PipeChat Digest #5060 - Thursday, January 6, 2005
 
Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Oceans of Strings
  by "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com>
RE: Jazz theory for the church organist
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
George Pike England Organ of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London
  by "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com>
George Pike England Organ, St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London
  by "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com>
RE: Oceans of Strings
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
RE: George Pike England Organ of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: Oceans of Strings
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria
  by "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu>
Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria
  by "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net>
Re: George Pike England Organ of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
RE: Oceans of Strings
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: Oceans of Strings
  by "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net>
Slush
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
RE: String chorus???
  by "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net>
RE: Oceans of Strings
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
RE: Slush
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
RE: Oceans of Strings
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Oceans of Slush
  by "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@earthlink.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:33:11 +0000   On 1/5/05 5:15 PM, "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> wrote:   > Randy's harmonies are lush and beautiful,   WAIT! The obvious solution just dawned on me!   Just play Randy's Aria again (I can=B9t leave it alone!). "Tune out," momentarily, if you can, that utterly beguiling melody. Now: Ross, what i= s the word or phrase that describes the style of those "lush and beautiful" harmonies in the other manual and pedal. (I don't know whether Randy or Jonathan is playing.) Are those strings?   Alan, eagerly panting  
(back) Subject: Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:45:10 -0500   It's Jonathan playing, by the way. And he sent me the mp3 of the=20 recording just a couple of hours after I sent him the score. He interpreted it perfectly, and to have done so in so little time is=20=   pretty amazing I think.   Randy       On Jan 6, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Alan Freed wrote:   > On 1/5/05 5:15 PM, "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > Randy's harmonies are lush and beautiful, > > WAIT! =A0The obvious solution just dawned on me! > > Just play Randy's Aria again (I can=92t leave it alone!). =A0"Tune = out,"=20 > momentarily, if you can, that utterly beguiling melody. =A0Now: =A0Ross,= =20 > what is the word or phrase that describes the style of those "lush and=20=   > beautiful" harmonies in the other manual and pedal. =A0(I don't know=20=   > whether Randy or Jonathan is playing.) =A0Are those strings? =A0 > > Alan, eagerly panting=20 > =20=  
(back) Subject: Oceans of Strings From: "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:52:10 -0800   The "proper" title for this type of registration is "Full Slush."   Draw all the strings, celestes, soft flutes, tremulants, Vox humanae, harps, Pedal 16' flues & 32' Subbass ... then couple them all to Great at 16, 8, 4, and play up an octave.   This works best if you're really lucky to have a nice "slushy" organ with lots of unison strings and celestes -- doesn't do so well with "Baroque Squeek."   "Sorrrry" to those playing on proper organs with none of the above anywhere in sight. You don't know what you're missing!   ~ C      
(back) Subject: RE: Jazz theory for the church organist From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:57:20 +1300   >Pass me another pastiche, and I'll have another pint of that "Scuttered Nun" with which to wash it down.   As Leroy Anderson would have said, "Oh, fiddle-faddle."   Ross    
(back) Subject: George Pike England Organ of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London From: "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:55:33 -0600   Colin Mitchell wrote: The original specification was as follows:-   Choir   Stopped Diapason 8 Added ? Dulciana 8 Added? Principal 4 Added? Flute 4 Added? Cremona 8   Pedal (GG compass) =09 Unison bass 10.2/3 (open pipes)     You mean to say that there was originally a choir division? If that's the case, then wouldn't a reconstruction/restoration encompass replacing that or leaving it intact?   The website doesn't say anything about a choir division, and if this is the case, I don't think that this can be called either a restoration or a rebuild, since the original instrument isn't emulated.   Daniel Hancock Springfield, Missouri  
