, though I probably wouldn't build one quite like it. Well built... yes. Its never really been restored and keeps on going. It has received new leather on some stops. It got a new blower maybe 5 years = ago. Sadly, it is now sitting there pretty much unused after two decades of an amazing recital series that only got better every year. The couple who = ran the series (George and Donna Butler) have decided to retire from it (well deserved!). Fortunately, the chapel is now in museum hands and the organ = is probably safe for the forseeable future. Its in a rural spot safe from development, right in the middle of a famous historic Shaker village in Enfield.   I have run into plenty of people who just hate this Casavant. Interestingly, though, its never been a non-organist. The general public always likes it.   Out of curiosity, does casavant have a "glory period"? I have actually heard some people say they had two... ca 1930 being one of them, and the phelps period being the other. Well, I'm familiar with the aforementioned =   1930 organ, love it, and also am familiar with a 1966 organ (St Michael's College, Colchester VT) and love it too (its a small, unenclosed two manual). They are very opposite. But I'm not sure how fair it is because =   both are in amazing accoustics. The 1966 organ would make ears bleed in = dry accoustics with its mixture I'm sure.   (http://www.marykeanechapel.com:16080/organ/)   Has anyone ever compared 1930's Casavants to late 19th century Cavaille- Coll? By the specs and nomenclature, it appears this is what Casavant was =   trying to imitate, at least on the Mary Keane Chapel organ. The question is, does the voicing and scaling do the same. What would be the differences? I suppose what I really need to do is get my butt to Paris sometime, but it'll probably be a while. :) Does anyone ever complain about the sound of Cavaille-Coll? If not, is it just because you're "not supposed to badmouth C-C"? Or is it because the organs really sounded great? How does Cavaille-Coll compare, say, to E and GG Hook? If C-C is = so great, why isn't anyone copying them now? (Or is someone copying them = now? I suppose we're closer to it than we've ever been, but we've still got to have our mixtures, etc). Hmmm... looks like I'm asking someone to write a =   book. Has someone written a book on this topic?   Andy   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: Blenheim Palace (Willis) From: "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:35:45 -0600     >Has anyone ever compared 1930's Casavants to late 19th century Cavaille- Coll? By the specs and nomenclature, it appears this is what Casavant was=20 trying to imitate, at least on the Mary Keane Chapel organ. The question=20 is, does the voicing and scaling do the same. What would be the=20 differences? I suppose what I really need to do is get my butt to Paris   sometime, but it'll probably be a while. :) Does anyone ever complain=20 about the sound of Cavaille-Coll? =20   I have heard an acquaintance say that the sound of the Ste-Sulpice organ was rather harsh-sounding to his ears (although I loved it!) and I can see where he was coming from, having heard it myself. But this particular gentlemen has a professed love for the "Bach" organs in Germany, and for that period of music, so hearing a Cavaille-Coll was a complete change for him.   >If not, is it just because you're "not=20 supposed to badmouth C-C"? Or is it because the organs really sounded=20 great? How does Cavaille-Coll compare, say, to E and GG Hook? If C-C is so=20 great, why isn't anyone copying them now?   I think they have been replicated, in some instances, here in the states.   >(Or is someone copying them now? =20 I suppose we're closer to it than we've ever been, but we've still got to=20 have our mixtures, etc). =20   Cavaille-Coll organs most always had mixtures in the specifications--if that's what you're referring to--with the exception of some "orgues de choeur" and a few organs for small spaces.   Best regards,   Daniel Hancock Springfield, Missouri  
(back) Subject: RE: Blenheim Palace From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:36:13 -0500   Ah, someone else was thinking like me. I think what I really want is a = book that compares Cavaille-Coll, E and GG Hook, and Father Willis. It would also be cool if it compared 1930's Casavant and Skinner with all those. = And perhaps shed some light on new organs that attempt to be "romantic" and = how they compare in reality to the big 3 above.   Ok, I know what you're all thinking... I'd better get started! ;)   Andy   On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:47:41 -0000, Mr. R.E. Malone wrote > -----Original Message----- > From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf > Of Colin Mitchell Sent: 15 December 2004 14:30 To: PipeChat Subject: > RE: Blenheim Palace > > Hello all, > > Whilst we are talking about organ builders, are there any books > other than The one on Skinner, which would give us some insight into > their interests. > > Regards. > > Richard. > > ****************************************************************** > "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>       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: Glenda's Shoes and Willis organs From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:36:43 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Wasn't it Vincent Willis?   That's off the top of my head, so I could be wrong.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- "First Christian Church of Casey, Illinois" <kzrev@rr1.net> wrote:   > > As for Willis, which one worked for Wicks? Was it > IV? >       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo  
