PipeChat Digest #5298 - Thursday, April 28, 2005
 
Re: New III/20 under construction (with specification)
  by "Paul Smith" <kipsmith@getgoin.net>
Re: Personal taste, indeed (was How much would it cost?)
  by "Scott A Montgomery" <montre1978@yahoo.com>
Re: Making a Case for Wicks
  by "Desiree'" <nicemusica@yahoo.com>
making a case for Wick's organs
  by "GB" <gblack@ocslink.com>
Tremolos
  by "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net>
Tremulants, yet another can of worms :)
  by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com>
A NYC Odell?
  by "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net>
WICKS ORGANS
  by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com>
Re: Tremolos
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
Re: Bad Companies and Good Ones
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Re: WICKS ORGANS
  by "Paul Valtos" <chercapa@enter.net>
Re: 3 manuals 14 ranks
  by "Harry Grove" <musicman@cottagemusic.co.uk>
RE: New III/20 under construction (with specification)
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
When is a pipe organ not a pipe organ?
  by "Peter Rodwell" <iof@ctv.es>
Re: When is a pipe organ not a pipe organ?
  by "Maurits Lamers" <maurits@weidestraat.nl>
 

(back) Subject: Re: New III/20 under construction (with specification) From: "Paul Smith" <kipsmith@getgoin.net> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:24:05 -0500   Hello Mr Gluck,   I have a question about a Pedal with a 10 2/3' over only 16' foundation= =20 pitches. I understand that it will function in the bottom octave very much= =20 like a Resultant. But in my experiments with Resultant combinations, I have= =20 always found that the effect lost its magic the higher it got. By the secon= d=20 octave, it would seem to me that the two pitches would keep their separate= =20 identities, and not work well in many harmonic situations in which the=20 upper pitch (the 10 2/3') would clash with the chord above it. If this is= =20 true, how is the 10 2/3' better than a Resultant, which runs for the lowest= =20 octave, then drops down to the pitch that a real 32' would be producing for= =20 the second and further octaves in the Pedal?   = =20 "Curious" in Missouri ----- Original Message -----=20 From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:19 PM Subject: New III/20 under construction (with specification)     Ladies and Gentlemen:   While this instrument was not really to be publicized for another month, th= e current discussion prompted me to post. I recently signed a contract to=20 build a very small organ of twenty ranks for a chapel that cried out for some kin= d of creative solution to their organ situation, which had never been satisfactory since the church was built in the early 1920s.   Having designed a two-manual organ, I suddenly had the idea that I might, instead of trying to add a skeletal third manual, share some stops and=20 create a borrowed third manual. The organ is still perceived as only two manuals, bu= t can be played as three, adding flexibility when playing specific repertoire= ..   This organ took a great many months of planning and thought; the decisions were not arbitrary. While the pedal may LOOK small, it will, in my=20 experience, be quite adequate. The "hole in the middle" of the pedal borrow problem is eased by the inclusion of the independent 4' diapason, as well as the two= =20 full length open 16' extensions. The Recit and Positif share a common expression enclosure. The number of pipes are given in parentheses. Completion of the= =20 tonal finishing is expected prior to Christmas.   GRAND-ORGUE (II)   16=E2=80=99 Bourdon (12) 8=E2=80=99 Montre (58) 8=E2=80=99 Violoncelle (58) 8=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte Harmonique (Positif) 8=E2=80=99 Bourdon (58) 4=E2=80=99 Prestant (58) 2=E2=80=99 Doublette (58) Fourniture II=E2=80=93IV (196) 8=E2=80=99 Trompette Harmonique (Recit)     R=C3=89CIT-EXPRESSIF (III)   8=E2=80=99 Viole de Gambe (58) 8=E2=80=99 Voix C=C3=A9leste (46) 8=E2=80=99 Cor de Nuit (58) 4=E2=80=99 Prestant (58) 4=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte Octaviante (58) 2=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte Conique (58) 16=E2=80=99 Clarinette Basse (12, ext Positif Clarinette) 8=E2=80=99 Trompette Harmonique (58) 8=E2=80=99 Basson et Hautbois (58) 8=E2=80=99 Voix Humaine (58) Tremblant Voix Humaine Tremblant Positif et Recit   POSITIF-EXPRESSIF (I)   8=E2=80=99 Violoncelle (Grand-Orgue) 8=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte Harmonique (12, ext Flute Octaviante) 8=E2=80=99 Cor de Nuit (Recit) 4=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte Douce (12, ext Cor de Nuit) 8=E2=80=99 Clarinette (58)   I et II en =C3=A9change   P=C3=89DALE   16=E2=80=99 Contrebasse (12, ext Violoncelle) 16=E2=80=99 Sous Basse (Grand-Orgue) 10-2/3=E2=80=99 Gros Nasard 8=E2=80=99 Octave Basse (Grand-Orgue) 8=E2=80=99 Violoncelle (Grand-Orgue) 8=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte (Grand-Orgue) 4=E2=80=99 Quinzi=C3=A8me (32) 4=E2=80=99 Flute Ouverte (Recit) 4=E2=80=99 Fl=C3=BBte Bouch=C3=A9e (Grand-Orgue) 16=E2=80=99 Bombarde (12) 16=E2=80=99 Clarinette Basse (Grand-Orgue) 8=E2=80=99 Trompette (Grand-Orgue) 4=E2=80=99 Clarinette (Grand-Orgue)         ****************************************************************** "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>         Li  