(back) Subject: George Pike England Organ, St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London From: "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:01:51 -0600   John Speller wrote:   =20   The organ as built in 1801 did not (according to Sperling's survey of around   1850) originally have pedals. These were added by Walker in 1848. In the   light of this, I find it hard to believe that the organ was ever played by   Mendelssohn, since he always insisted on having a proper pedalboard of at   least C-d1 27 notes, and I don't think it went up as far as this even after   Walker had added the pedals. The church website does, however, claim that   Mendelssohn once played the organ, so (who knows?) perhaps he did. The   organ was rebuilt by Bryceson in 1879, Jones in 1891, and finally by Hill,   Norman & Beard in 1938, who electrified the action. By this time about half   of the original pipework was left. The organ was reconstructed (a better   word, I think, than restored) by John Budgen (Bishop & Son) in 1983, at   which time a new tracker action was provided and the stop list was returned   to something much closer to the original. Cleaning and minor repairs were   again carried out by John Budgen in 2002.   =20   Speculation as to whether or not Mendelssohn played the instrument based on his insistence on have "proper" pedal boards is rather shaky at best, I think. We all know that insistence upon certain features and "standards" in organs doesn't mean we always get them, and sometimes we're placed in situations where we have to play instruments that don't meet our "standards." Hopefully, we can overcome those self-imposed obstacles to get on with music making!   =20   The chronology of rebuilds is especially helpful, and really serves to answer my original question, except for the issue of the missing choir manual as raised in Colin Mitchell's earlier post. And in this case, I would indeed agree with "reconstruct" rather than "restore" and perhaps for those earlier changes, "remodel" would serve better than "rebuild!"   =20   Thank you for your clarifications.   =20   Daniel Hancock=20   Springfield, Missouri=20   =20   =20   =20  
(back) Subject: RE: Oceans of Strings From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:07:17 +1300   >The "proper" title for this type of registration is "Full Slush."   Thank you. Yes, that sounds about right.   >Draw all the strings, celestes, soft flutes, tremulants, Vox humanae, harps, Pedal 16' flues & 32' Subbass ... then couple them all to Great at 16, 8, 4, and play up an octave.   Sounds utterly dreadful, as if it were a WurliTzer gone wrong (I like WurliTzers, by the way).   >This works best if you're really lucky to have a nice "slushy" organ with lots of unison strings and celestes -- doesn't do so well with "Baroque Squeek."   Not Squeek, then, but Eek!   >"Sorrrry" to those playing on proper organs with none of the above anywhere in sight. You don't know what you're missing!   I've heard recordings of this stuff and, being 101% honest here, it = revolts me. My whole listening and playing tradition has none of this in it. I'd have no objection whatever in a theatre, concert hall or home organ, but = I'd find it most objectionable in a church where I (yes, me personally, moi) want something a little more austere and structured than plush/mush/slush. Even on the electroid in the local parish church here, it revolts me when someone uses the string or flute celeste during Communion, especially if, = as last Wednesday when I was taking the service, the organist was playing a "piano-thickened" version of a Prayze Chorus.   OK, heap any adjective on me that you like, for these comments... :-)   Ross    
(back) Subject: RE: George Pike England Organ of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:10:46 +1300   Not wanting to get into the Lothbury debate since I've never heard the organ, nevertheless I do want to say that I recently played the organ in = St Mary de Lode in the centre of Gloucester. The organ was worked on (leaving aside a more controversial term) by John Budgen just a while ago and the result is very fine indeed. The Great has a GGG compass. Anyone want = further details?   Ross    
(back) Subject: Re: Oceans of Strings From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:08:27 +0000   On 1/6/05 7:52 PM, "Charlie Lester" <crl@137.com> wrote:   > The "proper" title for this type of registration is "Full Slush."   Y'see? I TOLD you it was very non-Lutheran! (But I LOVE it, at least whe= n I'm in that mood. Was it Luther who warned us against "the devil, the world, and our own flesh"? Well, THIS is "our own flesh." Sybaritism?) >=20 > Draw all the strings, celestes, soft flutes, tremulants, Vox humanae, har= ps, > Pedal 16' flues & 32' Subbass ... then couple them all to Great at 16, 8,= 4, > and play up an octave.   Sounds like an orgy! With whipped cream! >=20 > This works best if you're really lucky to have a nice "slushy" organ with= lots > of unison strings and celestes -- doesn't do so well with "Baroque Squeek= .." >=20 Yes, yes, yes. Exactly. I thought it was the Anglicans who perfected/perverted the "flesh." Ross, do you still say "No"?   Thank you, CharLIE!!!   Alan, feeling vindicated (and, uh, corrupted=8Bby Randy, of all people!)  
