PipeChat Digest #4898 - Friday, November 12, 2004
 
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Really Weird Font
  by "John Jarvis" <jljarvis@comcast.net>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@earthlink.net>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Re: the instruments vs. the music
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:42:05 -0600   Hello, Ross, et al:   > One thing I fail to understand is why people try to make a distinction > between "electronic" and "digital" instruments. It's a nonsense. When folk > speak of a "digital computer" organ, they are speaking of electronic sound > generation and amplification through loudspeakers, exactly as has been going > on for 70 years.   The difference is in the way the sounds are generated in the beginning (inside the organ). This is a sub-division of the basic electric device. If it is "electronic," this means that the sound is generated by analog circuits. If it is "digital," the sounds are produced by replaying recorded sounds from an internal memory bank. These sounds were made by recording wind blown pipes. This digitization of the wind blown pipe sounds has improved over the past 25 years, too.   However, there is another significant differentiation. If the organ is classified as "digital," the method of making the sound may be from one of two sources.   a. Digital Sampling   b. Digital Synthesis.   Digital sampling is done as described above. Keep in mind that there is a tremendous difference between a digitally sampled Casio (WalMart version $129.95, plus tax) and the Allen (pick whichever marketing name you wish) priced to represent a product with a profit for the entire food chain from Macungie, PA, to the end user; similar for Rodgers and Johannus. Might I suggest that the current prize for superbly sampled sound belongs to Marshall & Ogletree, as evidenced by their work at Trinity Church, Wall Street. Their research and prototype experience demonstrated that the sampled sounds being used in the present organs from digital companies is way too short and too limited in frequency range and response. They have also demostrated that the methods of producing the sound waves in the air space of the meeting room have degenerated in the competitive hi-fi products, and they have returned to "full-bodied" speaker systems that hint at the kind of sophistication that future speaker systems will bring to digital organs.   Digital synthesis is done by a different mode. The sounds are not recorded samples of a pipe organ sound stored in memory. Synthesis develops its sounds every time a note is pressed in combination with a stop being ON in any rank, under control of a software program that governs how the sound is generated from the moment any sound begins until the note completely dies away at the end of the time period required to "play" that sound.   There is a huge difference between the complexity of a program as used in the hardware developed by the Musicom company of Jolly Ole England and the original synthesis of the Rockwell company when Allen Organ Company decided to convert their analog (electronic) type of sound production to the computer organ, ca. approximately 1972.   Sythesis is not new, but it really begain to flower in its potential when memory became more affordable. To get fine sound from synthesis, the "voicer" must be thoroughly familiar with the sound properties of wind blown pipes, as surely as a pipe voicer must be saturated with voicing techniques when he applies the tools of his trade. There is no room for guessing what a pipe should sound like in synthesis. However, a person adequately experienced with voicing pipes can achieve desirable, authentic pipe sound by varying the software instructions, often when he might reach physicl limits of the variation on a wind blown pipe. Finesse becomes a slam-dunk (American round ball term, aka basketball) when the software controls are fully developed.   I suspect that we are still in the learning stage for digital synthesis, and that the software development may continue for another 20-30 years, or more, and that a parallel effort will be realized by increasing the audio sound production (including the possibilities of speakers, the designs of which still lie in the future) will expand the sound scape for better sounding organs, yet to be built.   Saying that your grandfather's Model A Ford automobile is no better than a modern mid-sized sedan (ca. 2004) is a weak analogy for disliking the directness of controls on the Model A. Even so, I will drive a modern automobiel for many reasons other than the directness of the controls in a Model A.   As surely as we have grown with the development of safer, more comfortable controls and amenities in automotive transportation, let's not think that the engineers will not continue developing newer, better automobiles in the future.   Now for the application. Digital sampling and digital synthesis are truely in their infantile development, if you compare the sounds, for they have not yet reached the stage (for the 95 percentile group on the market) that will emerge when the technologies pass puberty and adolescence to give us an idea what they might be capable of when they are fully mature.   In the meanwhile, I, as only one person representing the "infantile" digital sonoroties available, urge the pipe organ people to continue thinking about how they will continue to finesse the product they already have, and, perhaps, learn how to make them more affordable and desirable to those who must sacrifice their finances to provide adequate offerings to buy them.   Gotta go. I have some key contacts to clean so the pipes will play when the organist pushes the keys Sunday.   Appreciatively, F. Richard Burt     ..      