(back) Subject: RE: Blenheim Palace (Willis) From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:51:31 -0500   Andy,   As with any company, Casavant had ups and downs, at least in regards to their tonality. Some say their best work was done early on, like in the late 1800s. At one point they even used pipes made in the C-C factory.   Some of Casavants organs sound like they were not sure of what they really =   wanted to do. In the era of 1910-1920, they were dull, with some unwhelming English sounding reeds. In the 1950s they wanted to go neo-baroque, but ended up with just brighter sounding organs. In that era =   or the ones I have come across, the larger ones were sometimes very nice, the smaller ones were just odd.   In 1959, they hired Larry Phelps, who really changed the way they sounded. Again their smaller instruments didn't sound good, some of the larger ones, were loud and brittle. The longer he stayed the better they got. You kind of got the feeling that Mr. Phelps did a lot of reading and =   a lot of experimenting along the way.   In 1970 oe thereabouts Phelps left and Gerhard Brunzema came in, and he basically went for the German baroque sound, that he and Ahrend did in Germany. Again a mixed bag. I don't think Mr. Brunzema got what he = wanted out of Casavant, and he went on his own. His own organs were as conservative as could be, but generally extremely good, if you like that sort of thing.   About 1980, Casavant got Mr. Coignet from Paris as head of the tonal department, and the organ started sounding more French. In fact a lot of the reeds are of french style, maybe even C-C style. There is a fairly = new one in Toronto, but it gets mixed reviews. Said to be too loud for the = room.   Casavant is building a French Symphonic style organ for the Brick Presbyterian church in NYC. Should be finished next spring. So there = will be your chance to hear what they are doing currently.   Some of the other builders in Quebec have built French Symphonic style organs, such as Wolff and Guilbault-Therrien. The later company is now = out of business.   So to say they have a glory period, is hard to say. They sometimes built good large organs, and not so good small ones. I guess each instrument should be judged individually.   Andrew Mead on this list, is quite familiar with Casavants in Ontario. Maybe he can pipe-up and chat about them.   Arie V.             > > > > Andy, > > > > I am living in Casavant country. Actually Toronto, Canada. Lots of > > Casavants around here. > > > > The Casavants of that era were generally not the greatest, although > > some were a whole lot better than others, at least tonally. I > > suppose a lot has to do with correct installation, voicing, and room > > acoustics. > > > > It is great though if you have a great Casavant in your > > neighbourhood, where everything works together for a successful >installation. > > > > Another thing about Casavants, they were generally very well built. > > Some older Casavants around Toronto, are still original, and are now > > almost a century old. > > > > Arie V. > > >It depends who you ask. If you ask a visiting British organist, you'll = get >rave reviews, and I was speculating as to why this would be. I love the >organ too, though I probably wouldn't build one quite like it. Well >built... yes. Its never really been restored and keeps on going. It has >received new leather on some stops. It got a new blower maybe 5 years = ago. >Sadly, it is now sitting there pretty much unused after two decades of an >amazing recital series that only got better every year. The couple who = ran >the series (George and Donna Butler) have decided to retire from it (well >deserved!). Fortunately, the chapel is now in museum hands and the organ = is >probably safe for the forseeable future. Its in a rural spot safe from >development, right in the middle of a famous historic Shaker village in >Enfield. > >I have run into plenty of people who just hate this Casavant. >Interestingly, though, its never been a non-organist. The general public >always likes it. > >Out of curiosity, does casavant have a "glory period"? I have actually >heard some people say they had two... ca 1930 being one of them, and the >phelps period being the other. Well, I'm familiar with the = aforementioned >1930 organ, love it, and also am familiar with a 1966 organ (St Michael's >College, Colchester VT) and love it too (its a small, unenclosed two >manual). They are very opposite. But I'm not sure how fair it is = because >both are in amazing accoustics. The 1966 organ would make ears bleed in = dry >accoustics with its mixture I'm sure. > >(http://www.marykeanechapel.com:16080/organ/) > >Has anyone ever compared 1930's Casavants to late 19th century Cavaille- >Coll? By the specs and nomenclature, it appears this is what Casavant = was >trying to imitate, at least on the Mary Keane Chapel organ. The question >is, does the voicing and scaling do the same. What would be the >differences? I suppose what I really need to do is get my butt to Paris >sometime, but it'll probably be a while. :) Does anyone ever complain >about the sound of Cavaille-Coll? If not, is it just because you're "not >supposed to badmouth C-C"? Or is it because the organs really sounded >great? How does Cavaille-Coll compare, say, to E and GG Hook? If C-C is = so >great, why isn't anyone copying them now? (Or is someone copying them = now? >I suppose we're closer to it than we've ever been, but we've still got to >have our mixtures, etc). Hmmm... looks like I'm asking someone to write = a >book. Has someone written a book on this topic? > >Andy      