(back) Subject: Re: Personal taste, indeed (was How much would it cost?) From: "Scott A Montgomery" <montre1978@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:34:58 -0700 (PDT)   Just goes to show different churches, different installations, good and = bad...   Robert Lind <lindr@core.com> wrote:Very interesting. I played a bad 1920 = Austin for many years (St. James Cathedral, Chicago, where I studied with = and succeeded Leo Sowerby) and played a rather good 1980s Austin several = times at St. Simon's, Arlington Heights, IL. Robert Lind ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott A Montgomery To: PipeChat Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: Re: How much would it cost?     <snip> I have heard fantastic Austins from the 20s and horrible one from the 80s <snip> It's all a matter of personal taste       Scott Montgomery 619 W Church St Champaign, IL 61820 217-390-0158 www.ScottMontgomeryMusic.net  
(back) Subject: Re: Making a Case for Wicks From: "Desiree'" <nicemusica@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:52:18 -0700 (PDT)   The John Weaver recording of the Wicks is not that good. However, I'm = still blown away scratching head, rubbing face, thinking "wow!". Wicks and = Ruffatti seem to be going to similar phases. It seems as thought both = companies had pasts where the organs lacked warmth and are now in a = redemptive state that is making them among the choice for many. They both = also seem to be saying "Look, we know we have bad pasts, but listen to us = now!"       __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
(back) Subject: making a case for Wick's organs From: "GB" <gblack@ocslink.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:59:15 -0500   HI list, I play a very small unit Wicks of 5 ranks built in 1946. I have been the organist at this church for 28 years and have never had one bit = of trouble with the action. No ciphers, no dead notes etc. that may plague = e-p instruments of this age. After 59 years of service, we are having the regulator re-leathered ( for the first time since it left the factory) and a new swell motor installed. This small organ does well in our setting. It was not conceived as a recital instrument with all of the bells and whistles of larger = instruments. No "party horns" sticking out of the back wall aimed to take the tops of your heads off etc. I wonder if Moller, Austin, Schantz, Reuter etc. would have done a better job with this type of small organ? I doubt it.   Eventhough I had nothing to do with the original installation and had no = say so as to what we should have installed, it is still better than a Leslie speaker and chorus vibrato 3. There you have it folks. lol Gary    
(back) Subject: Tremolos From: "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:59:32 -0400   Hi List,   One of my favorite tremolo experiences was hearing the Wanamaker organ for the first time; boy, those tremolos were set slow and deep and they shook the string organ... What a great sound. That organ turns me to mush. I can't wait to hear Atlantic City back up and running with full strings...   There's a nice organ that I take care of that was built within the last fifteen years, replacing one that was destroyed by a flood. The tremolo for this organ has a tube made of red felt that is probably two feet long or so, extending from the exhaust port to muffle the sound a bit. When the tremolo is on, this felt tube pulsates like some sort of visceral tissue, like an esophagus or something - yikes!   - Nate    
(back) Subject: Tremulants, yet another can of worms :) From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:08:41 EDT   How do I like my trems set? Well, Does anyone remember a novelty singer from the 1950s-60s who called =   herself Mrs. Miller? She sang pops songs with a vibrato that would shake = the knot off a tree! That's how I like my trems to shake. (think fat lady = singing to end the opera!) LOL Stan Krider In a message dated 4/27/2005 11:25:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, h100series@pacbell.net writes:     How do you like your tremulants to sound:   That which represents (as coined by my associate) a "blue haired = methodist choir"   or   Tremulant settings which are modeled after a young female singer?   Have at!        