(back) Subject: Re: Really Weird Font From: "John Jarvis" <jljarvis@comcast.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:07:49 -0800   The website for the San Francisco Symphony Guild has a font available = (Cage Silence) that when I first read about it put me into hysterical laughter. It is a font inspired by Cage's 4'33" work and as the website says "this font will not appear on screen or in print". I can just see one of my students turning in a blank sheet of paper and telling me that they did their research report using the Cage Silence font on their computer and didn't understand why I couldn't grade it!   Cage Silence - inspired by Cage's seminal work 4'33", this font will not appear on screen or print.      
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:12:56 EST     In a message dated 11/12/04 2:19:01 PM, ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com avers:   << Sometimes you have a person objecting to the term "pipe organ" unless = it is a mechanical action pipe organ. Otherwise they are referred to as an = "electric pipe organ.">>   I've never heard anybody make that distinction in my entire life. Ever. It's odd how such tales confuse things more than necessary. Oh, well, you learn something new every day, even if it is disturbing.       ****************************************************************** "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>       ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Received: from rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com = [172.18.141.66]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v103.7) with ESMTP id MAILINYD42-1fd41950c82151; = Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:18:59 -0500 Received: from pipechat.org (lists.pensacola-ago.org [64.219.7.201]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v103.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYD29-1fd41950c82151; = Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:18:34 -0500 Received: from ClassicOrgan.com by pipechat.org with SMTP; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:15:38 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20041112140757.02056d80@mail.the-wire.com> X-Sender: ArtisanClassic2001@pop.mtun.phub.net.cable.rogers.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:16:50 -0500 To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> From: Arie Vandenberg <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs In-Reply-To: <20041112184448.UMUY56.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@TheShieling1> References: < <333E5CE358FD32468FEB3ECF66BA4B5144ECFB@srv-exchange.brpae.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"; format=3Dflowed Reply-To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sender: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Precedence: List List-Software: LetterRip Pro 4.05b10 by LetterRip Software, LLC. List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> X-LR-SENT-TO: aol.com X-AOL-IP: 64.219.7.201 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:0:0: X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0   >>    
(back) Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:12:52 -0600   At 12:52 PM 11/12/2004, Ross writes:   >Here in New Zealand these days, a 1m Estey, even with some borer >(wood-eating insect) in it of just 2 sets of reeds plus usual = derivatives, >will sell for $300 to $600 in an antique shop. Ludicrous, but true.     Hey, Ross...? How much would it cost to ship an Estey to New Zealand? (are there quantity discounts for such things?) And, do you = have a loading dock? We might need to talk bidness here.......!!   ;-) ;-) ;-)   Tim    
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:18:38 +0800   My guess would be that the cost of building reed organs from new would be considerably more that buying an electronic organ of similar speci. = Building a reed organ like those of 100 years ago would be labour intensive - lots = of parts, and the reeds of brass would cost a good deal to manufacture these days and the cost of labour is now very high here, $25 an hour for a = worker at least, with some earning up to $50 an hour. There IS a market for the old reed organ models here and some fetch quite = a high price. There used to be thousands of these instruments in our = churches years ago and it is easy to understand why they were so popular. They made = a sustained organ sound which was suitable for accompanying singing, they = did not need electricity (lacking in many small country towns) and the sound = was quite pleasant. I played some of these for many years in church services = and enjoyed the experience. Some had quite large resources. Bell, Cornish, Estey, Mason and Hamlin were probably the most common here. The Cornish = with reeds to 2' were quite musical instruments. The repertoire of music available was quite comprehensive though much of = it was of doubtful musical quality. Don't knock the reed organ; it served its purpose and is now a collectors' =   item over here. Bob Elms.   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:33 PM Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs     > > Why is it, if Harmoniums and Reed Organs are supposedly such musical > instruments, no one builds them, and no one buys them. I get at least = one > phone call a month (it used to be more), about the availability of a = reed > organ, and people can't even give them away. I tell them to check out > antique dealers, and the dealers say they already have one or more on = the > floor. > Arie V.    
