PipeChat Digest #4899 - Saturday, November 13, 2004
 
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Paul Smith" <kipsmith@getgoin.net>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Quoting Williams and Owen
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
organ music without pedals
  by "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net>
reed organs
  by "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net>
RE: organ music without pedals
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
smokin' Allens
  by "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: weird font
  by "Burgie" <beejayusa@cox.net>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: A tiny requiem
  by <ProOrgo53@aol.com>
Different actions etc
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
 

(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Paul Smith" <kipsmith@getgoin.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:01:14 -0600   Here is a quote from the end of chapter one, The Organ, by Peter Williams and Barbara Owen. It illustrates the narrow mindedness of some Great Organ =   Aficionados:       "Electric actions allow the keyboards to be placed as far from the = pipes as required; unfortunately they also deprive the organist of control over =   pipe speech, and in practice they satisfy only those builders whose tonal ideals, like their instruments, are virtually outside the realm of true organs."   That means that all the E.M. Skinner organs, and all the Mollers and Casavants built with electrical wires between the key and the pipe are "outside the realm", according to these Great Experts! This is the height = of ignorant snobbery, but we in the organ world have been led around by the nose by such self-appointed "experts" for generations.   Let's step back and mix in a dose of humility before we write each other = out of "the realm of true organs"!   Kip = Smith in Mo. ----- Original Message ----- From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> To: <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>; <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:12 PM Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs     > > 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 > > >> > > > ****************************************************************** > "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: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:12:59 -0600   Daniel Hancock wrote, in part:   >As I see it, the common average parlor organ served two functions. One >was to supply an organ-like instrument to those who weren't quite rich >enough to have a residence pipe organ. The other, more common function >was to compete with the piano. > and I submit that the reed organ did not compete with the piano to any significant degree. Rather in the days when transportation was expensive, and conditions were primitive, the reed organ had two distinct advantages over the piano: since it did not require an iron harp and a heavy soundboard, it was not as heavy as a piano, on the one hand, and on the other, it could go years without needing maintenance, as opposed to a piano which required regular tuning. Though they were made later, my cursory review of the available evidence suggests that the heydey of the harmonium / reed organ was probably in the late XIXth century and that the piano had begun to supplant it around 1900, or so, as transportation got better.   ns  
(back) Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:39:06 +1300     > "Electric actions allow the keyboards to be placed as far from the pipes as required; unfortunately they also deprive the organist of control over =   pipe speech, and in practice they satisfy only those builders whose tonal ideals, like their instruments, are virtually outside the realm of true organs."   >That means that all the E.M. Skinner organs, and all the Mollers and Casavants built with electrical wires between the key and the pipe are "outside the realm", according to these Great Experts! This is the height = of   ignorant snobbery, but we in the organ world have been led around by the nose by such self-appointed "experts" for generations.   Yes, indeed. There are many exceedingly-fine organs with electric action. Thinking of large organs, I wonder how the amazing instrument at St Paul's in London could have anything else but electric action. Thinking of = smaller organs, I have in mind magnificent instruments like the Gloucester = Cathedral rebuild by Nicholson. And I can think of even a 3rk unit organ I know, extended to about 24 stops over 2m & Ped. It is a delightful instrument, able to play a great deal of "proper" organ music very well indeed, and is = a good accompanimental organ for the 500 people that throng the parish = church it is in. Not true organs? To use an old expression - pshaw!   Ross    
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:57:11 +0800   Yes Ross. I play regularly a 6 rank extension organ, an ingeniously = designed instrument by a West Australian builder who specialized in building small extension organs in direct competition with electronic organs for = churches.   This instrument has three ranks extended on Great and another three ranks extended on the Swell. This disposition allows the Swell and great to have =   competely different sounds. A good English chorus reed on the Swell (Horn from Rogers of the UK) with derived upper work gives a good English "full swell" sound. Gillian Weir gave recitals on it on two different occasions playing Cesar Franck, Reubke's 94th Psalm, Bach Trio Sonatas- you name it. =   There is no sense of missing notes, or in fact that this is really a small =   organ. It has a big sound and can provide plenty of "fire". For accompaniment of hearty hymn singing, it is ideal. This church could not have afforded to pay for a "straight" organ of equivalent resources, and what they got is infinitely better than said = small "straight" organ. Yes! I have read recent posts proclaiming the virtues of =   single ranks of such beauty that the writer could play all day on just one =   stop, enthralled by the sound! Bunkum!! Boredom!! Sorry but that is true,. =   It is easy to extol what you have never had to play week after week! Bob Elms.     ----- Original Message ----- From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> To: "'PipeChat'" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs   .. And I can think of even a 3rk unit organ I know, > extended to about 24 stops over 2m & Ped. It is a delightful instrument, > able to play a great deal of "proper" organ music very well indeed, and = is > a > good accompanimental organ for the 500 people that throng the parish > church > it is in. Not true organs? To use an old expression - pshaw! > > Ross >    