(back) Subject: A NYC Odell? From: "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:18:25 -0400   Dear List,   Has anyone seen the 3m Odell listed on the Organ Clearing House site in person? The console pictures and specification are most interesting. I wish that we could find a new home for this organ, and the Hutchings in the scientist Church.   It's very sobering to consider the shrinking of our profession... I wonder how the mechanical clockmakers felt when the first electric clocks started hitting the shelves...   - Nate    
(back) Subject: WICKS ORGANS From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:19:44 EDT   To put D. Keith Morgan's comments in perspective, in the early 1960s: 1) a Ford or Chevy cost $2500 while the Buick/Chryslers cost around = $5000, 2) gas was at 25 cents a gallon, 3) homes were built for around $15,000 to $20,000, and 4) a popcycle was 5 cents. My Dad's pay for machinist's work in a factory was $100 a week..   Which president lost the election because of the phrase, "It's the = ECONOMY, stupid! " ? LOL Stan Krider In a message dated 4/27/2005 11:25:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, _Voicer40@aol.com_ (mailto:Voicer40@aol.com) writes:   Furthermore, the prices of organs has gone through the ceiling. When I = was an organ student in the early 1960s, $100,000 would buy a huge 4-manual organ, Now you couldn't replace the console on one of those organs for = $100,000.            
(back) Subject: Re: Tremolos From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:22:57 -0500     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:59 PM Subject: Tremolos   > There's a nice organ that I take care of that was built within the > last fifteen years, replacing one that was destroyed by a flood. The > tremolo for this organ has a tube made of red felt that is probably two > feet long or so, extending from the exhaust port to muffle the sound a > bit.   I'm fascinated to discover that someone else has come up with this = solution. I remember nearly twenty years ago when I was working with Columbia Organ Works we restored an organ in a Lutheran Church in Harrisburg, Pa., where there was a very noisy tremolo. One day I was there working with fellow listmember Jim McFarland and between us we came up with the idea of attaching a felt tube to the exhaust port to try to muffle the sound. It worked like a dream. We used white felt, but I guess red would do equally well :-)   John Speller      
(back) Subject: Re: Bad Companies and Good Ones From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:36:41 EDT   I have taken a lot of "heat" for guiding my church to sign a contract with =   Ruffatti because many people still have the sound of St. Mary's Cathedral, = San Francisco, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, First Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, CA, St. Paul's Lutheran, Orlando, FL, The Crystal Cathedral, and = all the other early instruments from the 60's and 70's in their ears. Other than = the Coral Ridge organ, I am not really a fan of most of those organs, except = maybe Davies Hall in San Francisco, but I have a special place in my heart for = that one, because I made my debut there back in 1988 as a freshman in college = with the SF symphony. The organ at Spivey Hall in Atlanta really marked the = change in their tonal direction some 12 or 13 years ago when Francesco and Piero Ruffatti took over control of the company from their father, who was = responsible for those earlier instruments, so it is really hard to make a judgement of = a company based on an earlier generation's work. The organ at Church of the Epiphany in Miami, FL marked yet a further development of not only the tonal quality, but the quality of = craftmanship. After playing and hearing that instrument, I knew that we would not go wrong = with Ruffatti. I have since played the new instrument at Exeter Academy in New =   Hampshire and it is another jewel of an organ. The organ at First = Presbyterian in Naples, FL continues the same commitment to quality of workmanship and = tonal finishing. This is why my church chose Ruffatti.   