PipeChat Digest #5034 - Monday, December 27, 2004
RE: diane bish tapes
  by "Robert Bell" <bobbell@optonline.net>
RE: Holy Name, Chicago
  by <RSiegel920@aol.com>
Re: Philosophical/Educational Problem for Holy Name?
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
  by <robian@esc.net.au>
Re: Philosophical/Educational Problem for Holy Name?
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Warranty
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
NEW Phantom of the Opera [x-posted]
  by "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com>
Re: Philosophical/Educational Problem for Holy Name?
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: Chicago Holy NAME Cathedral
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
Re: Warranty
  by "Octaaf" <octaaf@charter.net>

(back) Subject: RE: diane bish tapes From: "Robert Bell" <bobbell@optonline.net> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:04:04 -0500   Wesley, If you enjoy Diane's Programs, the you'll probably like them. The Military set is the first hour of each of the 3 programs she did at the Academys, which were 2 one hour programs each. I have several of her DVD's since I no longer have a VCR. These were not = new programs, they were transfered from VCR. The copy process wasn't the cleanest. I hope in the future, the DVDs will be produced from a digital master. I really enjoy re-watching these. Bob   _____   From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of wesley Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 7:45 PM To: 'PipeChat' Subject: diane bish tapes     Does anybody know if the Diane Bish tapes: Military(hour and a half), and favorite hymns(one hour) are good? They seem kind of expensive..  
(back) Subject: RE: Holy Name, Chicago From: <RSiegel920@aol.com> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:16:15 EST   I understand that the nave flooring (a "ceramic", not carpeting) was designed as sound absorbant when the cathedral was "Wrecknovated." = whether that has ANY practical effect when the church is full I don't know, but it = certainly has an effect on high frequency reverberation when less than full. Regards Dick Siegel  
(back) Subject: Re: Philosophical/Educational Problem for Holy Name? From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:03:31 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I cannot really contribute much to the Holy Name debate, except to say that I have heard some wonderful Flentrop organs in their homeland.   I have also heard some magnificent Frobenius, Rieger and Marcussen organs; all of which share one thing in common....superb rooms!   I have been mentally trying to wrestle with the problem of the newish Marcussen at Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, here in the UK. The hall is not at all dead.....it has a certain amount of reverberation, but there's something different about it. I have been trying to think what it is that is "different" in the "sound" of the hall.   Now, I am no acoustician, and someone is bound to flame my conclusions, but in the finer European rooms, the resonance is maintained throughout the building....a sort of "omni-resonance" from hard surfaces which, like God, does mysterious things.   It's difficult to describe what I "sense" I may be hearing in buildings such as the Bridgewater Hall. I "think" what I am hearing is a resonance concentrated in the middle to upper frequencies, using hard panelling as reflectors. The abundance of soft furnishings at floor level and gallery level, seem to gobble up lower frequency sound; leaving the mid to hi frequency ranges intact. This means that musical instruments can sound bright and clear, but lack deep sonority and "omni-resonance". It's as if the sound is almost polarised in particular directions and at specific frequencies.   Since writing the above, I did a little research into hall acoustics and design; and what I "sense" by "instinct" turns out to have some degree of substance.   It seems that acoustic engineers consider it desirable to limit lower frequencies, because this is the area of sound most likely to cause aural confusion in the relay of speech. However, aware of the requirements of music, reverberation is built in to good designs, but at carefully engineered frequencies.   Apparently, plaster board reflects mid to high frequency sound well, but panel resonance and movement kill the lower frequencies......and we all know how builders like plaster-panelling!   Of course, in many modern buildings, the shape of the room is far removed from the classical "double cube" or the rows of gothic arches we asociate with European cathedrals. Modern buildings tend to be square, cheese dish shaped, sometimes semi-circular, occassionally round, sometimes fan shaped etc etc. They provide, by definition, a new type of acoustic as compared to the older halls and churches which were usually of classical proportions.   It seems to me, that a true professional involved with organ-building, should be aware of modern building materials and the effect which they may have on music.   I can only liken many new multi-function areans, halls and churches, as akin to the body of a string instrument, but with felt lining. It may still have resonance, but it will be a severley changed resonance.   