(back) Subject: Quoting Williams and Owen From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:08:08 EST   Please remember that the book in question dates from 1988, and a new appreciation of assisted-action organs has surfaced in recent times. Neither author is a full-time organbuilder. Peoples' views certainly change, and can change radically. One pillar of the American organ conservation community (a rabid tracker-backer in 1988) recently recommended the replacement of the last = and best combination action refined and personally regulated by Ernest M. Skinner = with a solid-state mechanism, even though the action in question was in fine = operating condition.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City  
(back) Subject: organ music without pedals From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:53:48 -0800   Here we go again (chuckle) ... and once again I plead,   "GO TO THE LITERATURE."   No, I'm not advocating building pipe organs without pedals, but in reference to small organs and harmoniums, there's a HUGE body of literature that CAN be played without pedals, and SHOULD be commended to pianists who are drafted to serve as organists in small churches, whether the instrument be pipe, reed, or electronic.   The VAST majority of OUP's "Tallis To Wesley" series doesn't require pedals, and you can't accuse it of being boring ... it encompasses the better part of three centuries of English organ music.   Off the top of my head:   The ENTIRE French baroque repertoire, except for Plein Jeu pieces and the occasional Elevation piece with a few pedal notes. That leaves an AWFUL lot of music, and a LOT of it can be played on one manual, even the duos, if the organ has divided stops.   The small version of Clavieruebung III ... some are easy; some are not; two of my favorites are the fughettas on the Ten Commandments and the Creed ... the former needs a REALLY snarly little reed combination (grin); the small version of Vater unser, played on an exquisite 4' flute (at pitch) with tremulant is a gem ... and it's a good thing ... only a handful of organists in the world can bring off the large version (grin) ... I think that's THE hardest piece in all of organ literature to play MUSICALLY.   Bach - the misc. chorale preludes - vol. VI of the W/S, or whatever edition you use   Bach - the Partitas, except for a few movements   Bach - the duets from Clavieruebung III   Bach - F Major Pastorale (except the first movement, and a page-turner COULD play the pedal part for that) (grin)   The Church Organist's Golden Treasury is just that ... a TREASURE-TROVE .... and MANY of those partitas don't require pedals   Fiori musicali - Frescobaldi - have a page-turner hold down the occasional pedal-point (grin)   L'Organiste, Postludes Libres, Heures Mystique, etc. ... we've already talked about those.   The volumes of Father Rossini's "The Liturgical Organist" marked "Longer Compositions" have a LOT of good, EASY music by recognized composers, mostly on two staves, and a fair number of his own transcriptions from Corelli Trio Sonatas, etc. that I've never seen anywhere else.   Concordia's (endless) Parish Organist series   We're not talking Washington Cathedral here (grin) ... I'm talking about ACCESSIBLE literature for SMALL organs and/or AMATEUR organists ... granted, the small version of Clavieruebung III isn't for the amateur, but it WILL play on a small organ.   Cheers,   Bud              
(back) Subject: reed organs From: "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:13:15 -0600   There was a time in the USA when reed organs were cheaper than pianos (and = a heck of a lot easier to move around!). The reed organ in the parlor was much more common than the piano in the parlor of ordinary folks. My grandmother, for example, was born in 1892 in rural Indiana (in a log = cabin, replaced by a frame home shortly afterwards) in what could be described as subsistence living at best, but they had the reed organ!   Same reason the reed organs were in a lot of rural churches-----cheaper = than a piano to buy and rarely to never needed tuning. Dennis Steckley Lover of Cats, Pipe Organs & 1940-65 Sewing Machines    
(back) Subject: RE: organ music without pedals From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:23:32 +1300     >No, I'm not advocating building pipe organs without pedals, but in reference to small organs and harmoniums, there's a HUGE body of literature that CAN be played without pedals, and SHOULD be commended to pianists who are drafted to serve as organists in small churches, whether the instrument be pipe, reed, or electronic.   >The VAST majority of OUP's "Tallis To Wesley" series doesn't require pedals, and you can't accuse it of being boring ... it encompasses the better part of three centuries of English organ music.   [big snip]   100% agree.   Ross    
(back) Subject: smokin' Allens From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:15:39 -0800   Aren't Allens too YOUNG to smoke? <eg>   A. Nonnie Mousse      
