PipeChat Digest #4863 - Sunday, October 31, 2004
 
Minor builders of the 19th. century
  by "Stephen Roberts" <sroberts01@snet.net>
Re: Organs without shades
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Re: USAF Mollers
  by <OMusic@aol.com>
Re: Music today
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Re: PipeChat Digest #4862 - 10/31/04
  by "Peter Rodwell" <iof@ctv.es>
What I played today
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Second to none?
  by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com>
Re: Second to none?
  by <Pepehomer@aol.com>
Horse-drawn buggies, and all that goes with it.......
  by "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com>
RE: Music today
  by "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net>
Re: Second to none?
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
Re: Music today
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Re: Horse-drawn buggies, and all that goes with it....... Tin Ears
  by "Mattcinnj" <mattcinnj@yahoo.com>
Large organs
  by <Miltronix2004@wmconnect.com>
it finally happened...
  by <BlueeyedBear@aol.com>
RE: Second to none?
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
RE: Second to none?
  by "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net>
RE: Hmmmmm..... I am puzzled here...
  by "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net>
 

(back) Subject: Minor builders of the 19th. century From: "Stephen Roberts" <sroberts01@snet.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:42:06 -0800 (PST)   Dear List, Dennis Steckley wrote: <Personally, I think the lesser quality builders of the 19th.---and even = early 20th. century--are seldom remembered precisely because they WEREN'T memorable, = and their organs are mostly discarded by now.> That is true in some cases, but here in New England there are many little = churches where little 19th. century tracker organs--some of them by less = well known or prolific builders -- are still in use after 100 years and = more. They may not thrill the listener as a big organ might, but they do = exactly what they were intended to do: accompany hymns, soloists, and a = small choir. In larger churches in the city, these simple little service = playing organs almost never survive. Why not? When they were no longer = fashionable, or were no longer considered to be suitable vehicles for = organists to display his or her talent, the churches were talked into = throwing them out, and spending obscene amounts of money to build a new = monument to the incumbent organists vanity. It's rarely the people in the = pews who clamor for a new organ; it's almost always the organist. In = many cases the old organ simply needed a good cleaning and replacement of = worn out parts to make it work properly again. Some really fine organs sometimes fall victim to this kind of thing: I know = of an Episcopal church that threw out a large 3 manual Skinner from the = late 20's as late as 1970 or so. In larger, wealthier churches, organs = have often been replaced every 40 years or so. With the cost of organs = these days, and the limited supply of woods and metals, I question whether = we can continue to engage in this kind of extravagance. Mind you: I love = a large new organ as well as anyone, but I have also seen many cases where = the new organ was no better than the old one in terms of real quality, and = sometimes worse. If the old organ was by a builder of good quality, and = is simply out of style or needs renovation, I think that one needs to = proceed with great caution before deciding to throw it out and start over = again. To get back to Dennis' original point: I also think that one should not = necessarily dismiss an organ by a less well known builder, just because it = wasn't built by Hook or Johnson or Skinner or whomever. Of course there = have always been local hack builders who did inferior work; there still = are, and probably always will be. On the other hand, fine small builders = like George and William Stevens, James Treat, Richard Ferris, and Giles = Beach aren't very well known today--except perhaps to those who attend OHS = Conventions regularly--but their work was generally equal in quality to = that of some of the very best builders of their time, and in some cases = better. Giles Beach is a particularly good example to cite; he was a = small local builder from Gloversville, NY, who built very few organs, but = the ones that survive are gems. If one looked and saw "Giles Beach" on = the nameplate and didn't know anything about his work, one might be = tempted to dismiss a little organ that Beach built as unimportant, because he is relatively obscure. But if you play one of = his