(back) Subject: Re: Comparing great builders, NOT! From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:02:25 EST   Dear Andy:   I don't think a comparison of the great builders in book form would matter much. Even within the context of one particular builder or another it could wind up apples and oranges. Coming into consideration would be room acoustics and harmonic development of same, scaling voicing etc. I think we need to look at the spirit of what each tried to achieve, not this or that particular organ. Although builders can work around room deficiencies, the worst being a dead room, the law of diminishing returns comes into play trying to minimize this sort of defect. Organs were envisioned to sing in a live, warm acoustic. I think this is why people like to toot car horns in tunnels, or shout to make echo's off a nearby ridge or hill. It's the most unique sound this side of the heavenly delights. The closest thing to HELL is a great organ wasted in a dead room. A case in point, a new organ in a church with carpeted floors and also carpeted walls clear to the ceiling. Yes, there is a very recent example here on the left coast. I really wanted to =   cry. 98 or so ranks going absolutely no where. Room aliveness is an asset not a liability as we all know.   Ron Severin    
(back) Subject: St. Matthew Lutheran, Hanover, Pennsylvania [x-posted] From: "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:08:14 -0800   Does anyone know if any recent recordings have been made on the gigantic (about 250 ranks) early-1920s Austin at St. Matthew Lutheran, Hanover, Pennsylvania?   The organist, Scott Fredericks, was a "pen-pal friend" once upon a time back in the 1980s but I haven't had contact with him in quite a long time. You know how it goes sometimes. (Anyone have an email address for him? It would be great to catch up.) -- I assume Scott is still there; haven't heard anything to the contrary.   Back when we were corresponding, the only recording that had been made was a mono LP done by J. Herbert Springer (R.I.P.), former organist at the church and designer of the organ. Scott did send a cassette tape he made for me one afternoon but other than that, I've never heard the instrument.   It's quite a beast -- all sorts of goodies including a floating string organ. It's among the top-ten largest organs and I believe is the largest Austin. It's rather more brilliant than you'd think an organ of that era would be, because it was enlarged and updated over the years that Springer was there. I haven't seen the stop list in a long time but it seems to me there's even a "Baroque" division!   The room's acoustics are a bit of a handicap - rather dry and unsympathetic. But the organ does have a heroic full organ sound, and more slush than you can shake a stick at!   ~ C      
(back) Subject: Cavaille-Coll(tangent from Willis thread) From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:53:55 -0500   Woah! I just got onto http://www.stsulpice.com/Docs/specs.html in my = search for C-C organs. It appears that the St Sulpice organ, as far as the pipework is concerned, is mostly _not_ C-C!!! Maybe y'all knew this already... it comes as somewhat of a shock to me. A pleasant shock though... it gives me reassurance that my idea of avoiding "starting over" =   in most cases can be a good one.   It also tells me that if we want to find out what C-C is all about, we should steer clear of St Sulpice. It would be like going to Methuen to = find out what a typical Aeolean Skinner is like.   Thoughts?   Andy   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: Cavaille-Coll(tangent from Willis thread) From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:23:18 EST   Andy:   Ste. Sulpice was a Cliquot that Cavaille Coll made additions to and re-engineered with a new terraced five manual console in 1878. Give the man credit, he didn't trash the old organ, just made it better. Now, here we go with the crowd who would try to pursue undoing all the CC additions to return it to pristine Cliquot including a replica Cliquot console. WHY, HOW DARE CC make changes to Cliquot perfection? I really slays me every time I read a post about something like that happening. It reminds me of a puddle in the middle of the lawn, and Green Peace driving by in their little Van hanging out a sign designating it a Wet-Land. Habitat of the white footed grasshopper.   In A Humorous giddy mood today, and it's a good thing!   Ron Severin    
(back) Subject: Re: Blenheim Palace (Willis) From: "Jerry Richer" <jerry@ChirpingBat.Com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:27:40 -0500   Just last month, November, there was an entire Pipe Dreams episode dedicated to Casavant on occasion of their 125 anniversary. The assistant tonal director discusses Casavant throughout the show. Check it out at http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/play/audio.php?media=3D/2004/11/14_pipedr= eams   Chirp|Chirp|Chirp: It's the Bat, Bat Arhonious Software, = www.chirpingbat.com