PipeChat Digest #4221 - Thursday, January 15, 2004
 
Re: a challenge
  by "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net>
Resultant 16'
  by "Karl Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersville.edu>
"reycling" pipe organs
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by "F Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
"reycling" pipe organs
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by <Innkawgneeto@cs.com>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <Lowkis@theatreorgans.com>
Re: an organ for an orchestra hall
  by "Sand Lawn" <glawn@jam.rr.com>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by "Stanley Lowkis" <Lowkis@theatreorgans.com>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: Westminster Hymnal (x post)
  by "Cole" <rcolev@woh.rr.com>
RE: Small new organ in the works
  by "Keith Zimmerman" <kwzimmerman@alltel.net>
Re: Wittenberg University chapel organ
  by "Stan Yoder" <vze2myh5@verizon.net>
Re: Resultant 16'
  by <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca>
"reycling" pipe organs
  by "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by <Innkawgneeto@cs.com>
Re: "reycling" pipe organs
  by "Nelson Denton" <ndenton@cogeco.ca>
Re: Congregational Singing at Funerals
  by <RVScara@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: a challenge From: "Mike Gettelman" <mike3247@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:50:24 -0500   Dear Peter, This is certainly an exciting situation for anyone in the organ community. Filling an empty space that possesses a great acoustic with = organ sound, is a dream scenario for all of us. Far be it for me to splash cold water on this dream, but I think one needs to take a hard look at the one person who will determine what will = be done with any kind of organ that might be installed. The music director of any major symphonic venue controls everything about the type of music that will be presented, and the frequency of it. I draw your attention to the magnificent E.M. Skinner restoration done by Schantz at Severance Hall. Granted the instrument was already there, (albeit buried so deeply in the attic as to be nearly useless) but the money spent to relocate and restore it could easily have generated a completely new instrument, so there is = some parallel to your situation. Now that the restoration is complete, the dedication behind us, and = the future realized, what have we to show for all the money spent and the enthusiasm generated. Currently there are just 4 major organ recitals a year. Throw in a couple more ensemble performances with orchestra and = choral groups, and we have a tremendous instrument that is so under utilized that patrons of Severance Hall would not even know there is an organ there, if not for the glorious facade. Even at the major recitals, more than half = the house is empty. Therefore, I suggest that before any proposals to install an organ are even considered, it would be best to do some rigorous research into the market for patron acceptance for the instrument, and the music director's attitude toward using the instrument, and allowing a reasonable amount of time for performances that justify the huge investment. If prestige and bragging rights are sufficient reasons to have an organ installed permanently in the Oklahoma City Philharmonic Hall, then by all means, = give an organ builder the mandate, but if 3 or 4 performances a year are all = you can count on, just wheel in a rental Allen or another, and take the = massive amount of money saved to be applied towards musical performance that will = be more widely recieved. Sincerely Mike Gettelman   "Storandt, Peter" wrote:   > Dear List: > > Thanks to Mike for this update. Reading the article brings to mind a > challenge I conceived during the intermission of last Saturday evening's > Oklahoma City Philharmonic concert in our fabulous "new" concert space > built within the original Art-Deco-era municipal music hall shell. > Perhaps some of you would like to ponder the matter as well. > > Our new room is presently organ-less, though its predecessor space (much > larger, and used for many purposes) had a good-sized Kimball. (The > Kimball is to be reassembled in our state's new history museum now > nearing completion.) The orchestra will be performing the Saint-Saens > Third Symphony in May, with a guess-what brought in for the occasion. > > My challenge: what type of instrument would suit our new hall should one > be added in the future? A dedicated, full-sized pipe instrument is > probably out of the question for cost and space