PipeChat Digest #4932 - Friday, November 26, 2004
 
RE: stop list competition
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
RE: stop list competition
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: stop list competition
  by "Tom Jones" <tomj@netpath.net>
Re: stop list competition
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: stop list competition
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
Re: stop list competition
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: stop list competition
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Important Regarding IRC Tonight
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
Re: stop list competition
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: stop list competition
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: stop list competition
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
RE: stop list competition
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
 

(back) Subject: RE: stop list competition From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:03:18 -0500   On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:30:05 -0000, Will Light wrote > With all your comments Andy, you seem to be working your way round to > something like my original suggestion for this problem. We have many > more organs of this kind of size here in the UK, and my suggestion > was a more or less average UK organ of this size. Could you give > your professional opinion on my spec? I'd be very interested. > > Will Light > Coventry UK     Well, I'm not sure if my opinion is any more professional than yours. I call myself a technician rather than builder for the very reason that I = know little of the specifics of scaling, voicing, finishing. I've got pretty much every other aspect of organ work covered, including building windchests. However, we are not there to determine scaling or voicing, so =   in a sense my opinion is as professional as anyone else's could be. = Here's the stoplist you submitted:   Pedal 1 Bourdon 16 (Existing) 2 Open Diapason 16 (Electronic) 3 Octave 8 (Electronic) 4 Flute 4 (From Bourdon and Great Stopped Diapason)   Swell 5 Violin Diapason 8 6 Hohl Flute 8 7 Salicional 8 8 Gemshorn 4 9 Piccolo 2 10 Trumpet 8 11 Tremulant   Great 12 Open Diapason 8 13 Stopped Diapason 8 14 Dulciana 8 15 Principal 4 16 Flute 4 17 Fifteenth 2   Couplers Swell Octave 4 Swell Unison Off Swell Suboctave 16 Swell to Great 8 Swell Octave to Great 4 Swell to Pedal Great to Pedal   You're right, very close to what I was getting at. Close enough that the difference would just be quibbling. Adding things like mixtures would be great for certain literature, but considering we're talking about a workhorse instrument, I don't think they could justify using the toeboard space for that. Its hard to get around the need for a dulciana in = addition to the flute on the great, because teh of the lack of an expression box = for the great. The 8, 4, 2 principal chorus on the great really can be sufficiently bright if scales and voiced just right... I've seen it work = in buildings of all sizes and textures. I'd really like to at least have a bright twelfth, but again we'd have to give up that dulciana which would = be hard to live without. I suppose one could do it by having a "grave = mixure" (just a twelth and fifteenth together on one toeboard), space permitting, = in place of the fifteenth alone. As far as your swell, I might be willing to =   give up the salicional and rely on the diapason with the box closed for a quiet stringy tone, in order to gain something else. I'm not completely sure what that something else would be, but I'd want it to be something = that could contribute to the organ's ability to lead a congregation in singing. = Your pedal division is fine, though in the case we're discussing I'm not sure the borrow is possible. Also, we were never told what couplers were available, but I think they're probably stuck with whatever already = exists.   If I could start from scratch, I'd take a completely different approach. I've played enough small one manual organs to really appreciate what complete choruses can do for a small organ (i.e. make it sound like a big organ!). I think an organ of 14 stops or less should have but two divisions: manual, and pedal. But using the wonders of individual pipe actions (DE works very well... anyone see the apologetic Wicks ad in this months TAO? Kinda sad that people do think that DE still bounces! DE = could be saving a lot of churches a lot of money!) you can have the complete chorus PLUS some toys (like a celeste) AND the wonders of a second manual. = I'd do something like this, with all or most of it in one expression box:   1) 8' Open Diapason 2) 8' Stopped Diapason (extended to 16') 3) 8' String (something nice and round, depending on accoustic) 4) 8' Celeste (full compass if at all possible!) 5) 4' Octave 6) 4' Harmonic Flute (with a tab available to play at 8' pitch, TC) 7) 2 2/3' Twelve (perhaps extended to 1 1/3 as well, or in a big room, possibly extended down an octave for the 16' chorus) 8) 2' Fifteenth (maybe extended to 1' if no mixture) 9) 1 3/5 Seventeenth (as part of the principal chorus, ala the lovely Nutting here in Vermont) 11) Mixture III or IV if we must (may be unnecessary is some accoustics if =   the principal upperwork is just right) 12) 16,8,4 trumpet unit, perhaps under double expression or separate expression. If so, I'd enclose the strings with them and make the strings =   much bigger, so they can be louder or quieter than the flutes, at the organists discretion. Perhaps even put them and the trumpet unit on a higher pressure, ala American Symphonic.   I would give both manuals the same stop nomenclature (none of this = business of switching things around on the second manual to pretend its a different =   division... that just never works well!)   