instruments, you'll quickly realize that he was a very fine builder = indeed. Another builder like that is James Treat, who built exquisite = instruments of uncompromising quality. It would be an obscenity to discard = an organ by Treat or Beach, or to rebuild it beyond recognition. They are = masterpieces by any standard. So once again, it becomes apparent that fashion dooms most old organs, not = time or poor quality workmanship. I hate to say this about my own = profession, but the biggest enemies of old organs are often organists. = Those of us old enough to remember the cartoon character "Pogo" will = probably remember his famous pronouncement, "We have met the enemy, and he = is us!" Alas, dear friends, 'tis true, more often than not.... :) Stephen Roberts Western CT State University, Danbury, CT  
(back) Subject: Re: Organs without shades From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:43:18 EST   I have played some organs without shades, and it definitely calls one's musicianship into question--it makes you work harder and get more = creative. Those who are TRUE musicians can pull it off without a hitch, those who = can't, well...you're up a creek without a paddle. There is a small 1 manual Casavant tracker in a RC church in California = that is completely unenclosed and has no divided stops. While it's not what I =   would want to play every week, I have played it numerous times when I was =   growing up. It has some charming stops on it, and given the fact that it = lacks and 8' Principal, does have a decent chorus. Sure there are things that = I would love to have if I were to play it weekly, such as a Principal and = divided stops, BUT, even without swell shades, a true musician can coax all sorts = of colors and dynamics out of it by registering creatively--playing stops = out of their pitch registers. The 4' Rohrflote is one of the most gorgeous = stops I've ever heard and played. Played down and octave, it's quite = effective. The 8' Gedeckt up an octave gives another charming effect. A fugue doesn't have to be played at full organ (such as it is) to work--sometimes, the 8 and 4' Flutes work well, or for some brilliance, = adding the 2' Oktave is enough. One doesn't always have to add the III Mixtur on this organ to gain loudness. We have all become used to just plopping down on = a bench, grabbing a handful of knobs, or hitting General 3, and just playing--without any thought. Playing an organ without shades makes us = think about the artistic aspect of registration. Just because I'm going to have a huge instrument installed in a year and a = half doesn't mean that I'm going to fall into that trap... Even when I = played at Calvary, I would spend hours finding just the sound I wanted. That's = why I specified couplers "Everywhere to Everywhere" at every pitch--so I = could get the effect that I wanted. If I hear a certain sound I want, I was = going to make sure that I could get it. I think all organists should have to play 6 months of services on organs without registration aids and without shades--if they have enough musical = sense to make it through a month of living like that, then, and ONLY then, = should they be able to get a job playing in a church. They would have proven themselves musically worthy. They would have proven their musical good = taste--that they could sit down and not just randomly pop a piston and play. They (hopefully) would be able to play and MAKE music on an instrument = regardless of what it was, from a 2 rank tracker to a 200 rank behemouth EP, and = anything in between, not relying on pistons, shades, etc., to make music, but relying = on their inate musicality. Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Re: USAF Mollers From: <OMusic@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:43:48 EST   I was organist at the Ft. Bliss (El Paso) chapel in the 50's when they = still had Hammonds. When were the pipe organs installed? I also played at = Biggs AFB chapel occasionally (another Hammond). Lee  
(back) Subject: Re: Music today From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:49:12 EST   >I played the Tocatta and people seemed to enjoy it. The Postlude -when >I used it- isn't part of the service and I love the piece anyway. >Alicia Zeilenga   A pet peeve of mine... it's "Toccata" not Tocatta... now back to "trick = or treating" everyone. Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #4862 - 10/31/04 From: "Peter Rodwell" <iof@ctv.es> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:53:04 +0100   Quoting Dennis:   > BTW, this good instrument in a church where attendance averages > under 100 on Sundays is played by SIX qualified organists   Not simultaneously, surely?   Peter.      