Unlike some builders, the Ruffattis are not out there tooting their own = horn, they are letting the organs do it themselves. I think that they feel that =   the organ is the best spokesman, or rather that the customer can be the = best spokesman, rather than them telling people how great their new product is. = When people see and hear it for themself it carries a lot more weight than when = the company says "listen to how good we are now!" When a company has decades = of a stigma of less than high-quality workmanship and sub-par tonal finishing = to overcome, they really need to let the prospective customer be the one to = make judgement calls as to the new quality. A certain company hasn't been = doing that--they tell people in their ads to go hear their new work (which I = have), they make exaggerated claims as to the quality of their work, comparing themselves to British firms (they still have a long way to go), but then = wonder when people continue to bash their work.   I might come across as promoting Ruffatti, which I definitely have a preference for, but I have a preference for any builder who does quality = work and lets the organ speak for itself. A builder who will take the time to properly examine the music program at = the church and see the musical needs, talk to the musicians/clergy/committee/architect/acoustician, design an instrument, = build it using the highest quality parts available, install and voice it properly--not cheating on time--just =   slapping it in and leaving, and most importantly keeping in touch with the = church during the design and construction process. I know what is going on at = all times. We've talked about shallot design for the reeds, wind pressures, = mixture compositions, tin/lead ratios, etc. I really didn't worry about a lot of that, but the fact that Francesco cared enough to ask me about those = details because he knew that I had done my research and I could talk to him about = those technical details meant a lot. Other builders would probably have just = gone about their business and not ever bothered to call me until it was time = for the church to send another payment.   I know that Sebastian is a builder who gets into the details like that. I =   would trust him as implicitly as I do the Ruffattis. From the recording I = have of the small organ in the chapel at First Presbyterian Church in New York City, it's obvious that he takes great care in his voicing, too. There = are other builders who pride themselves on the quality of work they do. Some = builders do this level of work if you keep your thumb on them and watch them every = step of the way. Other builders just don't care and will only do mediocre work = at best, and that's fine for some people, because they are only concerned = with getting the cheapest product out there. Buyer beware, you get what you = pay for.   Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Re: WICKS ORGANS From: "Paul Valtos" <chercapa@enter.net> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:43:38 -0400   Dear Keith, Well finally someone fills us in on the corrective action done to = eliminate customer complaints. Now if someone would only get a handle on = the use of some product (other than Perflex) to replace lambskin, that = would last 100 years we might have something. It is obvious that = building pipe organs is labor intensive but there must be a way that = this can be reduced by the introduction of more intensive = electrical/electronic action/modular building, etc.etc. Wood is good = within pipes but I don;t think that it is necesarily great in actions, = whether it be keying, stops or wind lines. Paul ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Voicer40@aol.com=20 To: ":pipechat"@pipechat.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:47 PM Subject: WICKS ORGANS     We have all read quite a few opinions, a few of which were written by = people who actually knew what they were actually saying.   Now, I would like to give you some FACTS.   In the 1970s, the Wicks Organ Company commissioned me to install about = a dozen organs for them. During the installation, I often stood back = and admired the flawless materials used by Wicks in the construction. = The lumber they used, and supplied me with which to make braces, was the = finest lumber I have ever seen in any organ. Their casework was = absolutely stunning, both in construction and in final appearance. = There was not a hint of a knot anywhere.   One organ which was dedicated in 1974 has never had a bottomboard = removed. The pastor, who was at the church at the time of the = installation (and still is) told me that no other technician has ever = touched the organ. This organ has given practically no trouble at all, = and even though it is installed on two levels, stays incredibly in tune.   