reasons. But what about > something along the lines of the Tanglewood Shed and Metropolitan Opera > House Aeolian-Skinners? Could there be such an organ built here that > would satisfy the needs of the orchestra and the choral groups who > perform regularly? Should it be a combination organ, similar to others > now appearing on the scene, with some of the stop families arising from > silicon origins? I would be most interested in seeing what list members > might suggest for a limited-purpose house instrument. > > For your reference, here is a look at the room: > http://www.okcciviccenter.org/home.asp > > What say you? I guess I should say, don't enter this "contest" for > purposes of doing a variation on pipes vs. electronics. > > Thanks, > > Peter >    
(back) Subject: Resultant 16' From: "Karl Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersville.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:55:26 -0500   I've just received a copy of halbe, Herbert, _Orgeln in katholsichen Kirchen Ostw=FCrttermbergs_, 2003. A single-manual of four stops (8,8,4,4,) in St. ulrich Kirche, Niederstotzinger-Lontal plus pedal has an 8' Violon and a 5 1/3' Quintbass (Holz offen - open wood) as the only pedal stops, thus creating a resultant 16' sound. The instrument was built in 1842 by Johann Victor Bruol of Bissing/Teck. This is all news to me!!   Has anyone heard this organ or any such pedal 16' resultant like it? I assume there is some reason we tend not to do this, but I'd be interested i= n comments.=20   Karl E. Moyer Lancaster PA    
(back) Subject: "reycling" pipe organs From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:20:05 EST   Maybe we should avoid the term "recycle," since I have only heard it = used dismissively and derogatorily by ignorant organists and organ committees while trying to explain the merits of investing in an historic organ. Said one midwestern cathedral, "We're not about to embark on some kind = of recycling project. We want a NEW organ, not somebody's old garbage." It mattered not whether it was a Skinner, Roosevelt, Kimball, or Hook and = Hastings, it was "recycled." Nobody objects to a recycled Guanieri or Stradivari. To = what and whom do we attribute this bizarre disparity of perceptions? Nobody minds "recycled" pipework in Europe, where incorporation of = fine antique pipework is a respected tradition. It may have something to do = with the fact that Americans live in a world in which they believe everything can = and should be disposed of (where?), and Europeans live on small patches of = land, and understand the meaning of conservation. It translates from the = practical, daily act to the artistic act. They also have a lot more history in place = than we do. So let us try to search for a better term than "recycled." Sebastian M. Gluck New York City   ..  
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: "F Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:26:45 -0600   Hello, Seb: You asked: > To what and whom do we attribute this bizarre disparity > of perceptions? Since you asked...   We all watch TV, and to some degree among those not in line with us, a pipe organ ranks along with empty beer cans. What better use for them than to "recycle" them? Sadly, but TV forms the opinions of the 80-percent mass of the population. F. Richard Burt ..  
(back) Subject: "reycling" pipe organs From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:32:57 EST   Maybe we should avoid the term "recycle," since I have only heard it = used dismissively and derogatorily by ignorant organists and organ committees while trying to explain the merits of investing in an historic organ. Said one midwestern cathedral, "We're not about to embark on some kind = of recycling project. We want a NEW organ, not somebody's old garbage." It mattered not whether it was a Skinner, Roosevelt, Kimball, or Hook and = Hastings, it was "recycled." Nobody objects to a recycled Guanieri or Stradivari. To = what and whom do we attribute this bizarre disparity of perceptions? Nobody minds "recycled" pipework in Europe, where incorporation of = fine antique pipework is a respected tradition. It may have something to do = with the fact that Americans live in a world in which they believe everything can = and should be disposed of (where?), and Europeans live on small patches of = land, and understand the meaning of conservation. It translates from the = practical, daily act to the artistic act. They also have a lot more history in place = than we do. So let us try to search for a better term than "recycled." Sebastian M. Gluck New York City   ..  
