PipeChat Digest #4611 - Tuesday, July 13, 2004
 
Organ in sanity and madness
  by "Janet Jamieson" <rvetsc@globalnet.co.uk>
Organ in sanity and madness
  by "Janet Jamieson" <rvetsc@globalnet.co.uk>
Re: Organ in sanity and madness
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: preludes, postludes, and chatter
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Organ in sanity and madness
  by "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu>
Re: Organ in sanity and madness
  by "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu>
Re: Organ in sanity and madness
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
Re: Organ in sanity and madness
  by "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca>
Life Imitates Art (x-posted; long and tendentious)
  by "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com>
Felix in Portland
  by "Douglas A. Campbell" <dougcampbell@juno.com>
Rational Argument (x posted)  WITH GUIDELINES
  by "Shirley" <pnst.shirley@verizon.net>
RE: Life Imitates Art (x-posted; long and tendentious)
  by "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca>
Re: Rational Argument (x posted)  WITH GUIDELINES
  by "Scott" <montre1978@yahoo.com>
Re: Rational Argument (x posted)  WITH GUIDELINES
  by <reedstop@charter.net>
RE: Rational Argument (x posted)  WITH GUIDELINES
  by "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com>
Re: Lead time to prepare accompaniments: what's reasonable?
  by "Stephen Best" <sbest@borg.com>
Re: Lead time to prepare accompaniments: what's reasonable?
  by <DERREINETOR@aol.com>
RE: Rational Argument (x posted)  WITH GUIDELINES
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
 

(back) Subject: Organ in sanity and madness From: "Janet Jamieson" <rvetsc@globalnet.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:40:20 +0100   I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can anyone help please?
(back) Subject: Organ in sanity and madness From: "Janet Jamieson" <rvetsc@globalnet.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:51:53 +0100   I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can anyone help please? (Sorry previous message sent in HTML, so this is a repeat)    
(back) Subject: Re: Organ in sanity and madness From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 04:10:51 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   I have a copy of this!   Please contact me privately, and let's see what we can do.   Regards,   Colin MItchell UK   --- Janet Jamieson <rvetsc@globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can > anyone help please? > (Sorry previous message sent in HTML, so this is a > repeat) >       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail  
(back) Subject: Re: preludes, postludes, and chatter From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 04:39:20 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   I like that word Harry......"propel."   Better still, a high speed moving walkway down the centre aisle!   Those left sitting could then enjoy the music.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Harry Grove <musicman@cottagemusic.co.uk> wrote: > The postlude that follows, then, should propel people > out the door to Serve > the Lord. > _________________________       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail  
(back) Subject: Re: Organ in sanity and madness From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:12:21 -0700   >I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can anyone help please?   you did not list WHAT recording ??  
(back) Subject: Re: Organ in sanity and madness From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:24:19 -0700   >>I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can anyone help please? > >you did not list WHAT recording ?? >"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>   Wow.. that is the actual name of this recording??? who... ? what???   john V  
(back) Subject: Re: Organ in sanity and madness From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:39:13 -0500   The subject heading said "Organ in Sanity and Madness" which was the recording of the centennial concert of the Royal College of Organists, = held in the Royal Albert Hall in London around thirty or forty years ago. It = was certainly a classic of its time. I wish they would reissue it on CD; I'm sure the sales would justify this. I would buy one anyway.   John Speller   ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Organ in sanity and madness     > >I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can anyone help = please? > > you did not list WHAT recording ??      
(back) Subject: Re: Organ in sanity and madness From: "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:02:46 -0400   John. 'et al',   I have this recording, and, I was at the concert where it was recorded in the Royal Albert Hall, some time in the 1960's. At the moment, I am upstairs, and the LP is downstairs, - I haven't got the "go" to look it = up!   However, as I recall it, the concert was a fund raiser for the replacement =   of the organ in the Royal College of Organists, and one thing that really sticks in my mind is that a rather younger Gillian Weir slipped gracefully =   on, and later, off the organ bench in a mini-skirt!   Another thing was the purchase of a penny whistle, for two bob, no less, ( =   a penny whistle for two shillings, - daylight robbery!). to take part in a =   performance of a Concerto for Organ and Penny whistles! I seem to = remember that David Willcocks conducted us in the performance! I lost my penny whistle during my move to Canada, but my LPs all arrived safely!   I am looking forward to hearing the RAH organ in the recorded BBC = broadcast tomorrow!   Bob Conway   At 11:24 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote: >>>I am trying to get a copy of this old recording. Can anyone help = please? >> >>you did not list WHAT recording ??    