(back) Subject: What I played today From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:04:33 EST   Friendship Missionary Baptist Church Charlotte, NC 7:30AM Male Chorus (110 voices!) 9:15 & 11:15 AM Gospel Ensemble We had all sorts of guest musicians today, so in addition to our choirs, = we had: Catrina Pegues, vocalist (winner of 2004 Give Me the Mike Charlotte Competition--a local version of "American Idol") Don Lewis, Rodgers/Roland artist, guest organist (who played during the offering) we also had one of our members who is an actress/dancer do a liturgical dance presentation Prelude: Concert Variations on "No, Not One" Jon Spong (written for = Alan Morrison) Opening Hymn: Come All Christians, Be Committed (Beach Spring) Invitation Hymn: (7:30) Softly and Tenderly, Jesus is Calling (9:15 & 11:15) I Have Decided to Follow Jesus Postlude: Tuba Tune C. S. Lang  
(back) Subject: Second to none? From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:23:58 EST   In the Cincinnati area there is a Fifth/Third Bank which is a major player = in the financial markets.   Just my two cents worth. Stan Krider   In a message dated 10/31/2004 4:42:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, Peter = Rodwell writes:   Why are there so many churches in the US called the "First <something>"? First Baptist, First Methodist, etc. Does "first" mean the first to be built in that location? Or first in some sort of ranking that somehow implies "better"?   And why are there apparently no "Second <whatever>" churches? At least I can't remember ever receiving details of an organ in a chuch so named. Does this mean that, once there is a First Church in a place, the next one to be built has to be called something else so that its parishioners don't feel inferior, as they presumably would were it called "Second..."?   (Now I know this is just asking for dozens of replies saying, "But I'm the organist at the Second Church of the Wrath of the Lord in Graveyard, Arizona..." to which my reply is, "Good - now send me the specs of the organ".)   Just wondering...   Peter.  
(back) Subject: Re: Second to none? From: <Pepehomer@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:26:46 -0500   I was always under the impression that they named them based on the order = that they appeared in the town, such as First Baptist was the first in the = town to be a Baptist church (or at least wanted that name!)   Justin Karch Organist, Holy Trinity LCMS Rome, Ga  
(back) Subject: Horse-drawn buggies, and all that goes with it....... From: "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:27:28 -0700   =3D-> I know it's an old fashioned concept these days, but remember when an organist was expected to know how to register and organ by hand? <-=3D       Yeah, it WAS fashionable once upon a time. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when it was also fashionable to blow the organ with manual power; read the music by candlelight, compose same with quill pens dipped in liquid ink, come to the church in horse and buggy, and get paid 20 or 25=A2 per service. If you are fortunate to get paid at all in cash.   I really just do not understand this mind-boggling Luddite mentality that a certain type of organist embraces -- those who feel obliged to marry themselves, technologically and aesthetically, to bygone eras. And, as it follows, to expect everyone else to do the same.   Frankly, I'm a child of the new millennium. Give me a console that is EASY to play, not hard WORK; one that ASSISTS in making music instead of HINDERING it. It's utter nonsense not to equip any modern organ - even trackers - with some kind of combination action. And the more pistons and levels, the better. Especially for instruments that are used by more than one person.   Same goes for expression. It's sheer lunacy to expect a church organist to play week after week on ANY organ without at least one expressive division -- let alone some tiny (and, probably, horrid-sounding) 1-manual organ with a half-dozen stops. Just plain nuts. Bizarre. Peculiar.   And, personally speaking, after having been playing a lovely 3-manual Casavant that is COMPLETELY enclosed, I'd go so far as to espouse complete expressiveness on ANY organ that's interred in a chamber-type installation. NO, not to pump the shutters open and closed. YES, to give the organist even more sonic and tonal versatility especially with an organ of limited scope.   