PipeChat Digest #4901 - Saturday, November 13, 2004
 
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Octaaf" <octaaf@charter.net>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "James Grebe" <pianoman@accessus.net>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Burgie" <beejayusa@cox.net>
RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
Reubke and reed organs
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: Quoting Williams and Owen
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
RE: Quoting Williams and Owen
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
RE: Quoting Williams and Owen
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
RE: Quoting Williams and Owen
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
(no subject)
  by "wesley" <wcool@bellsouth.net>
Re: UN-NATURAL ACTS?
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Actions and pipe speech onset
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: smokin' Allens
  by "Roy Redman" <rredman@imagin.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Octaaf" <octaaf@charter.net> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 04:11:36 -0600   Agreed. :)   T ----- Original Message ----- From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> To: "'PipeChat'" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 2:24 AM Subject: RE: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs     > >Trust me Ross. Colin is correct. The "average" organist that plays a > state > of the art digital organ driven by Musicom computer technology certainly =   > can > > tell the difference! No it's not pipes, but the listener is hard put to > tell > > the difference. FYI there is a huge difference between Digital and = Analog > technology. Advertising has little to do with it. Gee, what else has > changed since the 1960's .... > > Tim, > I wasn't disputing the difference in tone, but stating that I believe = the > word "electronic" is correct, adequate if you prefer that term, for = both > instruments. > > Ross > > > ****************************************************************** > "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: "James Grebe" <pianoman@accessus.net> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:42:24 -0600   Ah, This line was really funny. From SO,2001 James Grebe Piano-Forte Tuning & Repair Creator of Handsome Hardwood Caster Cups (314) 608-4137 WWW.JamesGrebe.com 1526 Raspberry Lane Arnold, MO 63010 BECOME WHAT YOU BELIEVE! > 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 > > > > ****************************************************************** > "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: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:38:03 -0500   Ok, folks, this isn't that complicated. Both sides are being illogical = and stubborn. The word "electronic" covers a lot of stuff. The computer I'm typing on is electronic. You can't tell me the latest Allen or Rodgers is =   less electronic than my less-than-one-year-old laptop. Or my digital camera. Or the computer(s) in my car. My microwave. My TV. My calculator. My Hammond H (you can argue about the tonewheel, but does it have resistors? Capacitors? Tubes? Check, check, and check. Does it = use them in the process of tone generation? Check. Its electronic). Etc Etc =   Etc. ELECTRONIC folks! They are all electronic! Have I made my point? Hello!   On the other hand, it is not insignificant that newer electronic organs = are digital. It is analogous to the different types of action with pipe organs. You can say generally, it is a pipe organ. This covers all = organs that produce all or perhaps most of their sound using pipes. If you want = to get more specific, you say "a tracker organ" or "an electropneumatic organ". Sure they are all pipe organs but the different types of action = are not so insignificant as to be not worth mentioning. I realize in one case =   I'm talking about type of action and in the other I'm talking about = methods of sound production. If you get hung up on this you are missing the point = -- I am only demonstrating how categories and subcategories work.   To say electronic organs are X but digital organs are Y is meaningless, because digital organs are also electronic. I think this is what is annoying people. If you said analog electronic organs are X and digital electronic organs are Y (or you could leave out the "electronic" as an implied word), your credibility would increase immensly.   Andy     A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Burgie" <beejayusa@cox.net> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:41:02 -0800   I've always said "The computer is going to take over the world and kick us out". :o(   James Grebe wrote:   > Ah, > This line was really funny. From SO,2001 > James Grebe > Piano-Forte Tuning & Repair > Creator of Handsome Hardwood Caster Cups > (314) 608-4137 > WWW.JamesGrebe.com > 1526 Raspberry Lane > Arnold, MO 63010 > BECOME WHAT YOU BELIEVE! > >> 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 >> >> >> ****************************************************************** >> "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> >> > > > ****************************************************************** > "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: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:53:24 -0600   I'm not sure you could afford me, but my fee is certainly negotiable. I'm very fond of attending organ recitals, and console time at notable pipe organs, if we can agree on an exchange rate.   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TheShieling   >If we can find a "finder," I could be a "sender" and Ross could be the "seller." Glenda could draw up the contracts, Sebastian could do the repairs and Bud could provide learned information sheets as "flyers."        