Were I an organ-builder, which I am not, then I would want to fully explore the natural resonances in a finished room before installing an instrument. It may be, that a building may require considerable re-inforcement of frequencies below a certain point, and it might be possible to compensate for this by utilising unusual bass-note scaling. The problem is, we all tend to be driven by wanting to create an "authentic" sound rather than a good sound....that's what fashion seems to dictate.   I cannot help but think that in many buildings, where the lower frequencies are curtailed deliberately, there is definitely a place for large scale open wood registers; even in a neo-baroque design.   I suspect that those organ-builders who come along, make educated guesses at what is required. Were they to undertake acoustic tests, they may be in a better position to design and build an organ which works musically.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     > > > TubaMagna@aol.com wrote: > The problem is likely NOT philosophical, but > educational. > > What may have BEGUN as as philosophical issue ("the > only good organ is a > mechanical action organ," or "both organs must be > imported, because Americans > cannot build real organs," or "'real' organs are > pseudo-'Baroque'") involved a > campaign on the part of the musicians to get what > they wanted. The chances of > re-re-educating administration are less than > unlikely. > > > From TDH: > Seb. makes a point here that reminds me of the > article that Bynum Petty wrote of Joyce Jones > sometime in the last year or so. Joyce Jones made a > comment that "...Europeans don't necesarily build > better organs, they just have better rooms." or > something of that nature.       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Warranty From: <robian@esc.net.au> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:07:21 +1030   Does Ahlborn-Galanti, of Italy, offer a factory warranty to would-be purchasers throughout the world?   Likewise Johannus, etc?   Anyone out there know?   Or, do you get stuck with a local dealer's warranty conditions?     robian.    
(back) Subject: Re: Philosophical/Educational Problem for Holy Name? From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:57:02 -0600   Hello, Desiree: =20 You wrote: =20   > Seb. makes a point here that reminds me of the=20 > article that Bynum Petty wrote of Joyce Jones=20 > sometime in the last year or so. Joyce Jones=20 > made a comment that "...Europeans don't necesarily=20 > build better organs, they just have better rooms."=20 > or something of that nature.=20   While I can imagine Joyce Jones saying something=20 like that, the quotation is actually from "The=20 Contemporary American Organ," by William Harrison=20 Barnes. =20 F. Richard Burt =20 =20 ..
(back) Subject: Re: Warranty From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:09:11 -0600   Hello, Robian:   > Does Ahlborn-Galanti, of Italy, offer a factory warranty to would-be > purchasers throughout the world?   Do not know. Have nothing to do with Ahlborn-Gallanti.   > Likewise Johannus, etc?   All Johannus organs are warranted for 10 years in the U.S.A. by the factory from the date of manufacture.   F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs Johannus Southwest Garland, TX 75044 U.S.A.       ..      
(back) Subject: NEW Phantom of the Opera [x-posted] From: "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:15:31 -0800   I saw the new film version of the Phantom of the Opera tonight, as adapted from Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage production (which I also saw when it was in Los Angeles).   I won't comment on the music in general -- except to say that none of the lead characters had operatic voices -- let alone really good voices period -- pop or otherwise. Indeed, Minnie Driver's singing voice was dubbed and even at that was lackluster at best. The voices of the two male leads - Raoul [the male romantic lead] and the Phantom - were particularly weak and unsuited for the roles.   What really got me, though, was the very cheesy sounding organ -- or should I say "organ effect." This clearly was some kind of electronic instrument, but not even as good as a "real" electronic organ. It sounded more like the "PIPE ORGAN" tab on a Casiotone! Yes, it was loud and thundering - massive-sounding 32-foot Pedal reeds and even in a few passages with 64-foot tone. But it was the same fake and artificial sound throughout the film.   I even heard someone behind me whisper, "That does not sound like a real organ does it." - and her companion said, "Nahh. It's a synthesizer."   Granted, Hollywood is not particularly noted for accuracy or authenticity - even in the other various versions of this particular film. But you'd think by now they'd do something different in a new version and at least ATTEMPT to make it sound real!   And to make matters worse, there is never a scene where the Phantom is actually sitting and playing the organ (more on that directly). He only sits at the console for one brief scene. At least in the Broadway play there were scenes of him playing, as was the case in the other film versions.   An added off-topic note about the Phantom make-up -- again, it's easily the least dramatic, effective or "scary." It looks like someone flung blobs of pink jello onto the Phantom's face and called that "make-up!"   