PipeChat Digest #4937 - Saturday, November 27, 2004
 
Re: ""Werkprinzip"": a 20th-century construct
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: The Dm T/F Overdone? [was: Disney Hall Organ]
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
RE: stop list competition
  by "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca>
RE: stop list competition
  by "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca>
RE: stop list "competition"
  by "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca>
Re: PipeChat Digest #4936 - 11/27/04
  by "David Baker" <dgb137@mac.com>
Re: (old frump or whatever this subject was)
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Thriving on Misinformation Technology
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: The Dm T/F Overdone? [was: Disney Hall Organ]
  by "T.Desiree' Hines" <nicemusica@yahoo.com>
Re: Thriving on Misinformation Technology
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
proper scaling and voicing
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
747s and Sopwiths
  by "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net>
ADVENT I: HOLY ROSARY, MEMPHIS (x post)
  by <ScottFop@aol.com>
RE: from an old frump
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: ""Werkprinzip"": a 20th-century construct From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:36:25 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Now on this subject, I am right alongside Sebastian!   I made a comment right at the end of my "stop list competition" contribution....you know, the quasi "baroque" one....which stated, "It would still sound like a Lewis."   I'm surprised that no-one picked up on this!   The work of the "Organ reform movement" centred around the concept of an "ideal" baroque organ, namely the work of Arp Schnitger and Gottfried Silbermann....two VERY different styles of instrument....take your pick folks!   What an insult THAT was to the richness and variety of the period!   The baroque organ didn't change very much for about a hundred years....in fact long after the baroque had ended. The organ was relegated to the role of accompaniment in many places, and "organ music" as such, was regarded as "old fashioned."   So one can safely assume that almost any organ built between, let's say, 1650-ish and 1820-ish, really falls into the category of "werkprinzip" as a general but not absolute rule in Holland.   Within that period, there is astonishing variety and even regional and national differences. Going often to Holland, as I do, I still marvel at the sheer variety of organ tone, and yet, ostensibly, they are all "of a type."   To corrupt a familiar saying, the "organ reformists" knew the scale of everything, but the musical proportions of nothing.   Thus, in smaller churches, there are singing, gentle Holpijps and Praestants, softly buzzing Dulciaans, and in great cathedrals, a tonal architecture to match the soaring loftiness of the building. Always there is depth, sonority and honesty, whether it be a Schnitger, a Hinz, a Muller, a Hagabeer or even a Van Oeckelen from 1850 or so. All of them share an unbroken tradition, and most are strictly "werkprinzip" in construction.   The "organ reformists" with the best intentions, went far too far, by telling organ-builders what scales they should use, that nicking was inappropriate, open foot voicing essential and that Bach "would never have used a 16ft in the chorus."   But we live and we learn.   When Lewis heard Schulze, he was hearing open foot voicing and chorus-work on a grand scale; directly attributable to the baroque period, but now moving towards romantic weight and outright power.   Did Lewis slavishly copy the scales? Did he voice everything without nicking the languids, or sticking to open foot voicing?   No! He listened, he studied and he learned, then applied his own particular brand of artistry to brilliant effect.   "If" the organ reformers, bless 'em, had left it to true tonal artists and master organ-builders, perhaps no-one would now be sneering at the many instruments which sound so thin and scratchy, and which some would claim to be "baroque."   Well, they're about as "baroque" as a Silbermann is a symphonic Cavaille-Coll!   I think, if I was an organist in the US, playing in a heavily carpeted church, I would WANT to play an American Classic......think G.Donald Harrison and the inspiration he got from Lewis.   So I stand by what I stated. My "stop list competition" designer organ, which "looks" so baroque on paper, would sound much like a Lewis, but with a 17th rank included, just to calm the Quints and Unisons a little.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- TubaMagna@aol.com wrote:   > What we have learned from the past forty > (actually 55) years is that the > "Werkprinzip" and the "Organ Reform" had far less to > do with the organ of > Bach's time than the rabid, factional publicity and > cursory scholarship would have > us believe.     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: The Dm T/F Overdone? [was: Disney Hall Organ] From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:54:52 EST   >As Monty mentioned in his original post, the programming at Disney still =   seems to be "for >organists". Not all of the programs, but many.For = someone who is brand new to the organ, >"Ad Nos" might be a bit too much.   