(back) Subject: Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@vassar.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:10:01 -0800   >On 1/5/05 5:15 PM, "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> Randy's harmonies are lush and beautiful, > >WAIT! The obvious solution just dawned on me! > >Just play Randy's Aria again (I can't leave it alone!). "Tune out," >momentarily, if you can, that utterly beguiling melody. Now: Ross, >what is the word or phrase that describes the style of those "lush >and beautiful" harmonies in the other manual and pedal. (I don't >know whether Randy or Jonathan is playing.) Are those strings? > >Alan, eagerly panting   Ok I discarded the msg at first...sorry, kinda busy here. now i can't wait to hear it! please post again?   Thnks!   john V  
(back) Subject: Re: This week's MP3: Randy Runyon's Aria From: "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:27:07 -0800   On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:10:01 -0800, John Vanderlee <jovanderlee@vassar.edu> = wrote:     > > Ok I discarded the msg at first...sorry, kinda busy here. now i can't > wait to hear it! please post again? > > Thnks! > > john V   http://evensongmusic.net/audio/Aria.mp3 (5+mb) or http://evensongmusic.net/audio/LQ/AriaLQ.mp3 (lower quality, 800+kb)       -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/  
(back) Subject: Re: George Pike England Organ of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, London From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:38:12 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   I don't think we go much for proper restorations in the UK, probably because many, many early organs have been changed or enlarged dramatically, as is the case with the St.Margaret's, Lothbury instrument.   That is what we understand as re-building an instrument, rather than restoring it.   Restoration is a very expensive and time-comsuming process, which only really happens in Holland and Germany (plus a few other places) to any great extent, and where an organ is of outstanding historical significance.   That stated, there are some good examples of restored instruments, but not usually to the exacting standards of many Dutch restorations, where the smallest detail is often recreated.   Restoration can be quite a burden, and in Holland, there have been some notable battles fought in the courts over the exact nature of a proposed "restoration". The continuing drama of the Aa-kerk, Groningen, Schnitger organ is a case in point.   The Lothbury organ has been changed many times since it was built, and to be absolutely honest, any chance of full restoration has long gone.   The Choir manual (and pipes?) disappeared in the 19th century; I believe when the organ was physically moved to a new site in the church. It was then moved back at a later date.   I've done a little more research, and the following seems to comprise the organ at the present moment.   PEDAL     Sub Bass 16 Principal 8 Some 1801 pipework Flute 4 Some 1801 pipework Chanter 2? Mixture II? Fagotto 16 was Bassoon Great   GREAT   Open Diapason 8 Some 1801 pipework Stopt Diapason 8 Some 1801 pipework Principal 4 Some 1801 pipework Flute 4 1805 Twelfth 2 2/3 Some 1801 pipework Fifteenth 2 Some 1801 pipework Mixture III 19.22.26 Mounted Cornet III From d1, 12.15.17 Trumpet 8 Some 1801 pipework Tremulant   SWELL     Gedact 8 Original Stpt Dp? Some 1801 pipework Salicional 8 Principal 4 Some 1801 pipework Flute 4 Gemshorn 2 Quint 1 1/3 Some 1801 pipework Mixture III 22.26.29 Cromorne 8 English in style Tremulant   Obviously, this is anything BUT a restoration.   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- Daniel Hancock <dhancock@brpae.com> wrote:     > You mean to say that there was originally a choir > division? If that's > the case, then wouldn't a reconstruction/restoration > encompass replacing > that or leaving it intact?       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail  
(back) Subject: RE: Oceans of Strings From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:45:41 +1300   >Yes, yes, yes. =A0Exactly. =A0I thought it was the Anglicans who perfected/perverted the "flesh." =A0Ross, do you still say "No"? =A0   Yes, yes, yes, I do, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Anglicans did not invent = this slush, I'm certain of that. It really does, to me, sound revolting and a perversion of what the organ is meant to be doing. I cannot imagine it = in worship: if an organist of mine (when I was the priest in charge of the parish) did that, he/she'd get one warning to desist or face not being allowed to play for services. Self-indulgent slush of this kind, to me, = has no place in worship.=20   And no, please don't brand me as a killjoy.   Ross    
