PipeChat Digest #5176 - Friday, February 25, 2005
 
RE: Bach and Skinner
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Karg-Elert "Chorale"
  by "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com>
Re: Karg-Elert Chorale
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
RE: Ernest Skinner: "Why Haunt the Cemetery?"
  by "Emmons, Paul" <PEMMONS@wcupa.edu>
RE: Blended worship music
  by "Randy Terry" <randy@peacham.homeip.net>
RE: Tweaking my Specification!
  by "Randy Terry" <randy@peacham.homeip.net>
Re: Karg-Elert Chorale
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
RE: Tweaking my Specification!
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
"Orphaned" Estey Organ
  by "Phil Stimmel" <pca@sover.net>
Re: "Orphaned" Estey Organ
  by "N. Russotto" <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com>
Re: Karg-Elert "Chorale"
  by "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com>
Re: Ernest M. Skinner
  by <Justinhartz@aol.com>
Re: to repeat or not to repeat...
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
RE: Blended worship music
  by "Jan Nijhuis" <nijhuis@email.com>
 

(back) Subject: RE: Bach and Skinner From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:26:23 +1300   Hi, folks,   Let me say first that I was being deliberately provocative ("troll" would = be quite inaccurate, though). You know my liking for TCLewis sound, yet in my posting I deliberately used the word "Schnarrwerck" hoping it would raise = a few rejoinders. All of this, recall, was an effort to get people to re-examine folk who have written books and therefore become "authorities", deserved or not, specifically here in our discussion of Violin Diapason versus Geigen Principal.   I've been enjoying the correspondence so far, but hope it may veer away = from the particular merits (or otherwise) of Skinner and Willis, back to the authors I've mentioned: Hinton, Robertson, Irwin, Bonavia-Hunt, Sumner, Clutton, Audsley, Barnes and others.   >I think you have to look for clarity in Skinner instruments in a different manner in which you might in a Schnitger or a Silbermann [snip]   Oh for sure.   >he [Skinner] defied long-standing tradition on purpose in order to accomplish something 'different'. And what he sought to achieve, he did, and grandly!   Can anyone answer this: did he set out to achieve his "difference" because of his intended musical result for existing composers, or because he had some musical ideal not related to actual written music? I think this is an important question of any builder - "What are you trying to achieve and why?" Put it another way: did Bach arise because of the instruments available to him, or did he in turn influence organ design to play his music? Or, is there very little relationship and there are other = pressures, from outside in the musical world, on both composers and organ builders? I suspect this latter, but would like to hear from others.   >But how much experience have you had playing good Skinner organs?   Absolutely none at all (big grin here), so everything I've got stored in = my noggin as prejudice/comment/judgment is based on reading specifications = and construction details, comments in organ magazines and books, and some recordings.   >Then--and this part will be hard for some--you have to be 'creative' and learn how to make both the limitations and advantages of music and instrument that weren't created for one another work in a way that honors both.   Hey, that's not hard for me! anyone that knows me (no one on this List, at = a virtual certainty, has ever heard me play a single bar of music on any = organ at all) also knows that I have always taken a very great effort to get to know organ, building and acoustics as well as the actual notes of the = music. I take a great deal of care in registration and choice of music, being = quite fascinated for the last 45 years by tone colour and possible musical uses.   >And it is possible! But it can't be achieved by blindly and thoughtlessly trying to apply baroque rules and practice on an instrument that won't respond to them. You have to think! And you have to modify those rules to work even on a Skinner organ. If this is done carefully, then one can take the best from both traditions and make it work in a convincing manner.   Again, this is absolutely true, and you can put any organbuilder at all in your paragraph in place of the "Skinner" name.   >I simply can't believe that on 'any' organ of four manuals and 57 ranks one can only play Bach 'well' on the soft boring flutes. Think outside the box!   Come and hear the organ! (Actually, fewer than 57 ranks as the Pedal is unit). In spite of a superb restoration some years ago, we're still lucky = to get more than 30 people at a recital, though many more would come for renowned NZer Gillian Weir, just because of her name and whatever the = organ was like. Noisy horses work fairly well on this organ as the reeds are = huge and attention-grabbing, but any Diapason chorus, whatever the = specification says, is woolly, bottom-heavy and exceedingly dull. Christopher Herrick = made a CD on the instrument a few years back.   >Ross, I can only say I'm enjoying this debate far too much, and look forward eagerly to your response!   "Too much"?? I enjoy debate and love re-examining preconceived notions.   I'm not backtracking on this debate, but should say that I do not believe = we should be building "exclusive" organs. We have some instruments here, and = I know you have in the USA as well, that are so much in one tradition = tonally, specification-wise, and even mechanically, that much organ music and use = are excluded. I've always felt this to be a sad mistake: for my part, I'd = rather have an organ that does most things pretty well than an organ that did = some superbly and was 100% hopeless for some others. Yes, I know the word "eclectic" is frowned on in some quarters these days, but I'm unrepentant about liking the idea. I love balanced but differing Principal choruses, I love clarity and all of that, but I'd also want to have (if designing an organ for use in a church) some good reeds, a Dulciana, some enclosure, = and perhaps a pair of strings. Even then, I'd want to be able to play the various classical schools and not be restricted to just one, so I'd want French-style mutations, plus bright perky Italian ones, and a German Sesquialtera and Cymbal, in addition to the warmth and fullness of good English work up to about 1850.   I hope this discussion can continue along the lines I'm suggesting: a move away from debate the merits of Skinner and Willis, to a discussion of the textbooks and to "eclecticism versus exclusivism."   Ross    
(back) Subject: Karg-Elert "Chorale" From: "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:38:57 -0600   >If this is one of his Choral Preludes, Postudes, Studies, Improvisations=20   >etc. etc, for organ ? - there must be about 100 of them. The one on 'Nun=20   >Danket' is THE well known one.   =20   >More details please.   =20   >Bruce Miles   =20   >website - http://www.gbmuk.fsnet.co.uk/index.html   =20   =20   The particular composition I'm looking for is a chorale actually composed by Karg-Elert, and not based on any particular hymn text. It's very dramatic, but I can't find it in any of my Karg-Elert volumes or general collections. Perhaps it's also known under a different name?   =20   Daniel   =20  
(back) Subject: Re: Karg-Elert Chorale From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:00:58 -0600   Bruce Miles wrote:   > If this is one of his Choral Preludes, Postudes, Studies, > Improvisations etc. etc, for organ ? - there must be about 100 of > them. The one on 'Nun Danket' is THE well known one.   the Karg-Elert "Nun Danket" is part of his opus 65, a set of 66 Chorale Preludes.   ns  
(back) Subject: RE: Ernest Skinner: "Why Haunt the Cemetery?" From: "Emmons, Paul" <PEMMONS@wcupa.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:08:56 -0500   > check out the article "Why Haunt The Cemetery?" which was written by Skinner himself for The Diapason in August of 1933 on his account of innovation versus tradition.   The same man it was who said, late in life and discouraged with the way the organ world was going, "Do not mistake the hearse for the bandwagon."   He clearly had a way with sepulchral words. I'd always thought that the latter quote alluded to a feared death of our instrument; but he might also have had antiquarianism in mind: running after and trying to resuscitate a form of it that had not been alive for 200 years.  
(back) Subject: RE: Blended worship music From: "Randy Terry" <randy@peacham.homeip.net> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:15:44 -0800       -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Emmons, Paul     Actually, I don't mind it at all, but that's because I'm in charge, and as long as that's true it won't be a slippery slope. With someone else choosing the music, you can't be sure.   Someone on the Ship of Fools had a good suggestion yesterday (tried and true somewhere in Canada): "Blend" by starting the worship with an informal sing-a-long, complete with guitars, praise band, whatever floats their boat for ten or fifteen minutes; then begin the liturgy and keep the proceedings strictly traditional throughout the remainder of the service. Does anyone here have experience with that approach? >> >>   Paul, I think you have a good point - I too am in charge, and in my = present church, the rector is a trained singer in his own right, and his first job was as an associate rector of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. We both = have similar feelings about maintaining quality.   It looks like we are going to start considering a 4th Sunday contemporary service, a third Sunday ultra-formal service, a 1st Sunday "Children's" service, and the 2nd will be kind of what has been the norm for us for the last several years. Familiar liturgy with mixed music almost totally accompanied from the organ.   At a former church we did the service formally every week, but the = communion music was meditative contemporary stuff from the Cursillo movement. We = had organ, piano, flute, and violin. That seemed to work very well, and there was something to be said for continuity, which is important to Episcopalians. At St. Peter's, while I can see the reasoning for doing a strict formal service and a strictly contemporary one, I am concerned that things will be just to blatantly different from week to week, but that is = my opinion. At St. Peter's the congregational response will be our guide. If you listen to them, carefully weeding out the closed minded thoughtless comments, you can figure out what is working and what is not. I love getting away to some of the high churches in The City, but I am most happy as a music minister when my congregation is being fed, regardless of my = own artistic tastes.   Randy Terry      