(back) Subject: Life Imitates Art (x-posted; long and tendentious) From: "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:45:13 -0700   For a good 20 years I've been standing up on a little soapbox from time to time attempting to convince skeptics that the wretched excesses of 1970s organbuilding were due in part to the recording engineers at Columbia records. Probably at E. Power Biggs's insistence, they made his recordings with microphone placements so close that they delivered pipe speech only voicers and tuners had heard previously; listeners at home hearing this thoroughly artificial "clarity" and brightness wanted to hear the same = when they played on Sunday, and the result was a generation of organs that were delightful to masochists or the hearing-impaired, but that had little in common with the mainstream tradition.   My point is that technical artifacts - the microphone teamed with = low-noise tapes - permitted a style of recording that came to distort the concept of the organ itself, which then was designed so that it came to sound like a recording of an organ even when heard from a reasonable listening perspective. And then of course, close-up recordings of these further exaggerated sounds came to define an even more grotesque ideal. Actually, since Ernest White had sometimes relegated the true 8' Principal to a role in the pedal even before recording technology reached maturity in the = early 1960s, I will admit that recordings alone were not responsible for the = race for treble, but I am sure that they were a big factor in that off-course lurch.   Now, having just spent a week in Los Angeles listening to big organs armed with digital reinforcements in the basement, I'm here to say that just as Columbia's microphones affected tonal design in the 1960s, the world of = THX and Dolby digital has settled in on the organ world, and I don't admire those results either. I admit that 32' stops take space and cost money, = and for that reason alone have been uncommon; an additional good reason is = that they work optimally only in big buildings. They can have a certain amount = of raw power, but the fact that most large organs have only one 32' flue stop that miraculously works both under very soft combinations and full organ says something about the relative dynamic restraint of a good 32'.   Whatever you may say about the age we live in, subtlety is not its prevailing spirit. When you go to a cineplex today, whatever movie you = came to see is going to be preceded by trailers for action-adventure or = disaster movies, and by God you are going to hear BASS. Not really low in frequency = - even the best movie speakers are not pumping out 16 Hz - but bone-crushing in magnitude. Shuddering bass, you might say: no real sense of pitch, but plenty of impact. And of course you can hear the same sort of thing about = an octave higher when a kid in a pickup truck or low rider thumps up next to you at a stoplight and you watch the whole machine throb until you can = make your getaway.   Why did someone decide that organs had to offer bass of that quantity (and lack of quality)? A few years ago I was appalled to hear that the 235-rank Aeolian-Skinner of the Mother Church had been invaded by an alien = electronic Untersatz that was impossibly big and unmusical; last week I listened to "the world's largest church organ" in Los Angeles that had FOUR of these travesties, and they seemed to be permanently on. Taking a wild guess, I'd say that the level was at least 10dB louder than any real 32' stop I've = ever heard. What was the organ designer thinking, and what were the organists = who pulled these things on thinking? Did they listen?   I'm not a Luddite. I can accept a good 32' electronic voice as a = real-world substitute for an unaffordable rank of pipes. But I do not accept a bad = one, or a handful or bad ones, in a large, complete organ as anything other = than a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics that underlie good music. = And a little irony: I confess to enough of a retro organ esthetic that I = thought that in many ways the 1951 Aeolian-Skinner in the Crystal Cathedral Arboretum was the best instrument I heard in California. And it was reverently described as being "untouched, just as G. Donald Harrison left it," except that the next sentence went on to mention ever so casually = that it had been enhanced by some 32' digital voices. Three, actually.   So just as microphones and low-noise tape helped to create the screechy organs of the 1970s, home theatre special effects have now fostered 32' stops (actually, I see that First Congo even has a digital 16' Open Wood - = I can only imagine what a delight that must be) that turn even small organs into cathedral Willises, in power but certainly not in quality.   Would everyone please just listen to these things and then exercise at = least a bit of what used to be called artistic restraint? Thank you.       MAF    
(back) Subject: Felix in Portland From: "Douglas A. Campbell" <dougcampbell@juno.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:38:01 -0400   Dear List,   It has come to my attention that in my report on Felix's Kotzschmar concert, I left John Cormack off the list of "Felix Fans" in attendance. John WAS there, it's just that I left him off the list ! Sorry, John !     Douglas A. Campbell Skaneateles, NY  