As for the pedal... I'd make all or most of the manual stops individually available on the pedals (especially the trumpet at all 3 pitches), in addition to the following independand pedal stuff, to give the pedal dept = as much independence as most of the literature requires:   16, 8 Subbass unit. 4, 2 Choral Bass unit.   The downside of all this, of course, is quite a lot of money is spent on things besides pipes (an awful lot of stop tabs or knobs, two sets of = swell shades and motors, 2 or 3 expression shoes (depending on whether a = crescendo is included), a second wind pressure (preferably), etc. As this is very hypothetical, I haven't done the math to decide whether its worth it, but some small Schoenstein projects (which I've only heard about... not heard with my ears) make me think I'm not the only one who might think its worth =   it. There is also the fact that the pipe extensions cost money... so its not quite fair to compare my 12 voices with 12 straight voices. To be = fair I probably should have kept mine to maybe 10. DE saves us a lot of money right there, though, (which I don't think Schoenstein does, do they? Probably for the same mythical reasons mentioned in the Wicks ad).   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: stop list competition From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:18:11 -0500   On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:30:05 -0000, Will Light wrote > With all your comments Andy, you seem to be working your way round to > something like my original suggestion for this problem. We have many > more organs of this kind of size here in the UK, and my suggestion > was a more or less average UK organ of this size. Could you give > your professional opinion on my spec? I'd be very interested. > > Will Light > Coventry UK   I might also mention that the stoplist you submitted is also very similar = to what American builders were doing in the late 1800's, which I've heard was =   very English (I've never been across the pond). My hypothetical unit = organ has this type of voicing in mind, but with a bow to some earlier American instruments (the 17th especially) and to later ones (the higher pressure reeds and strings, and the separate expression)   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: stop list competition From: "Tom Jones" <tomj@netpath.net> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:19:40 -0500   Glad you liked it. Sorry I failed to glean the borrowing possibilities = from the original post.   Regards, Tom Jones   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: 26 November, 2004 11:11 Subject: Re: stop list competition     > Yours is probably a more practical approach than mine because your swell > division will actually fit in the existing swell box. However, you did > cheat by having an extension and a mixture borrow, and borrowing stops = in > the pedal. That is against the rules in this case. The chests are = being > reused (theoretically) and are entirely straight. No borrows or > extensions > are possible. But slight modifications to your specification would fix > this > and still be very practical.    
(back) Subject: Re: stop list competition From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:27:22 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Why oh why do many American organists/organ builders always search for bigger stop-lists by using borrowing and extended ranks?   Have they learned nothing in the past forty years?   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK                 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: stop list competition From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:11:38 -0600   Your posting makes me realize how great the divide is between Britain and America today, so far as organ design is are concerned. Almost nobody = here would make a baroque reed such as a 16 ft. Dulzian today, though more = stable 16 ft. reeds such as a Contra Oboe might well be used. Almost nobody = would include a 4 ft. Koppel Flute, one of the "fake" neobaroque stops like the Rohr Schalmei, Trichter Regal, etc., that never or almost never actually existed on real baroque organs. The Koppel Flute, incidentally, was an invention of Henry Willis III. An American organist would HAVE to have a string stop on an organ of this size, and probably a celeste as well. If you felt that three 8 ft. stops on one manual on an instrument this size were too much, you might get away with suppressing the Holzflute and = having a Gemshorn/Gemshorn Celeste combination. Also, isn't it a little wasteful having two 2 ft. stops on the same manual on an organ this size? And = there would probably need to be a 4' Choral Bass. The American version of your specification would thus be something like:   GREAT   8' Open Diapason 8' Stopped Diapason 4' Principal 4' Chimney Flute 2' Mixture III 16' Contra Oboe   SWELL   8' Gemshorn 8' Gemshorn Celeste TC 4' Principal 2' Fifteenth 2.2/3' + 1.3/5' Sesquialtera II 8' Trumpet   PEDAL   16' Bourdon 8' Bass Flute 4' Choral Bass   John Speller     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 12:58 PM Subject: RE: stop list competition     > Hello, > > For no other reason that I play a very effective > instrument which is actually smaller than 6 stops per > division mentioned, and also due to the fact that I > know an organ about this size which is a wonderful > acompaniment instrument, I thought I would weigh in > with something I normally never bother about.....a > stoplist which would, hopefully, sit on exisiting > slider windchests. > > To me, the most important consideration is the > acoustic, and by the sounds of it, this is not very > lively......so forget Schnitger Mixtures! > > One of the finest exponents of the small organ was > Fr Willis, and even in quite large instruments of > around 50 stops, he seldom supplied