I never mentioned the Disney programming being for organists, I only said =   that organ programming in general tends to be for organists. I haven't = been to any programs at the Disney Hall, so I can't say what sort of programs = have been put on there. I went to a nice recital a month or so ago dedicating = the rebuilt organ in a local church. It was varied--Handel, Sowerby, = Langlais, Weaver and several other composers. It was very listener friendly while = still being "meaty." The music performed had melodies that were easy to = follow, the organist was musical, he showed off all the colors of the organ, he = was entertaining, gave great program notes, but above all he established a = rapport with the congregation. It can be done--the congregation at this church was enthusiastic about the = performance. They loved it. More people need to learn the art of programming for the public. We can't force music in their ears just for the sake of saying = we played a certain piece in recital. The audiences need to be educated and =   enlightened, but truthfully a little bit of some works go a long way. I = was taught that if you're going to stretch them, you need to give them something familiar, too. I even carry this through to my organ selections for = church--if we do a lot of gospel or lean more contemporary one week, I stick with = classical and hymns they know. It's all about balance. Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: RE: stop list competition From: "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:49 -0500   I'll reply by interjection to save time. AjMead   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of RMB10@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 7:55 AM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: stop list competition     Regarding this little organ in the school chapel, I am still confused... If there is no room < Whoa! No. There is room for larger scaled pipes. Plenty of room. The chests are pitman with pouchboards. They are large by virtue of their function>   for larger scales on the manual chests, and the chests can't be replaced, why does the school want to replace the pipework? Why don't they just hire a voicer to come in and do major tonal refinishing? If the pipework is decent, < the metal flue pipes are not decent. They are extremely unsteady in tone (the winding is rock solid btw) and this aspect cannot be 'voiced-out". = The trumpet is useless. It will not stay in tune for more than a few minutes. It's not dirty, it's made wrong.>   a skilled voicer can do some amazing things. Also, I understood that no more stopknobs could be added to the console, but somewhere along the line in this thread, I thought I read that they would consider adding some digital pedal stops. That would require the addition of = extra stopknobs. I suggest that they go back to the original builder of the instrument and get a quote for a revoicing for the new room, and then talk to a = couple of other tonal finishers. I'm sure it could be done for less that $150,000. The only thing I would replace would be the 1/2 length Trumpet--I can't stand 1/2 length chorus reeds. < I despise them as well. I suppose a new 8'trumpet could be mitred>   That stop could be mitered couldn't it? Talk to a builder and voicer, you'll be better off for it.   Anyway, those are my thoughts.   < Thank-you very much AjMead>   Monty Bennett   ****************************************************************** "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: stop list competition From: "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:52 -0500   Tom: Thank you. The idea for the swell is compelling. Regards AjMead   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of Tom Jones Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 10:28 AM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: stop list competition     GREAT -- with six stops, as specified, but nine ranks: Bourdon 16' Principal 8' Chimney Flute 8' Octave 4' Super Octave 2' IV Mixture 1-1/3'     GREAT -- with six ranks and six stops Bourdon 16' Principal 8' Bourdon 8' (ext.) Octave 4' Super Octave 2' (Mxt.) III Mixture 2'     SWELL (encl.) Gedeckt 8' Recorder 4' Nasard 2-2/3' Piccolo 2' Tierce 1-3/5' Trumpet 8' Tremulant     PEDAL Resultant 32' (Gt. Bdn.) Sub Bass 16' Bourdon 16' (Gt.) Sub Bass 8' (ext.) Trumpet 16' (ext. Sw.)     Regards, Tom Jones   ****************************************************************** "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: stop list "competition" From: "Andrew Mead" <mead@eagle.ca> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:54 -0500   A trialogue is not possible, I'm afraid, at least not one involving the original 3 parties.   regards AjMead     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of TubaMagna@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 10:53 AM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: stop list "competition"     Should this not be a well-researched trialogue between the director of music, the consultant, and the firm's tonal director?   ****************************************************************** "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: PipeChat Digest #4936 - 11/27/04 From: "David Baker" <dgb137@mac.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:58:05 -0500   Pardon me, but I was not offended, not withstanding the vulgarism, because I was of the impression that reed organs do, indeed, suck in that that instead of blowing air out past the reed or languid, as the case may be, a reed organ "inhales", so to speak, thereby sucking air into the chamber and out the back. On a similar note, I recall, from my organ maintaining days, encountering a couple of organs where the blower's electrical system had been installed such that the blower was running in reverse - i.e., sucking air INTO the organ rather than blowing it out. How the instrument got voiced I'll never know. Anybody else encountered such a situation?   David Baker   > Subject: Re: from an old frump > From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> > Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:59:02 -0500 > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:18:29 -0800, Fran Walker wrote >> OK, you guys, go ahead, call me an old frump, Goody-two-shoes, >> whatever you want. But I am offended by "suck" as in: >> >> From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> >> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:41:48 -0600 >> AND: >> From: "Keith Zimmerman" <kwzimmerman@alltel.net> >> >>> Andy said, "Tracker organs suck!" >>> >>> No, Reed organs suck. >> >> I hear the word "suck" enough in the "outside world" - now I have to >> read it PipeChat? I would truly appreciate all efforts to avoid >> offensive language in PipeChat. >> >> Sincerely, >> Fran Walker > > That was me. I apologize. > Andy    
(back) Subject: Re: (old frump or whatever this subject was) From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:10:27 -0500   Right, but this is not how _I_ was using the word when I originally said "tracker organs s___"   (I didn't mean I don't like tracker organs by the way... I was completely kidding)   > sucking air into the chamber and out the back. On a similar note, I > recall, from my organ maintaining days, encountering a couple of > organs where the blower's electrical system had been installed such > that the blower was running in reverse - i.e., sucking air INTO the > organ rather than blowing it out. How the instrument got voiced > I'll never know. Anybody else encountered such a situation?   Whah??? I don't think this could be. Though I've been wrong before, = quite a few times. I will say though, that the typical organ blower will not = blow backwards if it is running backwards. They use centrifugal action, so the "in" is "in" so matter which way the motor is running. It would work less efficiently though. So maybe this is what you were seeing.   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: Thriving on Misinformation Technology From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:10:39 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Well I'm not going to waste time going through every point you make, except to say that flight simulators are evaluated by pilots, and the state-of-the-art ones are astonishingly realistic. People sweat when the warning buzzers go off!   You missed the point completely about the "Sopwith".....which was actually a "Tiger Moth"...but hey ho!   It was about the "basics" of mechanical control and a sense of personal involvement, rather than flying a huge machine with servo-everything and electronic aids to match. My point was, "what you see is what you get."   I would also point out, that organs do not "progress"....it is merely that the music changes. God help the composer who succumbs to the dictates of an organ consultant!   Delighted to see that you are of the Hindu persuasion.     If you haven't tried the latest and best digital organs, perhaps you should "Sikh" out the truth for yourself; always remembering of course, that they are but very good simulators!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   PS: Logic is old technology!       --- Andy Lawrence <andy@ablorgans.com> wrote:   > Woah! This came out of nowhere! What does this > have to do with the topic > at hand.....   > Are you actually > saying that electronic organs have surpassed pipe > organs in the same way > that the 747 has surpassed a sopwith?   > You had to bring in a person who has never flown > before to think the > simulator was any good!   > Holy cow!   > In your defense, Seb was getting a little > provocative, too, but this is over > the top in absurdity! You might do better to use > logic. > > I haven't heard the latest or best ones (Digital > organs)     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: The Dm T/F Overdone? [was: Disney Hall Organ] From: "T.Desiree' Hines" <nicemusica@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:12:17 -0800 (PST)   Pardon the ambiguity. While Monty has not been to any of the Disney programs, I meant to say = that the programs that I have seen online at the website were of music = that is only recognized by organists. While beautiful works, they may come = across to new listeners as difficult listening.   