(back) Subject: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES From: "Shirley" <pnst.shirley@verizon.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:13:36 -0400   Ok, folks -   I need a rational - not emotional - argument here for why pipes.   An ELCA church I used to work at as secretary (and I still play their = funerals, weddings, and occasional Sundays) is at a crossroads with their impacted, = split- chancel Moller. Their service guy, a very capable Moller-knowledgeable technician, tells them that the organ needs releathering. Which it does. = And other stuff. (The organ suffered from years of maintenance that was done lovingly, but not thoroughly, before they found the new technician.)   Word came the other day that, as the church looks at the price tag of = rebuilding this instrument, they're considering a digital. Horrors!!!!! (And to the = best of my knowledge, the current musician supports this.)   Now: I know we ALL prefer pipes over anything electronic, but I need some = sound reasoning that I can give them for why NOT go digital.   Here's their thinking at the moment: 1. The Moller is so installed that parts of it cannot be accessed, = hence the term "impacted". 2. The price tag. For what it will take to bring the instrument back = to its 1960's glorious self (including screechy mixtures), they could = purchase a decent, bigger-sounding digital. 3. Service - While there is a lot of mechanical stuff that can go = wrong in the pipe organ, there is minimal mechanical stuff in a digital.   Yes, I know I'm opening up THAT can of worms again. But if we can agree = to (1) keep this civil and (2) stick to facts, not opinions or emotions, this = could be a productive discussion.   Thanks for any input as I build my case. Please give concrete examples.   --Shirley    
(back) Subject: RE: Life Imitates Art (x-posted; long and tendentious) From: "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:25:15 -0400   Amen to that message.   Someone I know had the misfortune of getting involved with a hybrid built from scratch. His job was to supply and install the used pipes and chests. The parts = were used because the church had seen another church with a similar set-up and they were verbally told the job was "done for $#####" so why couldn't he = do the job for the same price. He realizes now he should have excused himself from the process and recommend a competitor.   Another company supplied the electronic organ and drivers for the chest.   Result? Disaster.   Once the church or who-ever was in charge of the church learned they could adjust the master volume of the electronic organ way down to suit their taste "de jour" they discovered the pipes were far too loud. The unfortunate organ builder was asked twice if he could turn down the volume of the pipes!! He had little choice as they refused to make the final payment unless he did. So the pipes are essentially emasculated via the necessary = circumcision accompanying the process of softening the pipes. There's no turning back unless they wish to replace the much shortened pipes when the next person = in charge thinks the organ's too soft.   He warned them, but they knew more than he did.   I doubt they bother even using the pipe portion as the organ has = electronic counter-parts for all the real stops. Andrew Mead      
(back) Subject: Re: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES From: "Scott" <montre1978@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:12:16 -0500   My personal opinion.   I play on a digital now. Although I would prefer pipes, I don't know if I would welcome a Moller from the 60's into my church, or any organ from the 60's. They are full of mixtures and harsh foundations, with rather underscaled foundations.   I would rather think of this another goal. Maybe the church should = consider this easy way out as totally wrong, and go with the idea of a new organ, = or using what good stuff you have on the Moller (if any) and incorporate it into a new instrument. Scott Montgomery 619 W Church St. Champaign, IL 61820 217.390.0158 www.scottmontgomerymusic.net    
(back) Subject: Re: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES From: <reedstop@charter.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:33:13 +0000   Shirley, I think you hit on the major points already. Aside from the = puritan and aesthetic (and sometimes even religious) reasons, I'm not sure = that a digital wouldn't be the way to go also. The question becomes: Is = it practical to rebuild an instrument as you described? What about = completely removing the Moller as it is, retain the pipework, and build = new chests? What about the cost of a whole new instrument? Is there = space to expand the current instrument (with our without the above = suggestions?) Could you get more bang for the buck with a big digital? = What's the church population like? Is there money in them there pews?   As everyone else, I agree that a pipe instrument would be preferred. I = think before one decides on one direction or another, you need to examine = what the long range plans are. Is the pipe instrument decent for recital? = Would more ranks make it more versatile? I would fully recommend = "thinking outside the box", drawing up the ideal plan, and then seeing = what can be done to finance it the best way the church can go. Shoot for = the stars   I'm facing a similar situation at the church I play for. There just isn't = hardly any room to put in a full Swell division as I'd like to do (Bunjes, = Great + Chor + Pedal right now). As our situation is, digital stops make = more sense.   