bright Mixtures. > Even large cathedral organs often had no more than two > or three tierce Mixtures at 17.19.22., but never > sounded in the least bit dull. > > I suppose the trick is to get maximum variety, yet a > cohesive sound where all stops blend, because it is > important to make full use of what IS available. > > > Swell > > Holzflute 8ft > Principal 4 > Fifteenth 2 > Recorder 2 > Sesquialtera 2 rks > (12.17.) > Trumpet 8 > > > > Great > > > Diapason 8 > Rohrflute 8 > Koppel Flute 4 > Octave 4 > Mixture (15.19.22) III > > Dulzian 16 > > > Pedal > > > Bourdon 16 > Violoncello 8 > Flute 4 > > > Sw - Gt > Sw - Ped > Gt - Ped > > > The inclusion of a 16ft reed on the Great may seem > odd, but my thinking is that it would fulfil three > roles. At the octave higher, it could serve as a solo > register seperate from the Swell, when coupled to the > full Swell, it could produce an accompaniment > reed/flue sound and, as a 16ft Great stop, it would > add gravity and colour without weight. > > With a seperate unit chest for the 16ft reed, it would > be possible to have another stop on the slider chest, > but I have stuck to the idea of 12 independent manual > registers. > > In a less than lively acoustic, the combination of 2ft > Fifteenth and the 2 rank Sesqiultera would produce a > bright enough sound, with the tierce rank acting as a > tonal "binder"....an old English/William Hill trick. > > With adequate scaling and fairly robust voicing, I > believe such an instrument would fulfil far more than > the limited stop-list might suggest.      
(back) Subject: Re: stop list competition From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:21:07 -0500       On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:27:22 -0800 (PST), Colin Mitchell wrote > Hello, > > Why oh why do many American organists/organ builders > always search for bigger stop-lists by using borrowing > and extended ranks? > > Have they learned nothing in the past forty years? >   And the problem with the practice is what? I know about the old American way of having a principal or flute 16, 8, 4, 2 2/3, 2 unit. In the last = 40 years I think we finally have _that_ behind us, thank God. What have we learned in the last 40 years? Well, the organs being built now are better =   than ever. We're looking at all the extremes that have been taken in the past, taking the benefits and costs of all of them into account, and building organs that I think will withstand the test of time better than anything we've built yet (not saying much, given the 1960's and = 1970's!!!). And nearly all of them, except the trackers (and even those sometimes!) = use duplexing and extensions to a large or small degree to get the most from a =   given specification.   I think the philosophy behind my hypothetical organ is quite different = than that and FAR superior than trying to split up such a small organ into 2 independent manual divisions. Having 12 voices over two divisions is like =   having 24 voices over 4 divisions... the second one I think we would all agree to be ridiculous. Actually, my idea is the electric action = equivalent to the tracker either/or idea, but with a little more flexibility.   My question to you is this: Why would you not prefer to have your 8' Trumpet also available at 16' and 4'? What do you lose? Sure, having 3 separate ranks is better, but I submit that having the extensions is = better than not having them. If you don't like them, don't use them! Nothing is =   lost. My hypothetical organ is very much intended to stand as a complete instrument without any duplexing or extensions. You would then have a = one- manual organ. Duplex, and the same organ now has immeasurably more flexibility. Extend a stop here and there and the flexibility increases even more. You have lost nothing, except for some money, but not NEARLY = as much money as you would have paid to have everything straight. Even large =   organs are seldom purely straight, and for good reason. It just makes too =   much sense to extend or duplex where flexibiltiy would be gained from it.   Have you ever used a 4' stop at 8' pitch by playing an octave down? You just extended a rank. Ever used an octave coupler? An extension is = nothing but an octave coupler affecting one voice. Ever coupled swell to great? You just duplexed.   The reason my hypothetical organ will never fly is because many organists can't get past the negative thoughts that come to mind from extending/duplexing and realize what the same organ would be like without them! What they really want is a larger organ. Well, don't we all!   Well, you asked. ;) There's your answer.   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: stop list competition From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:38:26 EST     In a message dated 11/26/04 3:27:48 PM, cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk spews:   << Hello, Why oh why do many American organists/organ builders always = search for bigger stop-lists by using borrowing and extended ranks? Have they = learned nothing in the past forty years?   Regards, Colin Mitchell UK >>   What were we have supposed to have learned? What are you actually talking about? Are you saying that the "Organ Reform" was such a success, that the past forty years should serve as a model? Or are you saying that the past forty = years featured organs that were so marred by extension organs that we should = never resort to that practice? Furthermore, you flew off the handle about an extended Bourdon, but completely ignored the proposed electronic 8' Open Diapason. So, based upon the past four decades, what IS your outlook???   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City http://www.glucknewyork.com/projects/proj_compl_coldspring.html http://www.glucknewyork.com/projects/proj_current.html http://www.glucknewyork.com/alexander/alexander.html   ..  