Virgil Fox, God love 'im, called this phenomenon "the nitpicking worship of historic impotence." And he hit the nail right on the head. You may rightly argue with his taste in concert attire and snigger at some of his affectations and some of the liberties he took with the music, but ya can't argue with the fact that he was spot-on about all these nervous-nelly organists who would fall over in a dead faint if they had to play more than 5 stops at a time, or, God Forbid, push a piston or a swell shoe.   And this gets even more nuts when you consider how some organists want to pick and choose which bit of "historic impotence" to worship. One will be content with tracker key action but its okay to have electric stop action, electric blower, console lights, and some kind of combination action. Then the next on the pecking order will insist on mechanical key and stop action, and with no combinations, but an electric blower and console lights are fine. Then the nuttiest of them all will adamantly insist upon pure mechanical action, probably with some queer and obscure temperament (speaking here of both the organist AND his organ); with hand blowing, and, God Bless 'Em, I bet there are even organists who wish they had candle holders on the console instead of those hideous, garish, newfangled ELECTRIC LIGHTS.   Yet, they don't mind driving to said organ in a modern automobile, and they sit at a COMPUTER to vexatiously condemn any technology newer than, what, 1850!   I have spoken on occasion about my fondness for vintage vacuum cleaners, and my fairly large collection of them. I =3Ddo=3D understand the, well, the allure of vintage technology. I love the look and appearance, and the gentle, soft purr of a 1937 Electrolux. Every so often I get out one of my old sweepers and run it around the house just for fun. But would I use them for ongoing, day-to-day cleaning? Not unless I am some kind of nut. As beautiful-looking and well-made as they are, they just can't hold a, er, CANDLE, to a modern, powerful sweeper with hepa filtration and all sorts of power-driven attachments. (Some models even have vibrators, to relax those sore muscles after a long day of vacuuming...!)   If I ran a custodial department of a company, would I recommend -- no, INSIST, that all the cleaning equipment consist of vacuum cleaners that are hand-pumped, that still use the dump-out, unsanitary cloth bags of 50 years ago, and would I eschew all modern accessories such as power-driven brushes, suction control regulators or "bag-full" lights? Oh, the utter corruption of it all!   Yes, of course, this would be utter, utter madness. Just as it is in the organ world. Kids, it's 2004. Not 1904. Not 1804. Not only do you NOT HAVE to restrict yourselves to obsolete technology, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to do so.   Of course, just my opinion. And I would generally say, without hesitation, "Live and Let Live." Save for the fact that one organist's bizarre fixation for the past will be foisted upon all her successors. Organs are not portable, nor do they belong to the organist. But try to explain that to the petulant "worshipper of historic impotence" who insists on consummating HER vision of some bizarre, impossible to play contraption as if it WAS her own, and paid for out of her own pocket!   The Rant is Ended; Go in Peace.      
(back) Subject: RE: Music today From: "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:48:08 -0600   Where?   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of T.Desiree' Hines Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:38 PM To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Music today     Sunday Octber 31, 2004 Celebrating the Ministry of Martin Luther   Prelude Prelude and Fugue in E Minor S. 533 JS Bach   Processional Hymn A Mighty Fortress is Our God Ein Feste Burg interlude arr. Kleintop-Owens   Choral Anthem Teach Me O Lord T. Atwood   Sermon Hymn Come Ye Sinners, Poor an Needy Arise   Offertory Meditation Berceuse L. Vierne   Offertory response Blest Thou, the Gifts   Prayer Response Sevenfold Amen J. Stainer   Closing Hymn (can't remember it..it was new, to me, and had the word "men" in it too many times for the ladies of the church and our liking)   Benediction Response The Benediction of Aaron ES Lorenz   Postlude Ein Feste Burg (from 30 Short Chorale Preludes) M. Reger     Yes its Halloween, but I wanted to keep that, first, its Sunday, and = that precedes any secular festivities. I avoided using the D Minor 565-A today because I just did not want evoke "Halloween music" feelings.   FWIW TDH     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!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.  
(back) Subject: Re: Second to none? From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:53:07 -0600     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Rodwell" <iof@ctv.es> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:53 PM Subject: Second to none?     > Typing in and/or re-formatting hundreds of organ specifications > is a task both thankless and more tedious than you could ever > imagine. One tends to switch to auto pilot and one's mind > starts to muse over the oddest of things. Such as: > > Why are there so many churches in the US called the > "First <something>"? First Baptist, First Methodist, > etc. Does "first" mean the first to be built in that > location? Or first in some sort of ranking that somehow > implies "better"?   It does in fact mean the first one to have been built.   > And why are there apparently no "Second <whatever>" > churches? At least I can't remember ever receiving > details of an organ in a chuch so named. Does this > mean that, once there is a First Church in a place, > the next one to be built has to be called something > else so that its parishioners don't feel inferior, > as they presumably would were it called "Second..."?   Well perhaps they always hoped there would be more, though in many cases there weren't, so First remained the only one. There are, however, = Seconds, Thirds, etc., around. Here in St. Louis we have Second and Third Baptist Churches, and a Second Presbyterian Church. The Christian Scientists are especially fond of First, Second, Third, etc., even in England. The Ninth Church of Christ Scientist in Westminster, where David Sanger was at one time organist, was a particularly famous one, though I think it has now closed. The Lutherans and Anglicans didn't go in for "Firsting" much, although our local ELCA Lutheran Church, now known as Gethsemane Lutheran Church, was founded 90 years ago as First Swedish Lutheran Church of St. Louis.   John Speller      
(back) Subject: Re: Music today From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:53:30 -0500   Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio   Prelude 8:30 Prelude on a Breton Hymn Gaston Litaize 10:30 His Eye Is On the Sparrow (bell choir) Charles Gabriel, arr. Bill Ingram Hymn: A Mighty Fortress Hymn: Awake, O Jerusalem (words and music by yours truly) Anthem 8:30 Lord of the Dance Sydney Carter, arr. as a duet by Lloyd Larson 10:30 Through the Eyes of Faith Craig Courtney (choir, with three = trumpets) Hymn: Lord, Keep Us Steadfast in Your Word Offertory: Be Thou My Vision (baritone solo), arr. Craig Courtney Hymn: The Church's One Foundation Postlude: A Mighty Fortress Jean Langlais   Carillon concert, 2:00, Miami University: Toccata and Fugue in D Minor (J.S. Bach) Funeral March for a Marionette (Charles Gounod) Danse Macabre (Camille Saint-Saens) Theme from Twilight Zone Aba Daba Honeymoon Chim Chim Char-ee Your Song (Elton John) Young a Heart You're Never Fully Dressed without a Smile Too Young Lida Rose Let Me Call You Sweetheart Misty Missouri Waltz Miami University Alma Maer Miami Fight Song     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: Re: Horse-drawn buggies, and all that goes with it....... Tin Ears From: "Mattcinnj" <mattcinnj@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:54:53 -0800 (PST)     Speaking of progress ..............   I heard the d minor T & F this morning in MEANTONE temperment. All it = took was a press of a button to switch from ET to it. Thanks to the organ = being a Johannus and having 2 complete Intonations (sets of samples) one = being Baroque I imagine this is as close as I'll get to hearing how it = sounded in its day. It was quite a sound. I didn't care for it , but the = organist received more compliments about how great the organ sounded this = morning than I can remember. Now I'm wondering about who has the Tin = ears, me or the congregation ???   Matt     --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
(back) Subject: Large organs From: <Miltronix2004@wmconnect.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:24:43 EST   <<Seems as though this attitude prevails throughout contemporary society. Consider today's politicians, CEOs, CFOs, insurance moguls, movie stars, = SUV owners, etc. Bigger is better at all costs, it seems. Quality of life be damned.   I guess the church and its various employees do reflect the contemporary attitudes.>>   Stan (Krider) has an interesting point. But, perhaps some of the desire = for larger, more comprehensive organs reflects not just the player's desire/fantasy, but also the church's musical needs. I don't have a = situation anything near like Monty's, but even in our modest sized congregation, the musical = demands on the organ are vastly different than in times past. There was a time, = perhaps a generation ago, when we had a rather staid Worship Service; a relatively =   small pipe organ could handle the hymns, choir anthem, and Doxology and = Amen. Now we have four different worship formats, and the organ has to be all = things to all people: a lush romantic sound for Communion, "gospel" sound for the =   Southern Gospel services (with piano), "contemporary" sounds (thank Gosh = the Sound Organ Library fits the bill) for our Praise & Worship service (with piano = and drummer), and conventional organ sound for the traditional service. Not to =   mention recitals, accompaniment to various instruments, etc. Sometimes we = use all styles at one Service, as we did at our 76th Anniversary a few months = ago.   Sorry, but a small pipe (or electronic) organ even of breathtaking = excellence simply would not work in our situation.   The good thing about this is the fact that we have not ditched the organ; it's still used every Sunday.   Pax, Bill Miller, Coleman Place Presbyterian, Norfolk VA  
(back) Subject: it finally happened... From: <BlueeyedBear@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:29:15 EST   what i have always considered to be the ultimate compliment, but have = never received until today, finally happened. at the conclusion of the = postlude, the congregation actually began applauding before i lifted the final chord... =   this is not a happy-clappy church, and they have a very deep appreciation = and preference for the classics, so it came as a surprise to me. but it sure = was a nice one.   scot in spokane  
(back) Subject: RE: Second to none? From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:45:59 -0600   OK, I'll bite. There's many "Seconds" and more churches out there - Isn't it New York City that has numbered Churches of Christ Scientist out the ying-yang?   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com (too tired to make a joke for you)   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Peter Rodwell   And why are there apparently no "Second <whatever>" churches? At least I can't remember ever receiving details of an organ in a chuch so named. Does this mean that, once there is a First Church in a place, the next one to be built has to be called something else so that its parishioners don't feel inferior, as they presumably would were it called "Second..."?        
(back) Subject: RE: Second to none? From: "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:00:10 -0600   Well, the church in downtown Chicago is 17th - Aeolian Skinner from the early 70s, I believe. Of course, quite a few CS churches with lower = numbers don't exist any more.   michael     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of Glenda Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:46 PM To: 'PipeChat' Subject: RE: Second to none?     OK, I'll bite. There's many "Seconds" and more churches out there - Isn't it New York City that has numbered Churches of Christ Scientist out the ying-yang?        
(back) Subject: RE: Hmmmmm..... I am puzzled here... From: "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:07:42 -0600   Thanks, I wondered about that Welch album.   I seem to recall that the government had an exclusive contract with = Moller. Holtkamp designed the Colorado Springs organ but I don't think there was ever any question of him building it - at least, not in the government's mind.   I meant to ask how all of that foreign stuff got into West Point: the = Edgar Gress upper work and the Aeolian Skinner 32' bombarde laying behind some triforium seats. Gotta go back.   michael     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of M Fox Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 10:24 AM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Hmmmmm..... I am puzzled here...     > P.S. The main organ in the Air Force Academy Chapel in Colorado Springs = IS > a M=F6ller, cir. 1970 (give or take a couple of years either way - I do = have > a brochure on it but it's filed far, far away), built to the design and > specification of Walter Holtkamp. I don't recall all the particulars but > it seems that Holtcamp had originally gotten the contract then could not > deliver in time so it was passed over to M=F6ller. Something along that > line.   I think it's even weirder than that. If I'm remembering right, Air Force procurement rules prohibited the consultant/designer (Holtkamp) from providing the materiel itself (as the AF probably thought of it), so the organ had to be contracted out to someone else (M=F6ller). Another quirk, again if I'm remembering right, is that when the M=F6ller was used for recording purposes (e.g., a Wilson Audio record by James Welch), AF regulations did not allow the organ to be identified because of some truly inane prohibition against commercial exploitation of AF property.