RMB10@aol.com wrote: >As Monty mentioned in his original post, the programming at Disney still seems to be "for >organists". Not all of the programs, but many.For = someone who is brand new to the organ, >"Ad Nos" might be a bit too much.   I never mentioned the Disney programming being for organists, I only said that organ programming in general tends to be for organists. I haven't = been to any programs at the Disney Hall, so I can't say what sort of programs have =   been put on there. I went to a nice recital a month or so ago dedicating = the rebuilt organ in a local church. It was varied--Handel, Sowerby, Langlais, =   Weaver and several other composers. It was very listener friendly while = still being "meaty." The music performed had melodies that were easy to follow, the organist was musical, he showed off all the colors of the organ, he = was entertaining, gave great program notes, but above all he established a = rapport with the congregation.   It can be done--the congregation at this church was enthusiastic about the =   performance. They loved it. More people need to learn the art of programming for the public. We can't force music in their ears just for the sake of saying we played a certain piece in recital. The audiences need to be educated and enlightened, but truthfully a little bit of some works go a long way. I = was taught that if you're going to stretch them, you need to give them something familiar, too. I even carry this through to my organ selections for = church--if we do a lot of gospel or lean more contemporary one week, I stick with classical =   and hymns they know. It's all about balance.   Monty Bennett   ****************************************************************** "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: List-Digest: List-Unsubscribe:       From Desiree' T. Desiree' Hines Chicago, IL 60610 ---------------------------- For Compositions by Desiree' Frog Music Press www.frogmusic.com ------------------------------- FOR CONCERTS BY DESIREE' http://concertartist.info/bios/hines.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
(back) Subject: Re: Thriving on Misinformation Technology From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:23:17 -0500   > You missed the point completely about the > "Sopwith".....which was actually a "Tiger Moth"...but > hey ho!   LOL!! I have no idea why the Sopwith Camel got stuck in my head! (And = you all thought getting a mosquito stuck in your head was bad!). ;) I = suspect the Tiger Moth didn't shoot down too many airplanes. But whatever.   I'm even further away from understanding your point than before, but I = won't worry about it. :)   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: proper scaling and voicing From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:28:55 EST   Andy mentions a Hutchings organ on which he used to practice (dating from =   1894): <snip> > In fact, >I've heard some 4-rank principal choruses like the one shown here where = I >could almost swear there was a mixture, though there wasn't. The = stoplist >was (and still is) thus: >Great: >8' Open Diapason >8' Melodia >8' Dolcissimo (or something... a dulciana basically) >4' Octave >2 2/3' Quinte >2' Fifteenth or Superoctave or whatever it was called > >Swell: >16' Bourdon (TC) >8' Stopped Diapason >8' Salicional (with its own basses if I remember correctly) >4' Violina >4' Harm Flute >8' Bassoon/Oboe (full compass) (may be named Hautbois, can't remember) > >Pedal: >16' Subbass >8' Open Wood (actual name is flote, or something) I have played a Johnson organ of a little earlier vintage, that is still = in its original church home in CT that has a fairly similar specification. = The voicers of that era knew something that many voicers today don't know--how = to voice a pipe to coax the harmonics out of the pipe so they can fully develop. These days organ companies seem to rely on the mixtures to = screech out the upper harmonics rather than letting the principal chorus and necessary = (and usually OMITTED) 2 2/3 Quint build up their own natural harmonic series. =   I've heard some principals that were as dull as Hohlflotes. It's no = wonder that with vanilla sounding choruses in rooms with acoustics like marshmallows that the upperwork is voiced to just scream, resulting in the complaint = of "the organ is too loud!" When pipework is allowed to develop it's own harmonic series and bloom naturally, the brightness can come out. It just takes a good voicer who = will take the time to voice a rank properly. I've heard of two 50+ rank organs = lately that were built by major American firms, that were installed AND voiced = and ready for services within THREE WEEKS! That was from the time the first piece was unloaded off the truck to when it was first used. There's no = way that proper voicing in the room can occur in that time frame when it also = includes installation. If proper voicing is done, and a proper chorus is built, the mixtures will = just cap things off, not obliterate, but just enhance and add some = sparkle. It just takes a voicer who will take the time and is good enough to work = in the acoustic of the building--these days, it seems to be a rare breed. Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: 747s and Sopwiths From: "Liquescent" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:49:12 -0800   Most of the 747s on the Isle of Manhattan (home to more 32' stops per square mile than any other place on earth) are the organistic equivalent of hash ... St. John the Divine, St. Mary the Virgin, St. Thomas, St. Bartholomew, Riverside, St. Patrick ... none remain as the original builders left them; most have had multiple tonal revisions / rebuilds.   Now, hash can be quite delicious, depending on the ingredients, but it's still hash. Changing fashions (and in the case of St. John the Divine, the completion and opening of the nave ... the original E.M. Skinner was voiced to fill the Great Quire) dictated those multiple rebuilds.   Sebastian's rebuild of the Casavant at Temple Emanu-El on that fair isle was one of the FEW attempts to restore a NYC organ to something approaching the SPIRIT of its ORIGINAL condition (if not the LETTER), save a handful of E.M. Skinner projects (most of which are in Brooklyn and not Manhattan).   I AM curious, though ... did the Temple Choir Organ lose all its asterisks (denoting original pipework), or did it somehow lose all its original pipework?   Sebastian certainly can't be accused of being a Luddite (or is that a Buddite?) ... the new console has solid-state combination action. I hasten to add that the original Casavant console was not available for rebuilding ... it had already vanished.   MANY of the better American romantic and orchestral organs have their own integrity ... the Aeolians at Duke and Longwood Gardens; the Kimballs at Memphis, the cathedral in Denver, and War Memorial Auditorium in Wooster; the Moller at Holy Name, NYC (sadly unplayable now); the big municipal Austins.   In many cases (though not most of the above) they replaced earlier organs of equal integrity ... the Roosevelt at the Garden City cathedral, replace by a Schlicker and then a ???; the E.M. Skinner at Bethesda by the Sea in Palm Beach, replaced by a Schlicker, and then a huge new Austin more in the style of the original E.M. Skinner.   In the UK, at least one fine Father Willis organ was demolished to make way for a new tracker organ in "classic" style.   The BEST builders of ALL centuries built with artistic integrity; their work should be LEFT ALONE for what it IS; it is the organists and the organists' REPERTOIRES that should be adjusted, and NOT the ORGANS.   The recent Tannenberg restoration is a case in point ... it does what it was intended to do superbly ... it was restored and allowed to speak for itself. Nobody proposes that it should be able to play the Widor Toccata.   Not every organ deserves a museum-quality restoration, granted; but a lot that have done what they were INTENDED to do for 50-75-100 years deserve a closer look, rather than wanton destruction and replacement by seas of knobs controlling computers.   Cheers,   Buddite the Luddite      
(back) Subject: ADVENT I: HOLY ROSARY, MEMPHIS (x post) From: <ScottFop@aol.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:21:22 EST   Music for Advent I The Church of Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Memphis, Tennessee   Scott F. Foppiano, Organist and Director of Parish Music   VOLUNTARY: Wachet Auf, ruft uns die stimme (J.S. Bach) PROCESSIONAL: Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus (Stuttgart) PSALM: 122 (setting: Plainsong, Tone II.1) GOSPEL ACCLAMATION: Plainsong Alleluia with verse HYMN AT THE PRESENTATION: People, Look East (Besancon) ANTHEM (10:30): E'en So, Lord Jesus, Quickly Come (Paul Manz) ORDINARIES: New Plainsong Mass (David Hurd) COMMUNION HYMN: The Advent of Our King (St. Thomas/Williams) POST-COMMUNION ANTHEM: Jesus, Name of Wondrous Love (Everett Titcomb) RECESSIONAL: O Come, O Come, Emmanuel (Veni, Veni Emmanuel) VOLUNTARY: Improvisation on Veni Emmanuel   Scott F. Foppiano Memphis, TN (scottfop@aol.com) Cantantibus organis Caecilia Domino decantabat.  
(back) Subject: RE: from an old frump From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:06:13 -0600   While we're on the subject of objectionable language, I would appreciate it if Sebastian and other organ builders would cease the use of the terms "thumping tadpoles" and "whomperstomping cinnamon". As a poor cook (i.e., one who does not do it well), and a raiser of frogs for the area frog choirs (i.e., as a naturalist, I only provide the environment for the natural propagation of the species), I take great umbrage to these sobriquets (or sobriquettes, if in miniature).   Seriously, people, some terms originally had a perfectly valid and functional meaning. Do we cease to use the terms in those contexts after others have sullied them?   By the way, the other tune Grant knew was "When a body meets a body coming through the rye . . .," but he couldn't remember all the words.   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Harry Grove   I know only two tunes. One them is ''Yankee Doodle'' and the other isn't. Ulysses S. Grant