(back) Subject: Re: weird font From: "Burgie" <beejayusa@cox.net> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:18:27 -0800   AOhelL needs to sit on a 32' bourdon. Might actually shake em up a bit. = <eg>   Harry Grove wrote:   > And it took them to Version 9 ? > > Harry Grove > [a.k.a. a somewhat perplexed musicman] > > ________________________________________ > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <Myosotis51@aol.com> > To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:39 PM > Subject: Re: weird font > > >> Hello admin@pipechat.org, >> >> >> In reference to your comment: >> I know that some email programs make it hard to send in Plain Text >> but there is usually a way to do so if you hunt for it. > > >> AOL finally fixed this: In version 9.0, > > > ****************************************************************** > "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: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   When people talk about a pipe organ, they are talking about sound generation by way of pipes and reeds, just as they have done for centuries!   It would be a poorer world without innovation and experiment, and it isn't just a question of electronics v. "natural" sound.   There's nothing "natural" about a Haskel bass or a Compton Polyphone. Many extention organs are more "smoke and mirrors" than "natural." Theatre organs were a direct attempt to imitate the sound of the orchestra, and in fact, came quite close to the sound of a show-band without a single stretch of cat-gut.   A loudspeaker is an entirely natural phenomenon...early ones were acoustic/mechanical, just as organ pipe reeds and diaphones are.   The human ear is acoustic/mechanical/electric, and the ultimate modifier of perceived sound is the most complex computer of all; the human brain.   There's the old saying, "What sort of a noise annoys an oyster?"   Perception is most clouded when prejudice exists, and we can easily delude ourselves into thinking that something is inferior when it clearly isn't. I have played some ghastly pipe organs, which even a mid-range electronic would leave for dead.   The BEST digital computer organs......not to be confused with the analogue computer organ of the human brain....are now good enough to be considered very serious instruments, and rather than knock the efforts of those who have striven to achieve excellence, we should perhaps give the R & D men (and women) the credit they deserve, if only on the basis that they are providing a better range of instruments to replace the terrible electronic sounds of just a couple of decades ago.   Although no techy, even I know that "digital sampling" is a VERY different method of tone generation to that used previously. I have a very high-end DAT recorder (currently in need of repair) which is SO good, that using pro-headphones, it is incredibly close to the original sound source on replay.   Smell the coffee, the digital revolution is here to stay.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- TheShieling <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   > One thing I fail to understand is why people try to > make a distinction > between "electronic" and "digital" instruments. It's > a nonsense.   > I'm no computer > expert, but I thought that all computers work on a > digital system. > > In reality it's a 2m Allen and is every bit > as electronic as the > cheapest Conn spinet of 45 years ago.       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com    
(back) Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:04:00 +1300   >The BEST digital computer organs......not to be confused with the analogue computer organ of the human brain....are now good enough to be considered very serious instruments. Smell the coffee, the digital revolution is here to stay. [big snips]   I'm not denying anything you say here, Colin, but have merely been saying that electronic organs are just that, electronic, and that it is a good omnibus term that does not need further words like "digital" or "digital computer" to mishmash the language any further. As I've said, anything = that needs electronic means to create the sound, amplify it, play it, and distribute it to my ears is in fact electronic. The rest is mere = advertising piffle, whatever the quality of the sound produced. The average organist = who plays electronic instruments couldn't care less whether square waves, tone wheels, digital sampling or Musicom are used, but merely knows that it's = an electronic instrument. When that is known, judgments can be made about the quality of the instrument as a matter of opinion, but it is a statement of fact to call something electronic, not a question of taste or judgment so, in that sense, the term "electronic" is (or should be) completely devoid = of any overtones (no pun intended).   Ross    
(back) Subject: Re: A tiny requiem From: <ProOrgo53@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:12:08 EST   Oh what comfort is the Adagio from Reubke's Sonata. I'm so thrilled that = you were (obviously) smitten by that wonderful, God-sent, music, as well.   You & Rick are in my thoughts, prayers and well-wishes. Have a beautiful weekend.   Dale Rider Independence, MO USA  
(back) Subject: Different actions etc From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:23:03 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I once suggested EP action for St.Bavo, Haarlem.....got a very strange look from Piet Kee!   Seriously, here in the UK, due to financial constrictions.....no one at church anymore......we have almost every type of action known to mankind, including some desperately decrepit pneumatic actioned instruments.   As many know, my regular instrument is newish tracker, whilst I practise on an ageing electronic.   Furthermore, some organs are spread liberally around the buildings in which they are sited, but perhaps not full-blown antiphonal sections as in the US.   If Dr Peter Williams had addressed the REAL point, instead of the phoney one, he might have gained greater credibility.   Divided and spaced out organs mean that the sound arrives from different perspectives and often at different times when a note is depressed.....bad news for co-ordination.   Multiple chests with seperate actions also result in different speech times....not quite so bad for co-ordination, but discernable nonetheless.   