The direct electric action has been said to have bouncing magnets. = There was a time that this was true. The organists complained about = this, and the Wicks company knew that they had a problem. They had = their engineering department get on this matter and solved the problem = by installing a diode on each magnet which allowed the large electrical = buildup in the magnet coil to go smoothly back into the positive rather = than shock the magnet by having no place to go. At the same time, the = burned contacts caused by the note being played were solved by the diode = eliminating the arcing at the contact. Thus, Wicks killed two birds = with one stone. From a voicer's point of view, I find nothing = objectionable about the Direct Electric action. It has a good attack, = and a soft, bounceless release.   Tonally, I decline to comment. If I were to issue an opinion, a = number of fine organists would agree, and a number of fine organists = would disagree, and we would have a raging contraversy (or thread) which = would, as Shakespeare wrote, "be full of sound and fury, signifying = nothing." I will say simply, that neither the Wicks Organ Company, nor = any other organ builder will ever build an organ that pleases everyone. = No matter what they do, someone is going to find something wrong with = it. In fact, I know a few organists who could find something wrong with = the way God handled the creation.   Today we have a problem. The vast majority of churches have = guitar-twanging hootnannies in lieu of fine music programs, and have no = use for organs. Many churches which have organs are selling them. = There are fewer organ majors in colleges, and retiring organ teachers = are not being replaced, My own alma mater has completely eliminated the = organ department and has sold the practice instruments. The organ = program I knew is now only a memory. Furthermore, the prices of organs = has gone through the ceiling. When I was an organ student in the early = 1960s, $100,000 would buy a huge 4-manual organ, Now you couldn't = replace the console on one of those organs for $100,000.   We need to get behind our organ builders and support them and stop = this rumor-spreading nonsense. The laity in the churches sometimes = listen to these "experts" and think they actually know what they are = talking about. Baseless rumors can hurt the builders. Let's be = careful!!!   D. Keith Morgan    
(back) Subject: Re: 3 manuals 14 ranks From: "Harry Grove" <musicman@cottagemusic.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:58:38 +0100   The best of suggestions.   Giving the opportunity to portray accompanimental sounds against solo = sounds - even is they are in the same 'division'.   Maximum flexibility against minimum outlay - with in-built provision for = up-grading in the future.   Why haven't more builders thought of that ?   Harry Grove [a.k.a. a musicman scratching his head and wondering why] ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Keith Zimmerman=20 To: pipechat@pipechat.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:56 PM Subject: 3 manuals 14 ranks     Design an excelent 2-manual organ. Then add a 3rd manual to which you = would assign certain stops from the other two divisions. I've seen it = done where one would have a 3rd manual that contains ALL the stops from = the other two. I wasn't meaning that.   [snip]   Keith
(back) Subject: RE: New III/20 under construction (with specification) From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:24:32 +0100   Looks good - but just one question - why only 58 note manuals? Surely 3 notes can't make a huge difference to the cost?   Will Light Coventry UK   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TubaMagna@aol.com Sent: 27 April 2005 21:19 To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: New III/20 under construction (with specification)   Ladies and Gentlemen:   While this instrument was not really to be publicized for another month, = the   current discussion prompted me to post. I recently signed a contract to build=20 a very small organ of twenty ranks for a chapel that cried out for some = kind   of creative solution to their organ situation, which had never been=20 satisfactory since the church was built in the early 1920s.=20   Having designed a two-manual organ, I suddenly had the idea that I = might,=20 instead of trying to add a skeletal third manual, share some stops and create a=20 borrowed third manual. The organ is still perceived as only two manuals, = but   can be played as three, adding flexibility when playing specific = repertoire.   