Good luck! Jeff     > From: "Shirley" <pnst.shirley@verizon.net> > Date: 2004/07/13 Tue PM 03:13:36 GMT > To: pipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org>, organchat@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES > > Ok, folks - > > I need a rational - not emotional - argument here for why pipes. > > An ELCA church I used to work at as secretary (and I still play their = funerals, > weddings, and occasional Sundays) is at a crossroads with their = impacted, split- > chancel Moller. Their service guy, a very capable Moller-knowledgeable > technician, tells them that the organ needs releathering. Which it = does. And > other stuff. (The organ suffered from years of maintenance that was = done > lovingly, but not thoroughly, before they found the new technician.) > > Word came the other day that, as the church looks at the price tag of = rebuilding > this instrument, they're considering a digital. Horrors!!!!! (And to = the best of my > knowledge, the current musician supports this.) > > Now: I know we ALL prefer pipes over anything electronic, but I need = some sound > reasoning that I can give them for why NOT go digital. > > Here's their thinking at the moment: > 1. The Moller is so installed that parts of it cannot be accessed, = hence the > term "impacted". > 2. The price tag. For what it will take to bring the instrument = back to its > 1960's glorious self (including screechy mixtures), they could = purchase a > decent, bigger-sounding digital. > 3. Service - While there is a lot of mechanical stuff that can go = wrong in > the pipe organ, there is minimal mechanical stuff in a digital. > > Yes, I know I'm opening up THAT can of worms again. But if we can agree = to (1) > keep this civil and (2) stick to facts, not opinions or emotions, this = could be a > productive discussion. > > Thanks for any input as I build my case. Please give concrete examples. > > --Shirley > > "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> > >    
(back) Subject: RE: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES From: "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:50:47 -0500   In regards to deciding between digital and pipe instruments, one issue = that always interests me is whether or not it's appropriate to have a = digital instrument that sounds like it ought to be in a vast space = installed in a small church. If there isn't room for a cathedral-sized = organ, should we install a digital instrument that sounds like one?   Perhaps there's something to be said by space limitations in small = churches: they lend themselves to small pipe organs. And if that's what = the space dictates, isn't that what we ought to present, whether it's = digital or pipe?   Just some random thoughts, for which responses will be welcome...   Timothy Daniel Hancock=20 =A0 Dean, Springfield AGO Chapter=09 Organist, Grace United Methodist Church Organist, St. Agnes Cathedral Church (417) 521-6148 or dhancock@brpae.com     -----Original Message----- From: reedstop@charter.net [mailto:reedstop@charter.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:33 PM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES   I'm facing a similar situation at the church I play for. There just = isn't hardly any room to put in a full Swell division as I'd like to do = (Bunjes, Great + Chor + Pedal right now). As our situation is, digital = stops make more sense. =20   Good luck! Jeff     =20    
(back) Subject: Re: Lead time to prepare accompaniments: what's reasonable? From: "Stephen Best" <sbest@borg.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:45:34 -0400   A very wise teacher once suggested that there are those of us who are "one week" learners, those of us who are "one month" learners, those of us who are "six month learners," and so on..... He was suggesting that we as organists need to know our capabilities. If we are part of the "one week" group, then we don't need a month to learn whatever piece is presented to us. If we're part of the "one month" group, then we need to plan far enough ahead so that whatever we have to play gets adequate preparation time. This teacher suggested that our learning speed is essentially built in and cannot be hurried along faster than our capabilities allow, even though over the long term we can speed up our learning process somewhat.   Now that I'm a teacher with many years of experience, I can affirm the validity of what this individual said. I've had students who can learn the most difficult pieces in astonishingly little time. Others require months to learn the same pieces. Some of us have incredible God-given gifts when it comes to sight-reading. Those of us (myself included) whose sight-reading skills are more limited can still play those difficult pieces, but we require more time to perform them successfully.   Another observation is that those who are the quick learners are not necessarily the most effective performers. Occasionally those who are the "speed readers" have a tough time living with a piece long enough to communicate its heart and soul. I assume all of us have heard dazzling accurate sight-readers whose performances lack depth and warmth, and one of the most difficult teaching experiences I have ever had was with such an individual.   So -- in answer to your question about what is a reasonable length of time to learn an accompaniment (or a hymn, or a piece), I've got to say that YOUR reasonable time may not be same as mine. You need to know know much time you require for learning, try to plan accordingly, and not be afraid to say "I'm sorry. I can't learn this piece in this short a time."   Steve Best in Utica, NY     Emily Adams wrote:   >I was simply looking for some feedback on what kinds >of time frames are considered usual and/or typical for preparing >accompaniments. >          