HOWEVER, take the Bavo organ as a perfect example of Werkprinzip, there is a discernable difference between the sounds of the Oberwerk arriving at the ear-drum, and the "back of the neck" sound which comes from the Rugpositif a few inches away.   So all this rubbish about "controlling the speech" is a completely spurious argument.   I have played well (and badly) on virtually every type of action, and with enough practise, it is possible to compensate for the defects of almost ANY action or organ layout. It is for this reason that the incumbent organist often gives the finest performances of any.   If Dr Williams had said, "The werkprinzip layout is the one most likely to give a sense of immediacy and intimate control," then I would be able to take his utterings seriously, bearing in mind that I HAVE played organs by Schnitger, Muller and the rest, with the exception of Silbermann.   There may be nothing quite like the security of a good tracker action, and a sense of being in control, but it doesn't mean that the end result is any better for the listener!   Only three times can I recall an organ layout or action causing me grief.   York Minster was a problem, with pipes scattered all over the shop....in the aisle, inside the stone screen, upstairs, downstairs and probably in the ladies chamber.   St Bartholomew's, Armley, (Schulze) before its recent very expensive restoration, was a nightmare, with the action all over the place. It was almost unplayable when I gave a recital on it. The man who had common sense was Stephen Cleobury, who gave the recital after mine....he chose a very straightforward programme of only moderate technical difficulty......it was a wise thing to do.   Halifax PC (pneumatic Harrison & Harrison) more or less thwarted any attempt to co-ordinate the very congested no.2 BACH fugue by Schumann, until a visiting organist said, "Throw off the 16ft Contra Geigen. It's on a seperate chest at the back of the organ."   He was absolutely right, and it just wasn't speaking at the same speed as the main flues.....confusion reigned.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK         --- Paul Smith <kipsmith@getgoin.net> wrote:   > Here is a quote from the end of chapter one, The > Organ, by Peter Williams > and Barbara Owen. > > "Electric actions allow the keyboards to be > placed as far from the pipes > as required; unfortunately they also deprive the > organist of control over > pipe speech, and in practice they satisfy only those > builders whose tonal > ideals, like their instruments, are virtually > outside the realm of true > organs."       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com    
(back) Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:45:41 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I don't want to nit-pick, but I think for a certain younger generation, the term "digital computer synthesis" actually means something.   It is, of course, radically different from "solid-state" and infinitely more complex.   I would ask everyone to consider how big an electronic organ would have to be physically, if it had the same level of electronic circuitry as a modern digital instrument, but using transistors.   The size of a house?   A church?   A concert hall?   A cathedral?   A car production plant like those in Detroit?   I suspect the latter would be close to the truth!   Almost all modern computers which can sit on a lap, have more computing power than NASA did when they landed the Eagle on the moon!   THAT'S the revolution, and I don't care what tag they care to attach to the music technology.....it is astonishing!   How long before an organ "self voices" and adapts to a building?   Dont laugh! It's just around the corner!   In the UK, they have been experimenting with "artificial intellegence," with main-frame computers linked and programmed to have "emotions" and "feelings."   Like their human counterparts, this "super computer" has bad hair days. Sometimes it is feeling stressed or tired.....some days it sulks and will not respond.   We can all worry when the organ says, "I don't like the way you're playing that piece Dave, shall I show you how to do it?"   Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   --- TheShieling <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   I'm not denying anything you say here, Colin > As > I've said, anything that > needs electronic means to create the sound, amplify > it, play it, and > distribute it to my ears is in fact electronic. The > rest is mere advertising > piffle     __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com    
(back) Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:11:37 +1300   >How long before an organ "self voices" and adapts to a building?   And the computer programme would have to be written by someone whose taste in tone and voicing and speech would be guaranteed to be utterly different from mine and yours, I suspect.   Damn it all, it's bad enough with the 2m Allen in the local church here: even if the specification were in pipes and not electronics, it would = still be bad: a cursed Flute Celeste on the Great but no Dulciana. Not a single Principal rank of any pitch below the Mixture in the13-stop Swell. No 4ft Flute on the Pedal. No Larigot anywhere. The Swell string tied permanently to the Celeste. And all kinds of useless tabs like "Romantic tuning off" = and a heap of speakers in the console that have to be deliberately turned off, = a useless General Swell Pedal, pistons by the blasted dozen, non-standard console measurements, pedal springs that had to be adjusted much heavier than the 3oz pressure when the thing was installed, no pins to hold the music on the rack, a music light that is useless as it is under the = music. If this machine could "self-voice" and adapt itself to this building it'd have to commit suicide and arise as something entirely different in every way I can think of.   No, I'd never accept the idea of a self-voicing electronic.   Ross