(back) Subject: RE: Tweaking my Specification! From: "Randy Terry" <randy@peacham.homeip.net> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:36:05 -0800     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org On Behalf Of Will Light Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:16 AM To: organchat@yahoogroups.com; Pipe Chat Subject: Tweaking my Specification!   At long last we are nearing the point when our Church Council will be = giving the go-ahead to the renovation and refurbishment of our II/19 Rothwell organ.   The work gives me the chance to make some changes - not by adding any more pipework - there isn't the room or the money to do this, but by rewiring = or borrowing. There is room on the new console for a few extra stop tabs.   I would appreciate any suggestions as to how the specification (given = below) could be improved with these limitations.   Specification of the Rothwell / Harris Organ at Earlsdon Methodist Church, Coventry   Great: 1. Open Diapason I 8 2. Open Diapason II 8 3. Hohlflote 8 4. Dulciana 8 5. Flauto Traverso 4 6. Principal 4 (From original organ at Earlsdon Methodist Church) 7. Fifteenth 2 (Harris 1970) 8. Horn 8   Great Couplers: (i) Swell to Great 16 (ii) Swell to Great 8 (iii) Swell to Great 4   Swell: 9. Melodic Diapason 8 10. Lieblich Gedact 8 11. Echo Gamba 8 12. Celeste 8 13. Gemshorn 4 14. Flageolet Quint 2 2/3 (Harris 1970) 15. Octavin 2 (Harris 1970) 16. Larigot 1 1/3 Extension of No. 14. 17. Oboe 8 18. Cornopean 8 19. Tremulant   Swell Couplers: (iv) Sub Octave 16 (v) Unison Off (vi) Super Octave 4   Pedal: 20. Contra Bass 32 From No. 21. Bottom octave quinted from Nos. 21 and 22 21. Open Diapason 16 22. Bourdon 16 23. Octave 8 Extension of No. 21 24. Flute Bass 8 Extension of No. 22 25. Flautina 4 Extension of No. 22   Pedal Couplers: Great to Pedal Swell to Pedal ___________________________________________________________________________= _   Will, if you can get your technician to go along with it - use a software based computer system to operate your instrument. I have an Artisan = system at my church and it has performed flawlessly since 2002 - it allows all kinds of creative specification design, and you can easily change = something you don't like by a few commands to a host PC that reprograms the software inside the organ. The computers in the organ are extremely simple and = stand alone except for programming.   In looking at your specification, you should consider replacing one of the great Diapasons and using that toeboard to install a real mixture if you want one. A new toeboard and rack can be made to hold a III mixture and simply screwed down on top of the original one (a process that can also be reversed, too.)   I have played instruments with unified mixtures and my experience is they = do make the requisite noise and are better in most cases than not having such = a stop, but what makes a mixture work - notes mounted next to each other and = a single wind supply are what you can't get with a unit stop. Recently we undid such a stop locally and turned the original quint 1-1/3 rank into a twelfth, and the original 1' unison (individual note actions) into a Seventeenth, and with the new independent 4' Octave, the chorus was more successful that before and we had a tierce which was not present = originally. Of course we installed a real mixture in the swell, but I could live = without that if I had to.   Pick out the best two diapasons and place the stronger one in the great = and the secondary one in the swell. Don't forget that you may find other used pipes that can replace an existing rank you don't like. It all depends on the quality of the original stuff and you and your local colleagues must determine that.   In regard to my suggestion for the computer relay. They are competitive price wise, but if you only have one unit chest in the manuals then you loose a lot of opportunity to be creative.   Your pipe list looks pretty good to me - the only glaring omission is a = real mixture and once you get 16/8 reeds in the pedal that looks OK. If you = had a unit chest on the Oboe it would be nice to have it in the pedal at 4'.   Randy Terry      
(back) Subject: Re: Karg-Elert Chorale From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:46:34 -0600   Beside his well-known Chorale Improvisations, Karg-Elert wrote the much larger-scale "Three Symphonic Chorales", Op. 87. These comprise, No. 1, "Ach bleib mit deiner Gnade", No. 2, "Jesu meine Freude"; No. 3 "Nun = ruhen alle W=E4lder." These are major virtuoso works and would be rather hard = to learn.   John Speller      