This organ took a great many months of planning and thought; the = decisions=20 were not arbitrary. While the pedal may LOOK small, it will, in my experience,=20 be quite adequate. The "hole in the middle" of the pedal borrow problem = is=20 eased by the inclusion of the independent 4' diapason, as well as the = two full=20 length open 16' extensions. The Recit and Positif share a common = expression=20 enclosure. The number of pipes are given in parentheses. Completion of = the tonal=20 finishing is expected prior to Christmas.   GRAND-ORGUE (II)   16=92 Bourdon (12) 8=92 Montre (58) 8=92 Violoncelle (58) 8=92 Fl=FBte Harmonique (Positif) 8=92 Bourdon (58) 4=92 Prestant (58) 2=92 Doublette (58) Fourniture II=96IV (196) 8=92 Trompette Harmonique (Recit)     R=C9CIT-EXPRESSIF (III)   8=92 Viole de Gambe (58) 8=92 Voix C=E9leste (46) 8=92 Cor de Nuit (58) 4=92 Prestant (58) 4=92 Fl=FBte Octaviante (58) 2=92 Fl=FBte Conique (58) 16=92 Clarinette Basse (12, ext Positif Clarinette) 8=92 Trompette Harmonique (58) 8=92 Basson et Hautbois (58) 8=92 Voix Humaine (58) Tremblant Voix Humaine Tremblant Positif et Recit   POSITIF-EXPRESSIF (I)   8=92 Violoncelle (Grand-Orgue) 8=92 Fl=FBte Harmonique (12, ext Flute Octaviante) 8=92 Cor de Nuit (Recit) 4=92 Fl=FBte Douce (12, ext Cor de Nuit) 8=92 Clarinette (58)   I et II en =E9change   P=C9DALE   16=92 Contrebasse (12, ext Violoncelle) 16=92 Sous Basse (Grand-Orgue) 10-2/3=92 Gros Nasard 8=92 Octave Basse (Grand-Orgue) 8=92 Violoncelle (Grand-Orgue) 8=92 Fl=FBte (Grand-Orgue) 4=92 Quinzi=E8me (32) 4=92 Flute Ouverte (Recit) 4=92 Fl=FBte Bouch=E9e (Grand-Orgue) 16=92 Bombarde (12) 16=92 Clarinette Basse (Grand-Orgue) 8=92 Trompette (Grand-Orgue) 4=92 Clarinette (Grand-Orgue) =20       ****************************************************************** "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org>    
(back) Subject: When is a pipe organ not a pipe organ? From: "Peter Rodwell" <iof@ctv.es> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:43:49 +0200   Pipe organs with electronic stops are nothing new: we have plenty in our catalogue with a couple of electronic stops, typically substituting big Pedal pipes.   But there are also organs with some pipe ranks and lots of electronic sounds. Some just seem to have a couple of ranks of real pipes in the fa=E7ade, with nothing but speakers behind them.   Should I include these in our catalogue as being pipe organs just because they do have *some* real pipes? Or should organs in which, say, over 50% of stops are electronic be excluded?   I have to confess that I'm unsure where to draw the line and would welcome guidance from list members.   Peter Rodwell International Organ Foundation http://www.IntOrg.org    
(back) Subject: Re: When is a pipe organ not a pipe organ? From: "Maurits Lamers" <maurits@weidestraat.nl> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:07:06 +0200   Hello,   I never actually heard such a hybrid organ, but I wouldn't classify it=20=   as a pipe organ. I think the term "pipe organ" should be reserved only for organs with=20 only pipes.   All others (except of course the pure electronical ones) are hybrids.   Besides I think there has to be a difference between the use of samples=20=   or the use of pure synthetical sounds.   So a classification could be like: Hybrid organ, xx pipe stops, xx=20 electronic sample based stops, xx electronic synthetic based stops.   Maybe a bit overdone, but I hope it helps. :)   greets   Maurits Lamers ---- 's-Hertogenbosch The Netherlands   On 28-apr-05, at 9:43, Peter Rodwell wrote:   > Pipe organs with electronic stops are nothing new: we have > plenty in our catalogue with a couple of electronic stops, > typically substituting big Pedal pipes. > > But there are also organs with some pipe ranks and lots > of electronic sounds. Some just seem to have a couple > of ranks of real pipes in the fa=E7ade, with nothing > but speakers behind them. > > Should I include these in our catalogue as being pipe > organs just because they do have *some* real pipes? > Or should organs in which, say, over 50% of stops > are electronic be excluded? > > I have to confess that I'm unsure where to draw > the line and would welcome guidance from list > members. > > Peter Rodwell > International Organ Foundation > http://www.IntOrg.org > > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> >