(back) Subject: Important Regarding IRC Tonight From: "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:01:56 -0600   We are using a newly upgraded version of the IRC server tonight. If you have had a nickname registered in the past it is no longer registered so you may have to re-register your nick.   If anyone has problems with joining in I will be available bot5h by email at this address and also via AIM using the screen name of dcscribner1@mac.com and also on Yahoo Messenger with the screen name of david_littlerock Hopefully no one will need to use either of those but just in case.   The Web Interface has changed somewhat but I think it works the same as it has in the past.   Hope to see some of you there tonight   David -- **************************************** David Scribner Owner / Co-Administrator PipeChat   http://www.pipechat.org mailto:admin@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: Re: stop list competition From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:02:14 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Weingarten Abbey, Joseph Gabler, 1750....Oberwerk...Koppel.   Strings I could live without....well, in point of fact, I do!   As for strings, we surely don't want any of that French Romantic fairground organ stuff destroying the ensemble, do we?   Dulzians are BEAUTIFUL when voiced correctly. I know an organ in a very poor acoustic; the Dulzian (extended 16/8/4) rank of which is absolutely superb.   Why is a 2ft Flute and a 2ft Fifteenth on the same manual a waste?   Two very different voices which produce very different effects, and can be coupled through for less aggressive accompaniment whilst remaining clear and bright.....I have thought about this! Also ideal in Trio Sonatas.   The 4ft Pedal Flute could easily be a Choral Bass....just so long as it can be heard.   In any event, I note that electronic pedal voices were allowed in the brief, so you could have 150 stops for all I care, so long as the three genuine ones remained in the specification!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   --- "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> wrote:   > Your posting makes me realize how great the divide > is between Britain and > America today, so far as organ design is are > concerned. Almost nobody here > would make a baroque reed such as a 16 ft. Dulzian > today, though more stable > 16 ft. reeds such as a Contra Oboe might well be > used. Almost nobody would > include a 4 ft. Koppel Flute, one of the "fake" > neobaroque stops like the > Rohr Schalmei, Trichter Regal, etc., that never or > almost never actually > existed on real baroque organs. The Koppel Flute, > incidentally, was an > invention of Henry Willis III. An American organist > would HAVE to have a > string stop on an organ of this size, and probably a > celeste as well. If > you felt that three 8 ft. stops on one manual on an > instrument this size > were too much, you might get away with suppressing > the Holzflute and having > a Gemshorn/Gemshorn Celeste combination. Also, > isn't it a little wasteful > having two 2 ft. stops on the same manual on an > organ this size? And there > would probably need to be a 4' Choral Bass. The > American version of your > specification would thus be something like:       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo  
(back) Subject: Re: stop list competition From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:15:24 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I don't recall flying off the handle about an extended Bourdon! Where was that?   The "organ reform movement" taught us much, but although I play a very successful example of the genre, it is not a period in organ-building I greatly admire unless it is done particularly well and in the right building....I am one of the fortunate few.   No, no, no!   I am thinking of a rather large number of extant instruments in my neck of the woods, many of which date from around 1850, with names such as William Hill, Isaac Abbot, Holdich, Gray & Davison, Bevington and Charles Brindley....organs with full tone and a fair bit of weight, which only ever lacked proper pedal organs and just a little more development of the choruswork to make them real musical yardsticks.   The perfect accompaniment organ?   Definitely T C Lewis!!   It's all in the skill of the voicer....not the stop-list!   Extended ranks?   Well, if it's John Compton....just maybe.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- TubaMagna@aol.com wrote:   > > In a message dated 11/26/04 3:27:48 PM, > cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk spews: > > << Hello, Why oh why do many American > organists/organ builders always search > for bigger stop-lists by using borrowing and > extended ranks? Have they learned > nothing in the past forty years? > > Regards, Colin Mitchell UK >> > > What were we have supposed to have learned? > What are you actually talking about? > Are you saying that the "Organ Reform" was such a > success, that the past > forty years should serve as a model? Or are you > saying that the past forty years > featured organs that were so marred by extension > organs that we should never > resort to that practice? > Furthermore, you flew off the handle about an > extended Bourdon, but > completely ignored the proposed electronic 8' Open > Diapason. > So, based upon the past four decades, what IS > your outlook???       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com    