(back) Subject: RE: Tweaking my Specification! From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:26:47 -0000   Thanks for your suggestions Randy, but I fear we cannot possibly go solid-state with the action simply because of the cost, and, as you say, with only the mixture ranks on a unit chest, there would be limited benefits. (As for performing flawlessly, the existing electro-pneumatic action has done that since 1927!) Only recently have we had any trouble, = and that is due to a poor console and key contacts etc. rather than the = actual organ action!   Will Light Coventry UK   -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Randy Terry Sent: 24 February 2005 20:36 To: 'PipeChat' Subject: RE: Tweaking my Specification!     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org On Behalf Of Will Light Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:16 AM To: organchat@yahoogroups.com; Pipe Chat Subject: Tweaking my Specification!   At long last we are nearing the point when our Church Council will be = giving the go-ahead to the renovation and refurbishment of our II/19 Rothwell organ.   The work gives me the chance to make some changes - not by adding any = more pipework - there isn't the room or the money to do this, but by rewiring = or borrowing. There is room on the new console for a few extra stop tabs.   I would appreciate any suggestions as to how the specification (given = below) could be improved with these limitations.=20   Specification of the Rothwell / Harris Organ at Earlsdon Methodist Church, Coventry   Great: 1. Open Diapason I 8 2. Open Diapason II 8 3. Hohlflote 8 4. Dulciana 8 5. Flauto Traverso 4 6. Principal 4 (From original organ at Earlsdon Methodist Church) 7. Fifteenth 2 (Harris 1970) 8. Horn 8   Great Couplers: (i) Swell to Great 16 (ii) Swell to Great 8 (iii) Swell to Great 4   Swell: 9. Melodic Diapason 8 10. Lieblich Gedact 8 11. Echo Gamba 8 12. Celeste 8 13. Gemshorn 4 14. Flageolet Quint 2 2/3 (Harris 1970) 15. Octavin 2 (Harris 1970) 16. Larigot 1 1/3 Extension of No. 14. 17. Oboe 8 18. Cornopean 8=20 19. Tremulant   Swell Couplers: (iv) Sub Octave 16 (v) Unison Off (vi) Super Octave 4   Pedal: 20. Contra Bass 32 From No. 21. Bottom octave quinted from Nos. 21 and 22 21. Open Diapason 16 22. Bourdon 16 23. Octave 8 Extension of No. 21 24. Flute Bass 8 Extension of No. 22 25. Flautina 4 Extension of No. 22   Pedal Couplers: Great to Pedal Swell to Pedal _________________________________________________________________________= ___   Will, if you can get your technician to go along with it - use a = software based computer system to operate your instrument. I have an Artisan = system at my church and it has performed flawlessly since 2002 - it allows all kinds of creative specification design, and you can easily change = something you don't like by a few commands to a host PC that reprograms the = software inside the organ. The computers in the organ are extremely simple and = stand alone except for programming.   In looking at your specification, you should consider replacing one of = the great Diapasons and using that toeboard to install a real mixture if you want one. A new toeboard and rack can be made to hold a III mixture and simply screwed down on top of the original one (a process that can also = be reversed, too.)   I have played instruments with unified mixtures and my experience is = they do make the requisite noise and are better in most cases than not having = such a stop, but what makes a mixture work - notes mounted next to each other = and a single wind supply are what you can't get with a unit stop. Recently we undid such a stop locally and turned the original quint 1-1/3 rank into = a twelfth, and the original 1' unison (individual note actions) into a Seventeenth, and with the new independent 4' Octave, the chorus was more successful that before and we had a tierce which was not present = originally. Of course we installed a real mixture in the swell, but I could live = without that if I had to.   Pick out the best two diapasons and place the stronger one in the great = and the secondary one in the swell. Don't forget that you may find other = used pipes that can replace an existing rank you don't like. It all depends = on the quality of the original stuff and you and your local colleagues must determine that. =20   In regard to my suggestion for the computer relay. They are competitive price wise, but if you only have one unit chest in the manuals then you loose a lot of opportunity to be creative.   Your pipe list looks pretty good to me - the only glaring omission is a = real mixture and once you get 16/8 reeds in the pedal that looks OK. If you = had a unit chest on the Oboe it would be nice to have it in the pedal at 4'.   Randy Terry       ****************************************************************** "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: "Orphaned" Estey Organ From: "Phil Stimmel" <pca@sover.net> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:28:28 -0500   I have recently come into the possession of a late (1957) 3 rank unit = Estey pipe organ, and am looking for a church or chapel that might be interested in such an instrument. While the organ is in very good condition, it will need some refurbishment to put it in first class condition. This lovely little instrument would be perfect for a church that would like a real = pipe organ. Will require a chamber installation. Plese contact me for further details.   Phil Stimmel The Estey Pipe Organ - A Virtual Museum - www.esteyorgan.com    