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: <Innkawgneeto@cs.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:38:01 EST   perhaps a good term is "lease return"? HEHE (ducking).   All kidding aside, it's unfortunate that committees/churches have this = view, since they are usually SO money conscious.   Neil Brown    
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: "Stanley Lowkis" <Lowkis@theatreorgans.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:39:33 -0600         > > > To what and whom do we attribute this bizarre disparity > > of perceptions? >   A better term would be a "reborn pipe organ".   Stan      
(back) Subject: Re: an organ for an orchestra hall From: "Sand Lawn" <glawn@jam.rr.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:47:49 -0600   The Memphis Kimball was divided between a classical organ and a theatre organ..... the five manual console played both instruments and the = horseshoe console played the theatre ranks. The classical part went to Bartlett = Mem. UM. The theatre organ is still in storage.   Sand Lawn    
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: "Stanley Lowkis" <Lowkis@theatreorgans.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:44:08 -0600         > So let us try to search for a better term than "recycled."   A much better term is "reborn" pipe organ.   Stan      
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:02:31 EST   Now you guys have gone an done it. I say arise from the ashes O PHOENIX! Oppps.   Ron    
(back) Subject: Re: Westminster Hymnal (x post) From: "Cole" <rcolev@woh.rr.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:14:12 -0500   I'm going to check my idioms more thoroughly next time. It's "well = heeled," not "well healed." That makes my little funny not so funny--just as the reality of what I said wasn't the least bit humorous.   Ross C "Cole" Votaw -- Springfield, Ohio, USA   Cole wrote: >Almost anything, Victoria. Herr Busch doesn't seem to know his people = need >good healthcare. We cannot get it unless we are very well healed. = (There's >a funny in there somewhere.) (8-) > >Oh, my, am I sounding bitter here? I know, what a novel idea it is that a =   >government should "promote the general Welfare"! > >Victoria wrote: > >>I think it's possible to get ANYTHING in the U.S. <g> >>    
(back) Subject: RE: Small new organ in the works From: "Keith Zimmerman" <kwzimmerman@alltel.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:19:37 -0500   As everyone can tell, I'm an amateur self-taught organist. Anyway, I like the stoplist. From what I've gathered from this list in the past, this is an organ designed around a particular purpose.   Seb, I would love to get a recording of this or any other organ of its = size. So many organ recordings are of the very large organs. For me, these recordings are a tease, since I will most likely never be in a situation = in which I have easy or ready access to such an organ. These smaller organs are more like what I would have. In fact, the one I'm fixing up - with professional help, of course - is about 11 ranks. Hearing music played on smaller organs by accomplished organists gives me a better idea of what = kind of sound I can have in my own organ.   If anyone has suggestions for recordings by fine organists on small = organs, please post them. If no one else is interested, please respond privately.   Thanks, Keith      
(back) Subject: Re: Wittenberg University chapel organ From: "Stan Yoder" <vze2myh5@verizon.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:38:24 -0500   I heard the Reuter last June when I attended my 50th-anniversary class = reunion.* It has indeed been opened up, especially the reeds, and some work has been done to expand the = openings behind the grille cloth. The organ has much more 'punch' now, and Don Busarow made = the most of it at the reunion service. I forget who he said did the work.   Two notes: 1) the chapel architect, one T. Norman Mansell, was no lover of = organs, at least visually. All his churches that I know of placed the organ behind cloth. = In fact, the church I belong to is one of his, and had no provision at all for a winded organ. = Ditto another close by. 2) Wittenberg was one of Franklin Mitchell's. Speaking with his widow in = 1995, she told me that she held notes while he finished it, and it remained one of his favorites, = despite the location disadvantage. It should have been in the gallery at the litugical west = end.   Stan Yoder Pittsburgh   * - As a 1953 grad, I predated Weaver chapel. So it was my privelege to = play the 2M Hillgreen-Lane in the previous, much smaller chapel in the 'old main.' The pipework was = in the attic above the chancel, speaking directly into the - uh - 'nave,' through a grille, of = course. The console was in a totally enclosed room off the chancel, with only a grille [sic] to see = what was happening at the altar. Sort of like being in a confessional. As to hearing what you were = playing, don't even think about it!    