(back) Subject: Reubke and reed organs From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:53:24 -0600   Thanks, Dale, for your prayers.   The Reubke is more of an addiction. It's the one piece I haven't rushed out to buy the score, because I'm afraid that looking at the music will break the spell. It is also the one piece I have heard, live and recorded, more than any other in the last year and a half   And just one remark about American parlor reed organs, a fascinating topic. I hate them for no good reason. When I was a very small child, my great-aunt had one in a bedroom, and it frightened me. I had to sleep in that bedroom one night, and I don't think my eyes ever closed. I do not remember if I ever heard one played. It's amazing how one's very early first impressions stick. But as a child I didn't like organs of any kind - that phobia thankfully has not lingered.   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com          
(back) Subject: Re: reed organs/pipe organs/digital organs From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:17:41 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   A remarkable posting from Richard....thank you.   I couldn't help frowning however, when I read this bit:-     --- "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> wrote:   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.   -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-     Does this mean that when the computer organs start to talk to us, they will gargle and burp for a while, insist that we play nursery tunes, then eventually go into teenage moods before finally electrocuting us?   I can just imagine......   "Call that Bach, do you, s...t head?"   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK                 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: RE: Quoting Williams and Owen From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:07:46 -0000   I think it is time that this theory (about tracker actions allowing the skilled organist to affect the sound by controlling the speed of the = pallet opening etc. etc.) to be put to the test. Now that we have a number of organs with tracker action for the integral console and electric action = for the remote console - like the Disney Hall one, or Symphony Hall here in Birmingham UK- we should conduct a double-blind listening test, with = various organists playing the same piece on both consoles in succession and = judged by expert listeners who are blindfolded and not told which console is = being used. That should sort out the question once and for all. My belief is = that nobody can influence the sound by using tracker action enough to make an audible difference to the listener, but that is just a gut reaction. Certainly I never found I could make any difference playing on a tracker = to the sound by pressing the keys faster or slower - as with electric = action, the note either doesn't sound or it does- the speed of the descent of = the key is immaterial - or so it seems to me.   Will Light Coventry UK   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TubaMagna@aol.com Sent: 13 November 2004 01:08 To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Quoting Williams and Owen   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.=20 One pillar of the American organ conservation community (a rabid=20 tracker-backer in 1988) recently recommended the replacement of the last = and best=20 combination action refined and personally regulated by Ernest M. Skinner with a=20 solid-state mechanism, even though the action in question was in fine operating=20 condition.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City =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: Quoting Williams and Owen From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:01:17 +1300   >I think it is time that this theory (about tracker actions allowing the skilled organist to affect the sound by controlling the speed of the = pallet opening etc. etc.) to be put to the test. Now that we have a number of organs with tracker action for the integral console and electric action = for the remote console - like the Disney Hall one.....   For my part, I believe there are problems associated with your suggested test. For example, if pipes are not voiced to have their speech alterable, and if the action is not made in such a way as to allow it either, then = the test would be invalid, effectively ruling out tracker organs generally = from, say, 1840 to 1960. Too, I believe it not really possible to build a large organ to produce this effect. It doesn't seem really possible on very = large pipes or very small pipes, either.   In my experience, it only really works with 8fts and 4fts, of sensitive speech, on low pressure, on an action designed appropriately. Given those conditions, however, I've played small organs (say, up to 6 stops on the chest) where the 8ft Open Diapason and Principal, or Stopped Diapason and 4ft Flute, in pairs or singly, were indeed touch-sensitive, especially = from about TenA to two octaves above.   I do not think it possible, in other words, to do your proposed test on, say, a 3m Forster & Andrews tracker of 48 to 50 stops from the 1880s, or = on a 90rk tracker from Mander, Klais or Ron Sharp.   Ross    
(back) Subject: RE: Quoting Williams and Owen From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:07:41 -0500   Interesting... you have proven the test not only invalid, but non- applicable. No need to run the test. We have proven on paper that for these organs, an electric action of some type would have made more sense. =   No?   Andy   On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:01:17 +1300, TheShieling wrote > >I think it is time that this theory (about tracker actions allowing the > skilled organist to affect the sound by controlling the speed of the > pallet opening etc. etc.) to be put to the test. Now that we have a > number of organs with tracker action for the integral console and > electric action for the remote console - like the Disney Hall one..... > > For my part, I believe there are problems associated with your suggested > test. For example, if pipes are not voiced to have their speech > alterable, and if the action is not made in such a way as to allow > it either, then the test would be invalid, effectively ruling out > tracker organs generally from, say, 1840 to 1960. Too, I believe it > not really possible to build a large organ to produce this effect. > It doesn't seem really possible on very large pipes or very small > pipes, either. > > In my experience, it only really works with 8fts and 4fts, of sensitive > speech, on low pressure, on an action designed appropriately. Given = those > conditions, however, I've played small organs (say, up to 6 stops on > the chest) where the 8ft Open Diapason and Principal, or Stopped > Diapason and 4ft Flute, in pairs or singly, were indeed touch- > sensitive, especially from about TenA to two octaves above. > > I do not think it possible, in other words, to do your proposed test > on, say, a 3m Forster & Andrews tracker of 48 to 50 stops from the > 1880s, or on a 90rk tracker from Mander, Klais or Ron Sharp. > > Ross > > ****************************************************************** > "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>       A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: RE: Quoting Williams and Owen From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:25:58 +1300     >Interesting... you have proven the test not only invalid, but non- applicable. No need to run the test. We have proven on paper that for these organs, an electric action of some type would have made more sense. =   No?   