(back) Subject: Re: stop list competition From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:22:12 -0500   > Dulzians are BEAUTIFUL when voiced correctly. I know > an organ in a very poor acoustic; the Dulzian > (extended 16/8/4) rank of which is absolutely superb.   Woah woah woah! Is this the same guy who just slammed me for suggesting unification???   > In any event, I note that electronic pedal voices were > allowed in the brief, so you could have 150 stops for > all I care, so long as the three genuine ones remained > in the specification!   Hmmm... then why do you object to me increasing the flexibility of a one- manual organ by duplexing it over two manuals. You can stick to one = manual if you want (maybe switch to the other one once in a while to even up the wear). ;)   A little confused, 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: stop list competition From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:41:47 -0000   I think we are all getting a bit sidetracked by this topic - it was = stated that this organ was to be purely for accompanying enthusiastic hymn = singing and the odd wedding. We don't really have to start talking about "the literature" do we? As = far as I am concerned, mixtures and doubles are a waste of time when it = comes to accompanying (or leading) hymn singing. 4' tone is what makes the = difference in being able to lead successfully, plus a good bright 2' line to gee up = the sluggish.=20   Will Light Coventry UK   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Colin Mitchell Sent: 26 November 2004 22:02 To: PipeChat Subject: Re: stop list competition   Hello,   Weingarten Abbey, Joseph Gabler, 1750....Oberwerk...Koppel.   Strings I could live without....well, in point of fact, I do!=20   As for strings, we surely don't want any of that French Romantic fairground organ stuff destroying the ensemble, do we?   Dulzians are BEAUTIFUL when voiced correctly. I know an organ in a very poor acoustic; the Dulzian (extended 16/8/4) rank of which is absolutely superb.   Why is a 2ft Flute and a 2ft Fifteenth on the same manual a waste?   Two very different voices which produce very different effects, and can be coupled through for less aggressive accompaniment whilst remaining clear and bright.....I have thought about this! Also ideal in Trio Sonatas.=20   The 4ft Pedal Flute could easily be a Choral Bass....just so long as it can be heard.   In any event, I note that electronic pedal voices were allowed in the brief, so you could have 150 stops for all I care, so long as the three genuine ones remained in the specification!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   --- "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> wrote:   > Your posting makes me realize how great the divide > is between Britain and > America today, so far as organ design is are > concerned. Almost nobody here > would make a baroque reed such as a 16 ft. Dulzian > today, though more stable > 16 ft. reeds such as a Contra Oboe might well be > used. Almost nobody would > include a 4 ft. Koppel Flute, one of the "fake" > neobaroque stops like the > Rohr Schalmei, Trichter Regal, etc., that never or > almost never actually > existed on real baroque organs. The Koppel Flute, > incidentally, was an > invention of Henry Willis III. An American organist > would HAVE to have a > string stop on an organ of this size, and probably a > celeste as well. If > you felt that three 8 ft. stops on one manual on an > instrument this size > were too much, you might get away with suppressing > the Holzflute and having > a Gemshorn/Gemshorn Celeste combination. Also, > isn't it a little wasteful > having two 2 ft. stops on the same manual on an > organ this size? And there > would probably need to be a 4' Choral Bass. The > American version of your > specification would thus be something like:       =09 __________________________________=20 Do you Yahoo!?=20 Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.=20 http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo=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>