(back) Subject: Re: the instruments vs. the music From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:28:37 EST     In a message dated 11/12/04 5:05:35 PM, remalone@btinternet.com enquires:   << When are we going to listen to the music, rather than the instruments? = >> Richard (UK)   That is, in fact, a large part of what is behind this discussion. If the instrument cannot perform the music, or its idiosyncratic attributes prevent the musician from exercising and exhibiting their skill = and artistry, then the music suffers as a result of the instrument's failures, = and the musical experience is destroyed. Let us distinguish between an organ of limited scope (few stops) and = an instrument of limited quality (poor repetition, sluggish attack, difficult =   action, inadequate winding). Yes, philosophically, the concept that musical compositions are = conceived as perfect entities and that their unassailable architecture (such as = Bach's creations) should transcend the medium that conveys them is wonderful, but = we must be realistic. If an instrument cannot do its job mechanically OR = tonally -- whether generated by pipes, free reeds, suction, or math and = electricity -- it has failed.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City http://www.glucknewyork.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:33:05 -0500   Richard,   Is this part of a book you are writing. Maybe the preface to one?   The only place where I differ from what you write is in saying synthesis tone generation requires a lot of memory. I would say instead it takes a lot of computational power (computer horsepower). Sampling technology benefits from large quantities of low-cost memory.   Arie V       At 04:42 PM 2004-11-12 -0600, you wrote: >Hello, Ross, et al: > > > One thing I fail to understand is why people try to make a >distinction > > between "electronic" and "digital" instruments. It's a nonsense. >When folk > > speak of a "digital computer" organ, they are speaking of >electronic sound > > generation and amplification through loudspeakers, exactly as >has been going > > on for 70 years. > >The difference is in the way the sounds are generated in the >beginning (inside the organ). This is a sub-division of the basic >electric device. If it is "electronic," this means that the sound >is generated by analog circuits. If it is "digital," the sounds >are >produced by replaying recorded sounds from an internal >memory bank. These sounds were made by recording wind >blown pipes. This digitization of the wind blown pipe >sounds has improved over the past 25 years, too. > >However, there is another significant differentiation. If the >organ is classified as "digital," the method of making the >sound may be from one of two sources. > > a. Digital Sampling > > b. Digital Synthesis. > >Digital sampling is done as described above. Keep in >mind that there is a tremendous difference between a >digitally sampled Casio (WalMart version $129.95, >plus tax) and the Allen (pick whichever marketing >name you wish) priced to represent a product with >a profit for the entire food chain from Macungie, PA, >to the end user; similar for Rodgers and Johannus. >Might I suggest that the current prize for superbly >sampled sound belongs to Marshall & Ogletree, >as evidenced by their work at Trinity Church, >Wall Street. Their research and prototype experience >demonstrated that the sampled sounds being used >in the present organs from digital companies is way >too short and too limited in frequency range and >response. They have also demostrated that the >methods of producing the sound waves in the >air space of the meeting room have degenerated >in the competitive hi-fi products, and they have >returned to "full-bodied" speaker systems that >hint at the kind of sophistication that future >speaker systems will bring to digital organs. > >Digital synthesis is done by a different mode. The >sounds are not recorded samples of a pipe organ >sound stored in memory. Synthesis develops its >sounds every time a note is pressed in combination >with a stop being ON in any rank, under control >of a software program that governs how the sound >is generated from the moment any sound begins >until the note completely dies away at the end of >the time period required to "play" that sound. > >There is a huge difference between the complexity >of a program as used in the hardware developed >by the Musicom company of Jolly Ole England >and the original synthesis of the Rockwell company >when Allen Organ Company decided to convert >their analog (electronic) type of sound production >to the computer organ, ca. approximately 1972. > >Sythesis is not new, but it really begain to flower >in its potential when memory became more >affordable. To get fine sound from synthesis, >the "voicer" must be thoroughly familiar with >the sound properties of wind blown pipes, as >surely as a pipe voicer must be saturated with >voicing techniques when he applies the tools >of his trade. There is no room