(back) Subject: Re: "Orphaned" Estey Organ From: "N. Russotto" <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:22:52 -0500   I'd like to see some pictures. . . .   Nick Russotto     On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:28:28 -0500, Phil Stimmel <pca@sover.net> wrote: > I have recently come into the possession of a late (1957) 3 rank unit = Estey > pipe organ, and am looking for a church or chapel that might be = interested > in such an instrument. While the organ is in very good condition, it = will > need some refurbishment to put it in first class condition. This lovely > little instrument would be perfect for a church that would like a real = pipe > organ. Will require a chamber installation. Plese contact me for = further > details. > > Phil Stimmel > The Estey Pipe Organ > - A Virtual Museum - > www.esteyorgan.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> > >     -- Nicholas F. Russotto Somers, Connecticut  
(back) Subject: Re: Karg-Elert "Chorale" From: "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:38:21 -0800       >The particular composition I'm looking for is a chorale actually = composed by Karg-Elert, and >not based on any particular hymn text. It's = very dramatic, but I can't find it in any of my >Karg-Elert volumes or = general collections. Perhaps it's also known under a different name?       >Daniel       "A Cycle of Eight Short Pieces," op. 154, concludes with a one-page = "Corale" which goes from ff with 6-voice chords to ffff with 9 and 10 = voices. The chord progressions could fairly be called 'dramatic.'       MAF        
(back) Subject: Re: Ernest M. Skinner From: <Justinhartz@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:52:02 EST   I visit Ernest M. Skinner's grave whenever I visit Maine. The epitaph on his tombstone reads:   Ernest Martin Skinner Great American Organbuilder   I believe that sums it up.   Justin Hartz  
(back) Subject: Re: to repeat or not to repeat... From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:21 +0000   On 2/24/05 2:31 PM, "Malcolm Wechsler" <manderusa@earthlink.net> wrote:   > we will now sing last week's anthem - from memory. <Mozart Ave Verum, = please.> > The music had, of course, been collected after church. Of course they = CAN do > it, with an occasional prompt, and what joy they show in meeting this = old > friend just one more time, on a different level.   I've never HEARD of such a bizarre practice in a parish choir. (College = or seminary choir, of course.) But it is just TOO NEAT! I LOVE it! Fantastico!   Alan    
(back) Subject: RE: Blended worship music From: "Jan Nijhuis" <nijhuis@email.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:48:32 +0800   Why yes, yes I do...   With our order of worship maturing over the past two years, we've taken to = an organ or piano prelude, usually one of Psalms or a hymn. Then:   Call to Worship Hymn (Ususally one "with gusto" -- caffine is served _after_ the worship se= rvice) Invocational Prayer Three "songs of praises"; worship choruses   Scripture Reading Prayer Hymn   (Baptism's or new memberships Hymn)   Congregational Prayer Tithes & Offerings: Piano, Organ, String Quartet, Soloist &c. Prayer of Thanksgiving   Scripture Reading Sermon   Hymn   Benediction Doxology: Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow #731   Postlude   The idea is to minimize the number of people movements, so we keep the voca= lists/instrumentalists up front at the beginning of worship -- they sing th= e frist hymn, stand for the call to worship and lead the praise choruses. W= hoever will play the offertory is expected to remain up front off stage, bu= t at the ready until he/she needs to play.   We don't do any "rip snorters" for the praise choruses. Typically two (rhyt= hm) guitarits, piano, four vocalists, violin, and only occasionally hand pe= rcussion; tambourine or claves.=20   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emmons, Paul" <PEMMONS@wcupa.edu>     > Someone on the Ship of Fools had a good suggestion yesterday (tried and > true somewhere in Canada): "Blend" by starting the worship with an > informal sing-a-long, complete with guitars, praise band, whatever > floats their boat for ten or fifteen minutes; then begin the liturgy and > keep the proceedings strictly traditional throughout the remainder of > the service. Does anyone here have experience with that approach?   -- Jan Nijhuis nijhuis@email.com   --=20 ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm