PipeChat Digest #4744 - Tuesday, September 7, 2004
 
Re: the death of grammar
  by <OMusic@aol.com>
Room dimensions
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com>
Crescendo pedals
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Re: Crescendo pedals
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question - the 'difference'
  by <RMaryman@aol.com>
Re: Room dimensions
  by <Swedish5702@aol.com>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
where does the money come from
  by "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net>
RE: Electronic Instrument Question
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
RE: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
OT:  Kilgallen
  by "littlebayus@yahoo.com" <littlebayus@yahoo.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: the death of grammar From: <OMusic@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:45:13 EDT   It isn't only in the South. One reason is that the qualifications for teachers have dropped, and the curiculum for the kids in school is easier = than when "we" were kids. South, indeed! Some of the most intellectual people I = know live in the South. The colleges have eased up on their requirements to = get a degree in Education. I loved college. I was an accompanist in the vocal = studios as well as accompanying for Met and contest auditions. The 50 hours of required classes outside of music were much easier than the courses I took = in High School. I did not go to college until I had been out of High School 13 = years. By that time I had 3 small children and was a single mother. To make = ends meet I played for funerals, as well as having a church position, and = checked groceries in the evenings. Since I was also a Cosmetologist, I worked part = time styling hair. It took seven years to complete my Bachelor of Music Education degree with an emphasis in organ. In an attempt to get a = Master's degree, I kept changing from Special Education, trying to obtain an MBA, = and music composition. As a result I have over 50 hours of post graduate = work, teaching certificates in Vocal and Instrumental music, as well as Special Education, and no Master's degree. My mother had been an English teacher, = my Dad a math teacher, my aunt a History teacher. Therefore, we were raised on accounting principles, proper grammar, and a desire to learn what we could = about History, Geneology, and a realization that History does repeat itself. I = was fortunate that my organ teacher prepared me for being a church organist (I = had already been playing for churches 17 years before starting college. I = find that on the internet, especially answering email, and in the IM's, I am = careless with grammar. Somewhere in this post I am expounding on the the "death of =   grammar." You may have to read between the lines. To stay within "legal" = Pipechat rules, I have the following announcement: Hector Olivera is playing at the First Methodist Church in Wichita Falls Texas, September 17, 2004, on their new organ built by the Garland Pipe = Organ Company of Ft. Worth, TX. Also, Elaine Chard of Oklahoma City and now = Organist of the First Lutheran Church, is teaching organ at Oklahoma Baptist = University. It seems that there is a renewed interest in learning to play the organ. Lee (See how many errors are in the above. I have not read through it to find them).  
(back) Subject: Room dimensions From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@direcway.com> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:52:07 -0500   Sorry - meant 40' X 80' (width is at least as much as my house - thanks for pointing that out, Keith), but I think that is sans chancel. Hell, I'll get over there again and pace it myself, and maybe take some pictures, but that may have to wait until Sunday when it is open. Gotta work and make money during the day - I have court Thursday and Monday.   Help me out counting here - it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, . . .   Glenda Sutton gksjd85@direcway.com          
(back) Subject: Crescendo pedals From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:56:05 -0400   on 9/6/04 9:12 PM, DudelK@aol.com at DudelK@aol.com wrote:   But these things tend to go on ad nauseam and I have a bit of arthritis in my index fingers and tire of hitting delete on and on and on and on and . = .. .. it's not at all difficult to take these things private, which is what I d= o when I am responding to something that wouldn't seem to be of any interest other than to the original poster and myself . . . although others seem never to have a thought without hitting "send." And SOME complicate it AND REALLY infuriate the literate AMONG US by using the SHIFT KEY the way some people who CAN'T REGISTER anything use the CRESCENDO pedal.   I shall now retreat to the quiet of my garret with my pets and log off.   My 1934 M=F6ller is seriously deficient in combination pistons. It has only six, and as it has no general cancel, I have to use one for that purpose, which leaves only five. I need one for hymns, I like to keep two for Frenc= h reed-rich combinations, and I like to keep one for classical baroque plenum= .. That only leaves me one piston for other incidental music like preludes and offertories. Of course, I make pretty good use of divisional pistons to take up the slack. But as a result of all this, I really need the crescend= o pedal --which at full tilt is not totally full organ, just moderately so, with the Swell trumpet kicking in, as it couples the Swell (and the Choir, for that matter) to the Great--as a combination piston of sorts, or even more than one! So I use it shamelessly, and am particularly happy when playing music by, say, Karg-Elert, that specifically requests it. Vive le crescendo pedal!   I was delighted with the had had solutions, which made my fifteen-year-old daughter very happy this evening, as she may try to stump her English teacher with the riddle tomorrow. The sentence with five prepositions coming after the verb may be put to the same use. As Winston Churchill was said to have said, avoiding prepositions after the verb is "nonsense up wit= h which I shall not put!"     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: Re: Crescendo pedals From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:04:05 -0500   I have no problem with careful use of a crescendo pedal. I also play an organ with deficient pistons (just three divisionals each division, no generals). So I sometimes go in with a screwdriver and change the = crescendo sequence for different occasions. But may I suggest exploring the wonders =   of having young piano students be "pistons" for you? Might just get them interested in the organ.   Andy     > My 1934 M=F6ller is seriously deficient in combination pistons. It > has only six, and as it has no general cancel, I have to use one for > that purpose, which leaves only five. I need one for hymns, I like > to keep two for French reed-rich combinations, and I like to keep > one for classical baroque plenum. That only leaves me one piston for > other incidental music like preludes and offertories. Of course, I > make pretty good use of divisional pistons to take up the slack. > But as a result of all this, I really need the crescendo pedal - > -which at full tilt is not totally full organ, just moderately so, > with the Swell trumpet kicking in, as it couples the Swell (and the > Choir, for that matter) to the Great--as a combination piston of > sorts, or even more than one! So I use it shamelessly, and am > particularly happy when playing music by, say, Karg-Elert, that > specifically requests it. Vive le crescendo pedal!     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: Electronic Instrument Question - the 'difference' From: <RMaryman@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:09:59 EDT   In a message dated 9/6/2004 8:27:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kwzimmerman@alltel.net writes: Therefore I wonder what the real difference is. . . the waves originate from many sources but terminate on a single receiver/eardrum . . ..vs. waves originating from very few sources/speakers to terminate on a single receiver/eardrum. the difference is in the way the sound waves interact on the way to one's = ear drums. there are constant changes in the spatial and phase relationships = as the sound waves from each pipe add to and subtract from and combine with = each other. because pipes emit sound in a 360 degree manner (as opposed to a = "beam" of sound from speakers) as the sound waves reflect off the walls, the = other pipes, the floor the ceiling, etc they combine and cancel in very complex relationships.   Rick in VA  
(back) Subject: Re: Room dimensions From: <Swedish5702@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:10:13 EDT   Glenda:   Did your area receive much rain from Frances? Here in North Central PA., = we are to have the remains late Wednesday or Thursday morning.   I was the person who asked you about the theatre pipe organ in a local Pensacola theatre. It is a Robert Morton instrument.   When I was a Navy Journalist I was assigned to Corry Field for a summer = back in 1963 and enjoyed your city very much.   Best, Craig Johnson Lock Haven, Pa.  
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Instrument Question From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:28:12 -0600   Hello, Seb, et al:   > Here is a serious list of questions regarding electronic instruments, > since the discussion has moved on to the adjustments made regarding > levels, balances, and how these units are installed. > It is understandable that if a pipe sound were sampled and faithfully > reproduced through a specific system (a sound generating source, > amplifier, and something to turn it back into sound, such as a speaker), > that sound would, in fact, be quite adjustable and quite faithful.   So far, . . . okay.   > My main question is that when one is trying to take several hundred of > these and feed them through the SAME system, or even twenty or thirty speaker > cabinets or "channels," is there not a certain amount of cancelling and > homogenization?   Two observations:   1. You would rarely, if ever, have several hundred of these sounds being generated and fed through the SAME system at any given moment in time. As with all organs, multiply the number of ranks of sound sources or pipes by the number of notes demanded in the musical score. That is the realistic number of sounds being fed through the SAME system.   2. While many of the production quality organs are limited to four to eight audio channels/speaker systems, the better organs from all of the digital manufacturers will use many more audio channels and speaker systems. There is an 80-channel organ in Texas that provides a vast separation of generated sound. This spreads the tonal resources even further apart and enriches the ensemble with more of the waveforms that provide far superior sound results as independent sounds into the chamber/room.   For instance, I recently installed an organ with 24 audio channels. Playing a normal registration for Sunday morning congregational singing of a couple of the classic protestant hymns, there is a high probability that each channel may carry only two or three sound sources as audio (now converted to acoustical waveforms). This is not the ultimate audio separation, but every time you separate the electrical waveforms, you open and clarify the sound into a more realistic tonal result.   Get the organ pushing out more waveforms through too few audio channels, and the audio gets a bit more "hazy." This is true for all electronically radiated sound.   Then, you deal with both of the ways that waveforms are made into electrical waveforms, and you can introduce another level of complexity that can make/keep the tonal results even more clear. These properties vary with the company and their policies prevailing for state-of-the-art technological applications.   All of the digital companies CAN do these things, but some do not choose to do them, for there is a cost for each of these properties, as surely as there is a cost for making superb sounding pipes instead of pipes that only make a noise on pitch.   > I have read increasingly about stereo imaging, multiple speaker > cabinets, and the like, but it just seems to me that once one decides > that any sound-producing system is going to do more than one > thing, the compromises build up.   The probing question falls onto HOW the builder decides to produce "more than one thing."   Part of the separation that must take place early in your thinking is whether the tonal result comes from only two waveforms, as in playing your CDs. Essentially, you are producing a complete ensemble of sound (recorded and processed to give the impression of a fine symphony hall).   However, if the digital organmaster decides to separate both the stops and pitch allocations to each channel used to radiate the waveform(s) that will create the desired tonal result in the room, you are now dealing with a completely different animal than playing back the recorded ensemble on CD. Playback is one thing; creating the sound as the desired tonal result with the room's acoustic properties as part of that sound is another.   Bob Saville observed (way back in about 1964-ish) that the first harmonic of a Principal 8 sounding middle C is the octave of middle C. Add the Octave 4 middle C through that same channel and you are now sounding the fundamental of the octave on top of the first harmonic of the Principal 8.   Conclusion, the sound is compromised.   However, if multiple audio channels (as many as you can afford) are used to separate the C and C# sound sources, then the tonal results are considerably less compromised.   As we ask all pipe organ prospects who want a really fine sounding organ, "How deep are your pockets?" If cost in no problem, we can have many, many audio channels with excellent clear sound that adds naturally in the room.   > There must be some scientific and mathematical term and > explanation for the phenomenon.   Probably is. No red-blooded engineer would fail to see that it might be explained in some method of advanced math and physics.   > But it would seem to me that all the sampling and high > technology in the world is somewhat muted by forcing > it through the blender of limited channels and through > the pastry bag of limited loudspeakers.   I believe you have concluded correctly.   > Does this explain the flat, sterile, soulless sound, even > when sampling the finest of artistic pipework?   I doubt it.   > And is it that very "perfected" sterility that pushes 93% of all > purchasers of organ-type instruments to pipeless instruments?   I believe that there are a few very gifted and privileged people in the organ-sphere who play the most beautiful of pipe organs. Some of these people have the best of all things, from fine coffee when they awake in the mornings following the most peaceful/restful of sleep in the night to the food they eat, the clothes they wear, the car they drive, etc., etc., etc.   These are the folks who may have difficulty understanding how or why anyone would ever be content with a digital organ, for whatever reasons.   Following the 80/20 rule, there are the people who belong to the 80 percentile who will never have the privilege of playing a fine pipe organ in a chruch. The cost is the most elemental differential; afterwhich you may throw in other subjective objections from ridiculous to sublime. The answer is, most churches have other priorities or limitations that will forever keep them from having a fine pipe organ of any size.   > It is a shocking statistic, so there must be a reason.   For 80 percent of those in the 80 percentile, they are happy to play whatever their church provides. WHY is never the question. They love the Lord and are content being part of a congregation that expresses that love in music.   There is another 20 percent of the 80 percentile. Of that bunch, 10 percent of the 80 percentile will never rest until they exhaust all effort to upgrade to a pipe organ. The other 10 percent don't care what they play, or if they play any organ at all.   You are hereby authorized to use these percentages to conclude as you wish, and you will probably be right.   What we have not addressed is the probability that the perfection of digitally created sound (whether by sampling techniques or completely programmed sound generation of every note every time it is played) will continue to get better and better and better . . . . We have not yet reached the knee on top of the perfection curve.   Compounding the unrealistic compromise of digitally generated organ sound, is the wide variance of organ understanding by those who sell, install, tonally finish, and service these organs. Some can and do, some also do something else to feed their faces. Making the organs sound good is not the goal of the latter group.   The pipe organ fraternity doesn't have many like this in the latter group, simply because there is little or no place for a pipe organ store. The pipe builders primarily sell pipe organs themselves, and make sure that every one of them is a tribute to their individual genius, . . . and I mean that with all my heart. Are there some pipe organ builders who botch a job now and then? Of course, but they don't stay in businss very long if they continue to botch their jobs.   Oooops! Sorry, but this is a two-way discussion and we in the digital organ class have to be careful that we don't get so overconfident in what we are doing and perfecting that we forget the privilege of having fine pipe organs to sample and imitate.   I adopted an attitude that goes with me every time I am privileged to play/hear a new organ in a new church or different church. That is: to accept the church meeting room (assumed that this is where the organ plays) for what it is and the organ for how well it takes advantage of the room. No two organs are alike, and some fair very well over mediocre meeting rooms.   Almost any organ sound well in a stone church with a typically reverberant acoustical environment. I have been privileged to install some of the digital instruments in rooms, and they are not sterile, etc. Let's all keep pushing for the right combinations of room acoustics and organ tonal production.   F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs     ..      
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:32:38 -0600   Hey, Dudel: =20 This is a national holiday, and we are making=20 good use of "quiet" time. =20 F. Richard Burt =20 =20 .. Can't this superfluous and (to some annoying) thread be put to rest = promptly. Thanks.
(back) Subject: where does the money come from From: "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:48:16 -0500   I don't know if anyone has ever made a study, but a major organ purchase = for a church is often due to a major gift from one or a handful of people. So = a church proudly claiming to have raised funds for a million dollar = instrument may, in fact, have raised only a fraction of that, which was added to the major gift.   I suspect many churches, at least those who don't have strong pipe organ traditions in worship, go with electronics when they purchase because it = is easier to raise, say $50,000 than it is a million, not solely because of = the amount of money involved, but precisely because of the stewardship issue. Dennis Steckley Lover of Cats, Pipe Organs & 1940-65 Sewing Machines    
(back) Subject: RE: Electronic Instrument Question From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:33:41 +0100   What you say is basically correct as far as the physics is concerned. = The thing is that pipe organ "sound" is not just a single sound but a blend = of dozens or hundreds of sounds, which not only interact with each other in = the chamber or case and in the room, but are also distributed spatially in = many different places. The same thing is true of your piano(s). Playing your piano live would not sound the same as playing a recording of it. Each string vibrates individually, even some which are not actually being = played and these sounds blend together as before. Just hearing this composite = music played through a couple of speakers doesn't give the identical effect at = all - it sounds like a recording of a piano, rather than a piano. That's = what we get from a digital organ. The sound of a good recording of an organ, not = an organ itself. The technology is improving all the time, but the lack of several hundred sound sources is the main reason that stops a digital sounding completely "real" in my opinion. =20   Will Light Coventry UK     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Keith Zimmerman Sent: 07 September 2004 01:27 To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Electronic Instrument Question   Seb asked . . . "when one is trying to take several hundred of these and feed them through the SAME system, or even twenty or thirty speaker = cabinets or "channels," is there not a certain amount of cancelling and homogenization?"   I've been wanting to pose a related question one of the other many times we've gone over the pipe vs electronic issue insofar as the actual "sound-producers" are concerned. I understand about the numerous pipes producing "waves" that come from many directions. Each "wave producing unit" emits a single sound (note). When the organ is playing using a setting of several ranks, these waves mix around in the chambers and in = the room and obviously have some effect on each other as they make their way = to the receivers (listeners). I guess using the tree falling in the woods, = we can't call it sound, yet. So . . . one of the criticisms of the = electronic organs has been that all these waves that represent the sounds that are being produced are funneled through very few speakers, and this process negates much of the beauty that is found in the true pipe organ sound.   I've never quite understood how one could get stereophonic sound with totally different instruments coming out of the two channels simply from = a disk being "read" by a single needle.   Anyway, something has occured to me in these discussions that makes me question the validity of the argument. I realize that I'm probably forgetting some "physics" here. . . .   Regardless of how many pipes are producing waves (as opposed to a few speakers in case of the electronic) all these waves end up on a pair of eardrums. Therefore I wonder what the real difference is. . . the waves originate from many sources but terminate on a single receiver/eardrum . = .. vs. waves originating from very few sources/speakers to terminate on a single receiver/eardrum.   I realize that there are other things that contribute to our sense of hearing. When I sit at my 7' Steinway (which is for sale, if anyone is interested) I notice a few things that are different from what I got = from my previous 5' 8" Knabe. My Knabe had nice bass notes, but, when these = notes are played on the larger Steinway, they not only produce a larger sound = to my ears, but there's a "feeling" that's actually tangible as the = stronger waves actually hit the body. IOW, one can "feel" the difference, not = just "hear" it.   Perhaps a large part of this difference we notice in the pipe organ = sound vs that obtained from a comparably sized electronic is something that has nothing to do with our ears, but may have something to do with impulses = that are transmitted to our inner ears by conduction through our bones = instead of air conduction through the ear canals.   Sorry about the length. I hope somebody was able to find a point to = what I was trying to say up there.   Keith Zimmerman, M.D.       ****************************************************************** "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: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:33:41 +0100   Um- Alice, while Matthew had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had = a better impression on the teacher.   Whew!   Will Light Coventry UK     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of = Andy Lawrence Sent: 07 September 2004 00:34 To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT   Punctuate this:   Alice while Matthew had had had had had had had had had had had a better =   impression on the teacher.   Andy (saw this in a a grammar book in grade school once)       A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.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: OT: Kilgallen From: "littlebayus@yahoo.com" <littlebayus@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:54:57 -0700 (PDT)   Greetings:   I erased the e-mail too quickly, but if my memory is correct, I think someone on this list mentioned the late Dorothy Kilgallen in one of their posts...   According to Lee Israel's biography of Miss Kilgallen, entitled, Kilgallen, you will find that it was Miss Kilgallen's father, Jim Kilgallen, who was born in Pittson Pa., and not Miss Kilgallen.   Please also see the following link for additional information from an individual who may be related to Miss Kilgallen:   http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/message/an/surnames.kilgallen/2       Best wishes to all.     Morton Belcher fellow list member....   __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com