(back) Subject: Re: Resultant 16' From: <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:51:02 -0800   Resultant 16's, and even resultant 8's, were popular with German-American builders in the Cincinnati area in the 19th century when space or cost was an issue.   Some took it one step further: the so-called "monkey quint", where the fundamental pipe and the quint pipe sat on a Y-shaped common windway with a single toe to the windchest. This improved the interaction of the two pipes, supposedly, but it DOES take up HORIZONTAL space on the windchest.   The organ you describe is backwards from usual practice: typically, the fundamental rank was built as a VERY wide-scale stopped wood pipe, and the quint rank as an open violone-scale metal pipe.   The ADVANTAGE, of course, is that the quint can be tuned true.   There are old organs in the Tri-State area where the bottom octave of the 16' Pedal Principal or Great 8' Principal is so treated, on account of lack of height in the facade, and the break from the single pipe to the resultant is virtually indistinguishable.   I'm a great advocate of doing that with Pedal 32's, rather than spending money on digitals. Build note 1-12 as a resultant, but with properly scaled INDEPENDENT quint pipes; then have notes 13-32 play the 16' Bourdon an octave lower. The cost is competitive with digital 32' stops.   Cheers,   Bud   Karl Moyer wrote:   > I've just received a copy of halbe, Herbert, _Orgeln in katholsichen > Kirchen Ostw=FCrttermbergs_, 2003. A single-manual of four stops = (8,8,4,4,) > in St. ulrich Kirche, Niederstotzinger-Lontal plus pedal has an 8' = Violon > and a 5 1/3' Quintbass (Holz offen - open wood) as the only pedal stops, > thus creating a resultant 16' sound. The instrument was built in 1842 by > Johann Victor Bruol of Bissing/Teck. This is all news to me!! > > Has anyone heard this organ or any such pedal 16' resultant like it? = I > assume there is some reason we tend not to do this, but I'd be = interested in > comments. > > Karl E. Moyer > Lancaster PA > > "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 > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > >      
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:44:48 -0500   At 09:32 PM 1/14/2004, it was written thusly; > Maybe we should avoid the term "recycle," since I have only heard it =   > used >dismissively and derogatorily by ignorant organists and organ committees >while trying to explain the merits of investing in an historic organ.   How about a bit of simple English - such as calling them re-built organs!   Just my two penn'orth!   Bob Conway    
(back) Subject: "reycling" pipe organs From: "Richard Schneider" <arpschneider@starband.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:08:50 -0600   Stanley Lowkis wrote:   > A much better term is "reborn" pipe organ.   I like Larry Chace's "pet" term of "experienced" pipe organs!   Faithfully,   G.A.   (Who owns more "experienced" organ parts than ANYBODY ELSE in the entire Universe!)   -- Richard Schneider, PRES/CEO <>< Schneider Pipe Organs, Inc. 41-43 Johnston St./P.O. Box 137 Kenney, IL 61749-0137 (217) 944-2454 VOX (877) 944-2454 TOLL-FREE (217) 944-2527 FAX arpschneider@starband.net Home Office EMAIL arp@schneiderpipeorgans.com SHOP EMAIL http://www.schneiderpipeorgans.com URL ADDRESS  
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: <Innkawgneeto@cs.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:08:01 EST     > (Who owns more "experienced" organ parts than ANYBODY ELSE in the entire > Universe!)   I'm not sure about that. One of my choir members has a humongous barn = filled to the rafters with organ stuff and pipes. AND, he has 2 french horns = (one a Skinner, the other a Moeller).    
(back) Subject: Re: "reycling" pipe organs From: "Nelson Denton" <ndenton@cogeco.ca> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:31:19 -0500   How about we get really them and call them "Born Again" Organs. The = Teeny-Ya-YA Tambourine and Drum bashers would love that term. It would be damned un-Christian NOT to let them into your church!!!   It's about time we started playing "Politically Correct" with them too.   Shame on all those liberal churches that are refusing to allow us the = right to play with our organs in church!!!!   RISE UP I SAY!! WE SHALL OVERCOME!!!   AMEN. ).  
(back) Subject: Re: Congregational Singing at Funerals From: <RVScara@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:26:52 EST   Bill H made valid comments on "restricting" a guest soloist and on a list limiting the selections from which the family can choose the music.   It is the Pastor's stated policy a guest soloist may sing one selection; I =   have stretched it to two if I know the person is a competent singer. = Often, however, we have no idea who it is and someone walks in before the = service, can't read a note, but "knows it goes somethng like .(hum, hum......." I can sight read just about any hymn or song they put in front of me so that is = not a problem; the organ has a transposer. With little or no time to find out = if the singer is good or bad, we exercise a policy of restraint. The exception always exists. Politics prevails. Who was the deceased.....who is the singer.....etc.   The hymn list we present is of the most popular, appropriate hymns, but = any from our hymnal (of over 400 hymns) could be acceptable. The Choir may = not know every last one well but they can manage most. We get the occasional request for Danny Boy ( I'd have to solo out on that one as the youngest = voice, transposed way down, but only as a recessional, technically "outside" = the service, to keep things Liturgical.