Then about the 'organ' itself --- Good Lord. It looked like something salvaged from Disney's "Mysterious Island." It has atwo-manual "horseshoe-drawknob" console that does look something like the one in the 1925 silent version but not as imposing, with a single row of very phony looking pipes stuck on top of it, with all sorts of crap and debris strewn over it. The pipes looked like those stupid-looking pipes on plastic Christmas "pipe organ" decorations. You know, the kind with the beveled upper tips! In fact that's what the whole thing pretty much looked like. Made of plastic.   It just seems a shame that the organ -- which in the original novel and in all the previous film versions had a "starring role" -- was given such a cursory part in this film.   I agree with the many film fans and experts that, by far, the most effective version yet IS the 1925 silent film with Lon Chaney. It was extremely well done with beautiful, moody cinematography; and the "unmasking scene" has yet to be equaled in its build-up and then the actual terrifying moment when Christine finally gets the nerve, after several VERY unnerving false starts, to tear the mask away. The scene cuts to a "spaghetti western" close-up of the Phantom's ghoulish face and the subtitles shriek, "FEAST YOUR EYES, GLOAT YOUR SOUL, ON MY ACCURSED UGLINESS!"   I have seen the silent version in a movie theater several times, with Stan Kann, Bill Field, and, I think, Bob Mitchell, playing the organ. A VHS release of the film features the original score played by Gaylord Carter. A fairly recent DVD reissue utilizes an orchestral score. I have not seen this version yet but it was only $7.99 on Amazon.com so I picked up a copy of it. We'll see how the orchestrated score stands up to the test of time and compared with theatre organ scores!   ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ Charlie Lester Reporting from Hollywood      
(back) Subject: Re: Philosophical/Educational Problem for Holy Name? From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:26:08 EST   Dear Richard:   I think church musicians would all be much happier with even a bad pipe organ, if room acoustics weren't micro managed to death. On the one hand, it makes no common sense to totally render a room dead on arrival DOA and then artificially put it electronically back. But then on the other hand worse yet to neglect to even do that. It seems evil on the face of it to negate a natural gift from God in the first place and then turn around and call that perfect acoustics.   People would play music much differently if music were given half a chance. You certainly wouldn't have people so concerned about the re it rate of the organ action or constantly insist on faster pipe speech so they can show how fast they can play a piece without out stripping the natural pipe speech. Well, that's what you get when you kill a room, dead musically, and machine bullet playing. God, in heaven, I hate that. I guess people think they like that bravura crap, but it isn't music, note perfect but DOA.   True music making should never be hurried, but allowed to be beautiful, thrilling, no matter whether soft, medium, forte or full out. If the room is not right, you can toss millions of dollars at an organ and have nothing but a failure. When will people really get it right. Until then we will continue to experience more failures than successes. That's just plain and callously stupid.   We just feasted on a website with listers we all know. Nearly all played finely and musically. Bach, played intelligently and musically is a thing of true beauty. Frank Asper used to say this is music what's your hurry? Take your time, the world will still be there when you finish.   Ron Severin    
(back) Subject: Re: Chicago Holy NAME Cathedral From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:09:55 -0600   Michael David wrote of the instruments at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago:   >As both are rather "classical" instruments and the choir is always in the = back, I >don't think you could refer to the Casavant as a choir organ. > > to which I would note that the choir is not always at the back, though to those who are not close to the Cathedral would know this, as the televised events always have the choir in the rear gallery.   There are indeed occasions when the choir sings from the front of the church, to the accompaniment of the choir organ, with the Grand Organ used for preludes and postludes, and accompaniment of congregational singing.   ns  
(back) Subject: Re: Warranty From: "Octaaf" <octaaf@charter.net> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:48:22 -0600   Hello Robian,   I don't know about other builders, but my Cantor is covered by a 10 year factory warranty. Most likely, the same is true of other digital organ companies. If a new organ comes without a warranty, don't waste your = money!   Tim   ----- Original Message ----- From: <robian@esc.net.au> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Warranty     > Does Ahlborn-Galanti, of Italy, offer a factory warranty to would-be > purchasers throughout the world? > > Likewise Johannus, etc? > > Anyone out there know? > > Or, do you get stuck with a local dealer's warranty conditions? > > > robian. > > > ****************************************************************** > "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> > >