for guessing >what a pipe should sound like in synthesis. >However, a person adequately experienced >with voicing pipes can achieve desirable, >authentic pipe sound by varying the software >instructions, often when he might reach >physicl limits of the variation on a wind blown >pipe. Finesse becomes a slam-dunk >(American round ball term, aka basketball) >when the software controls are fully developed. > >I suspect that we are still in the learning >stage for digital synthesis, and that the >software development may continue for >another 20-30 years, or more, and that >a parallel effort will be realized by increasing >the audio sound production (including the >possibilities of speakers, the designs of >which still lie in the future) will expand >the sound scape for better sounding organs, >yet to be built. > >Saying that your grandfather's Model A Ford >automobile is no better than a modern mid-sized >sedan (ca. 2004) is a weak analogy for disliking >the directness of controls on the Model A. >Even so, I will drive a modern automobiel for >many reasons other than the directness of >the controls in a Model A. > >As surely as we have grown with the >development of safer, more comfortable >controls and amenities in automotive >transportation, let's not think that the >engineers will not continue developing >newer, better automobiles in the future. > >Now for the application. Digital sampling >and digital synthesis are truely in their >infantile development, if you compare the >sounds, for they have not yet reached the >stage (for the 95 percentile group on the >market) that will emerge when the technologies >pass puberty and adolescence to give us an >idea what they might be capable of when >they are fully mature. > >In the meanwhile, I, as only one person representing >the "infantile" digital sonoroties available, urge the >pipe organ people to continue thinking about how >they will continue to finesse the product they already >have, and, perhaps, learn how to make them more >affordable and desirable to those who must sacrifice >their finances to provide adequate offerings to buy >them. > >Gotta go. I have some key contacts to clean so >the pipes will play when the organist pushes the >keys Sunday. > >Appreciatively, >F. Richard Burt   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arie Vandenberg Classic Organbuilders ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com Tel.: 905-475-1263      
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:35:21 +0800   Why compare the reed organ with the pipe organ? They were an instrument in =   their own right even though something of an antique these days. They had their own repertoire and it was a valid one. There were plenty of makes of =   single manual which did a very good job, were pleasant of sound and had a good complement of reed sets. They are now collectors' items and some = fetch quite high prices. Bob Elms.   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:14 AM Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs     > There are several problems with reed organs. Most are in a relatively > useless format (one manual, no pedals) for most people's use. They have = a > reputation (and actually fairly well deserved) for developing windleaks > that > can be expensive to fix. The ones that actually do have the potential = to > be > useful (the 2 manual and pedal ones) have weird dimensions, heavy key > action, are tedious to repair, etc, etc. However, I do see people > regularly > spend positive money to obtain these. > > But the one-manual, foot pumped jobs? You can't play piano music on = them, > and you also can't play most organ music on them (at least any music = that > has a pedal part). Unless of course you have an assistant that can play =   > the > pedal part for you, which sometimes actually can work pretty well. So > they're just not useful for most people. There are 10 reed organs for > every > 1 person that wants one. I would never pay money for one, but would > consider taking a free one. > > I have considered, and may someday do it, taking the reeds from 3 or = more > reed organs and building one 2 manual and pedal (with 3 divisions) organ > using the reeds. If the console was built to AGO or European specs, I > think > people would find it useful... at least for practicing. Especially if I > could figure out a way to make the key action more like a tracker. One = of > the reasons the action on a reed organ feels weird is the the wind is > actually trying to open the pallet, whereas on a tracker organ the wind = is > holding the pallet closed, giving you the "pluck". > > I'm full of other money-losing ideas too, if anyone's interested LOL > > Andy > > > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:33:09 -0500, Arie Vandenberg wrote >> Hi, >> >> Why is it, if Harmoniums and Reed Organs are supposedly such musical >> instruments, no one builds them, and no one buys them. I get at >> least one phone call a month (it used to be more), about the >> availability of a reed organ, and people can't even give them away. >> I tell them to check out antique dealers, and the dealers say they >> already have one or more on the floor. >> >> Surely there must be folk or small churches out there who want them, >> but I don't know where they are. It is a shame that they end up at >> the dump. >> >> It seems that there are many more who will pay big bucks on an >> electronic instrument than take possession of an organ that costs >> next to nothing. >> >> Arie V. >> >> At 08:52 AM 2004-11-12 -0600, you wrote: > > A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service > PO Box 111 > Burlington, VT 05402 > (802)578-3936 > Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com > > ****************************************************************** > "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: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:59:22 +1300     >Hey, Ross...? How much would it cost to ship an Estey to New Zealand? (are there quantity discounts for such things?) And, do you = have a loading dock? We might need to talk bidness here.......!!   ;-) ;-) ;-)   Several $100s. That's the big problem NZ has - freight of any kind of = goods, including human personages, costs a fortune. Sadly.       Ross    
(back) Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:56:52 -0000   I am a computer expert, and there are ANALOGUE computers as well as = DIGITAL computers. You probably won't ever see one, but there are such things. = They are used by design engineers and suchlike to solve complex differential equations to find out how bridges will react when hurricanes hit them, = or how a new car's suspension will behave when the wheel goes over a = pothole 1' deep etc.=20 There is a similar relationship between them as with analogue and = digital organs. Analogue computers represent quantities by varying voltages, = whereas digital computers represent quantities by discrete numbers like 1, 2, 3 = etc. Similarly Digital Organs represent the sound wave forms by numerical approximations to the sample heights of the waveform, whereas analogue organs used to mix waveforms represented by varying voltages to produce their sounds. It's a big subject. Analogue organs try to synthesize the sound of a real organ, Digital = ones try to replay recordings of a real organ, neither are totally successful because they replay through a very few speakers and amplifier channels = and do not have hundreds of sound sources distributed in space like the = pipes in a chamber or case. But they do have advantages of cost and space over = pipe organs and if the sound is acceptable they make a reasonable substitute.   Will Light Coventry UK (Not wanting to revive that perennial chestnut, the pipe versus digital debate.)   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TheShieling Sent: 12 November 2004 18:50 To: 'PipeChat' Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs   >Pipe organs, electronic organs, digital organs, reed organs--   One thing I fail to understand is why people try to make a distinction between "electronic" and "digital" instruments. It's a nonsense. When = folk speak of a "digital computer" organ, they are speaking of electronic = sound generation and amplification through loudspeakers, exactly as has been = going on for 70 years.=20   Too, it seems that "digital computer" is a silly term. I'm no computer expert, but I thought that all computers work on a digital system.=20   A good friend of mine, MA MusB FRCO ChM ADCM LRAM, always insists that = the instrument he plays every week is not an electronic but a "digital = computer organ". In reality it's a 2m Allen and is every bit as electronic as the cheapest Conn spinet of 45 years ago.   Ross=20     ****************************************************************** "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: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:58:14 -0500   Well, sure, absolutely, but that's my point exactly. Reed organs are = great for playing reed organ music, but the number of people who want to play music written specifically for reed organs is very small compared to the number reed organs available Andy   On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:26 -0600, Daniel Hancock wrote > >But the one-manual, foot pumped jobs? You can't play piano music on > them, > and you also can't play most organ music on them (at least any music > that > has a pedal part). Unless of course you have an assistant that can play > the > pedal part for you, which sometimes actually can work pretty well. > So they're just not useful for most people. There are 10 reed > organs for every 1 person that wants one. I would never pay money > for one, but would consider taking a free one. > > Ah, but that's the point. All that positively beautiful harmonium music > is easily played on those finer-built, church-model, one-manual, > foot-pumped jobs! > > Daniel >   A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com