(back) Subject: Re: Lead time to prepare accompaniments: what's reasonable? From: <DERREINETOR@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:26:17 EDT   If I had to, for political reasons, allow a member of the congretation to schedule soloists during the summer (or at any other time), I would = request a meeting and find out the who, when and where. I'd get phone numbers, and = contact those persons myself and find out what their intentions were, rep wise, = and let my parishioner feel as though he or she were "in charge". But, I'd set =   certain guidelines and deadlines. Then, after the summer, I'd have a very = pointed heart-to-heart with my Rector/Pastor, as to how to use (or not use) the parisioner's contacts without being at his mercy. Just a thought.   Bill H Boston  
(back) Subject: RE: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:40:40 -0400   At 12:50 PM 2004-07-13 -0500, you wrote: >In regards to deciding between digital and pipe instruments, one issue >that always interests me is whether or not it's appropriate to have a >digital instrument that sounds like it ought to be in a vast space >installed in a small church. If there isn't room for a cathedral-sized >organ, should we install a digital instrument that sounds like one? > >Perhaps there's something to be said by space limitations in small >churches: they lend themselves to small pipe organs. And if that's what >the space dictates, isn't that what we ought to present, whether it's >digital or pipe? > >Just some random thoughts, for which responses will be welcome... > >Timothy Daniel Hancock > >Dean, Springfield AGO Chapter >Organist, Grace United Methodist Church >Organist, St. Agnes Cathedral Church >(417) 521-6148 or dhancock@brpae.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: reedstop@charter.net [mailto:reedstop@charter.net] >Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:33 PM >To: PipeChat >Subject: Re: Rational Argument (x posted) WITH GUIDELINES > >I'm facing a similar situation at the church I play for. There just = isn't >hardly any room to put in a full Swell division as I'd like to do = (Bunjes, >Great + Chor + Pedal right now). As our situation is, digital stops make =   >more sense. > >Good luck! >Jeff   Timothy,   Being in the electronic organ business, and having a good idea of pipe organs, having studied on them, and having tuned them, etc., I can say this, there is no electronic organ that sounds and behaves exactly like a =   pipe organ. And for good reason. You just do not see expensive 10 or 15 stop electronic organs. Reason: there is no market for them. When = people think electronic organ they think lots of stops, lots of toys, etc. So electronic instruments tend to be compromise products, in other words, how =   many stops, keyboards, etc. for a certain amount of bucks.   My guess is if you want a really good digital instrument, think the equivalent price of a pipe organ for at least the console part. Figure also on average 2 audio channels per stop, preferably more. Also each = stop must have own samples on a per note basis, or if synthesis is used sufficient hardware to generate each stop and note independently without going into resource sharing, flexable voicing capabilities etc. By the time all is said and done even a modest specification done electronically, =   is not cheap. And then they are still not as satisfying as a pipe organ.   My experience is that pipes radiate tone differently than speakers so fundamentally they will be somewhat different. Also playing more than 1 pipe sound through the same speaker is going to sound differently than separate pipes sounding. Also for whatever reason good pipe stops seem to =   be richer in colour than digital counterparts, especially when you mix = them together. I suppose part of the problem is phase cancellation in = speakers, and is not present in pipes.   I know it is the American way to want 50 digital stops in preference to 10 =   or 15 pipe stops, but still the pipes will outperform the digital.   As technology improves, things will no doubt change, but unless the mass manufacturers change their approach to the way they build their instruments, things will not change much for the better, at least for church situations. You cannot defeat the laws of physics.   The other valid argument about electronic organs is that they are more or less a period piece of technology. As such an instrument built this year will forever be linked to 2004, not 2020 or whatever. That means that electronic components and such may be hard to get after 15 or 20 years. Speakers also tend not to last forever.   I am not saying there is no place for electronic organs. Just that very few of them actually come close to a good pipe organ, most fall quite short, and many installs are just poor excuses for instruments, as a lot = of electronic organ vendors are not even organ people.   If you want an electronic organ to sound good in a small church, just = think what size pipe organ you would put in there. If a 15 stop pipe organ is satisfactory in a room, why would you put in a 60 stop digital, with artificial reverb and 2 or 3 32' stops. You are then moving quickly away from your model or the ideal.   In any case, whether pipe or electronic make sure the setup and voicing is =   done correctly.   Cheers,   Arie V.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arie Vandenberg Classic Organbuilders ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com Tel.: 905-475-1263