No, I have not proved that at all. It is not possible to infer that = electric action makes more sense if the speech of a pipe is not touch-sensitive on = a tracker. There are other reasons for preferring tracker action. Tracker lasts better than electrics. Tracker is immediate, where electric action always time to work. Tracker gives a better feel to the player. These = three alone are sufficient to justify tracker action. Size is not a valid criticism, either: the biggest tracker organ in the world, that in Sydney Opera House, is delightfully easy to play, even coupled up. Electrics are sometimes necessary, of course: for example, where the organ has to be scattered around a building not designed for a large organ, like St Paul's in London, or where there is just sufficient money to provide a 3 or 4rk unit organ somewhere. It would be silly, too, to try to tracker an organ from 1880-1950 in a deep chamber site on high-ish pressure. For my part, = I'd never go so far as to say that electric action should never ever be used, = as that's plainly ridiculous, as I see it.   Ross    
(back) Subject: From: "wesley" <wcool@bellsouth.net> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:31:14 -0500   Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the "Rule Britannia" sheet music for organ? Thanks -wesley   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TheShieling Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 2:26 PM To: 'PipeChat' Subject: RE: Quoting Williams and Owen     >Interesting... you have proven the test not only invalid, but non- applicable. No need to run the test. We have proven on paper that for these organs, an electric action of some type would have made more sense. No?   No, I have not proved that at all. It is not possible to infer that electric action makes more sense if the speech of a pipe is not touch-sensitive on a tracker. There are other reasons for preferring tracker action. Tracker lasts better than electrics. Tracker is immediate, where electric action always time to work. Tracker gives a better feel to the player. These three alone are sufficient to justify tracker action. Size is not a valid criticism, either: the biggest tracker organ in the world, that in Sydney Opera House, is delightfully easy to play, even coupled up. Electrics are sometimes necessary, of course: for example, where the organ has to be scattered around a building not designed for a large organ, like St Paul's in London, or where there is just sufficient money to provide a 3 or 4rk unit organ somewhere. It would be silly, too, to try to tracker an organ from 1880-1950 in a deep chamber site on high-ish pressure. For my part, I'd never go so far as to say that electric action should never ever be used, as that's plainly ridiculous, as I see it.   Ross     ****************************************************************** "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: UN-NATURAL ACTS? From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:39:33 EST   In a message dated 11/13/04 12:27:53 AM, cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk {Colin Mitchell UK} wrote:   There's nothing "natural" about a Haskel (sic) bass or a Compton = Polyphone. ***What? What?!   Many extention (sic) organs are more "smoke and mirrors" than "natural." ***This doesn't even MEAN anything. What are you actually trying to = say? I THINK you are trying to convey that extension instruments are = acknowledged to be less desirable than traditional ("straight") specifications, in that = they embody compromises made in the context of rationed space and funds. They are NOT "less natural" than more traditional pipe organs.   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. ***Yes, but they were not intended to fool anybody. They were marketed = as a new form of pipe organ designed to EMULATE or SUGGEST the orchestra, the =   "wow" factor being a combination of suggestive tone AND the myriad skills = of the performer. No attempt was made to delude the audience into thinking that there was an orchestra behind the drapes or in the ceiling above the = proscenium. They knew it was a form of pipe organ, and came to enjoy the abilities of = the musician as well as the newly developed tone colors.   A loudspeaker is an entirely natural phenomenon... early ones were acoustic/mechanical, just as organ pipe reeds and diaphones are. ***I fail to see how you see loudspeakers as "entirely natural" and traditional organ pipes with re-entrant tubes as "unnatural." I just = cannot connect the dots on that non sequitur.   The human ear is acoustic/mechanical/electric... ***Like a hearing aid. So does that make the human ear "unnatural"? I = am truly trying to follow all of this, and it's making my teeth and eyes = hurt.   There's the old saying, "What sort of a noise annoys an oyster?" ***What is the sound of one hand -- oh well, never mind....   I have a very high-end DAT recorder (currently in need of repair)... Regards, Colin Mitchell UK *** If it's digital, it should never require repairs.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City   ..  
(back) Subject: Actions and pipe speech onset From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:05:47 EST   PipeChatters: Any voicer or finisher who has voiced or finished on both mechanical = and assisted actions can tell you the same things:   The sound of a particular pipe is ever so slightly different (at least = in speech onset characteristics) with each strike of the key. One can, with overarching approaches to touch and technique, get a general type of attack to the tone -- a perceptible, general style of = articulation that one can use to noticeable effect in performance. One cannot alter tone or ictus with anywhere near the level of control =   that an orchestral instrumentalist can. Using various types of touch to = affect attack is different from having absolute "control" over pipe speech. Once the pallet seal is broken, the wind is on its own, and the pipes = at its mercy. It is this very randomness and constant variation that make the sound = of a pipe organ so intriguing to our ears, the give-and-take, the = individuality of each pipe, even with in the context of the most meticulous tonal = finishing. A fine pipe organ with a well-regulated wind supply "breathes" and responds to the artist's touch. I do NOT mean bouncing or sagging wind, = but a responsive winding system that imparts a vocal quality to the ensemble.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City http://www.glucknewyork.com/   ..  
(back) Subject: Re: smokin' Allens From: "Roy Redman" <rredman@imagin.net> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:24:32 -0600   They Work by smoke. Let the smoke out and they cease to work. Roy Redman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: smokin' Allens     > Aren't Allens too YOUNG to smoke? <eg> > > A. Nonnie Mousse > > > > ****************************************************************** > "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> > > >