(back) Subject: Re: Oceans of Strings From: "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:52:37 -0800   On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:45:41 +1300, TheShieling <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   if an organist of mine (when I was the priest in charge of the > parish) did that, he/she'd get one warning to desist or face not being > allowed to play for services. Self-indulgent slush of this kind, to me, =   > has > no place in worship.   Exactly the reason I'd never work for _you_!   <chuckle>   No place in worship? Self-indulgent?   Pshaw.   It's REGISTRATION for crying out loud, not bloody THEOLOGY   <sigh>   If _my_organist played like that _I _ would be delighted, compliment him/her and encourage more of it (in moderation, of course.. )   (but then we KNOW Ross has very strong opinions - it's why we love him!)   Jonathan (also a Pastor as well as an organist)     -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/  
(back) Subject: Slush From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:44:09 +0000   On 1/6/05 9:45 PM, "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   > Yes, yes, yes, I do, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Anglicans did not invent t= his > slush, I'm certain of that.   OK. A couple hours ago I was going to call you a crypto-Lutheran, but didn=B9t want to insult you, so I didn=B9t do that. But . . . well . . . maybe a little bit?   > It really does, to me, sound revolting and a perversion of what the organ= is > meant to be doing. I cannot imagine it in worship: . . . . Self-indulgent > slush of this kind, to me, has no place in worship.   OK. My Lutheran-ness LEANS with you; but not at all legalistically. My =B3fallen nature=B2 is quite with Jonathan Orwig as stated a few minutes ago (and with Randy=8Bbut not as steady diet). =20 > And no, please don't brand me as a killjoy. >=20 Not a bit! =B3Joy=B2 is far better expressed by Silbermann than by any British builder. (Boy, is THAT opinionated!=8Bbut I=B9m sure you know I=B9m just joshing.) =20   Thank you, Ross; good chat!   Alan  
(back) Subject: RE: String chorus??? From: "Michael David" <michaelandmaggy@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:55:18 -0600   I think it's more of a US phenomenon. I've played a couple of large cathedral organs in the UK and never seen or heard the sort of stuff we wallow in hereabouts. One, perhaps two, celestes at most. They do, however, have other charms.     Michael       On 1/6/05 3:38 PM, "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   >> But I was in such AWE of what I now suppose to have been oceans of = string   >> chorus. A sound I've ever since associated with "proper" Anglican = music- > > You've got me curious, now. Yes, genuinely, because I've never even remotely > associated "oceans of string chorus" with anything even vaguely = Anglican. I > don't believe there is in anything in the Church of England, New = Zealand, > South African, Scottish, Irish or Australian Anglican traditions that calls > for any string chorus whatever. With that, only rarely are even a pair = of > strings called for. String Celestes (be they Salicionals, Gambas or > whatever) are really bad news for accompanying voices, and the Anglican > tradition is about accompanying voices, be it choir or congregation. > > As for choruses of strings, there are none in New Zealand at all, in any of > our eight cathedrals, and I can think of only a very tiny handful in the > entire UK. > > So, please enlighten me how your feelings came to be what you have = stated, > in the USA. > > Ross >    
(back) Subject: RE: Oceans of Strings From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:18:10 +1300     >Exactly the reason I'd never work for _you_!   Fine! Except that you'd miss out on a genuinely musical clergyman. (further chuckle)   <chuckle>   >No place in worship? >Self-indulgent? >Pshaw. >It's REGISTRATION for crying out loud, not bloody THEOLOGY   No, not registration, except in the simple technical sense. That kind of slush has no place in worship. It is designed to nothing but tickle, = exactly the same way as prayze bands and the like do with their repetitive idiotic jingles of words. I could make out a very good theological case that slush perverts worship. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to go back to the perverse decadence of the sludge of the past. After many years of working for better design and better instruments, some of us would not be at all willing to be dragged back into stuff that belongs in the theatre/cinema. The increasing love affair with octopods and structureless musical garbage is not something I'd want to be responsible for, at all, ever.   <sigh> Oh yes, I'm sighing, too. :-)   If _my_organist played like that _I _ would be delighted, compliment him/her and encourage more of it (in moderation, of course.. )   Thankfully, of the 600 organs in NZ, not one could play the sort of mush being suggested.   >(but then we KNOW Ross has very strong opinions - it's why we love him!)   I resemble both of those comments!   >Jonathan (also a Pastor as well as an organist)   How about joining me for a long ramble on the beach five mins.walk from my home here? We'd enjoy the lively debate, I'm certain. As Colin Mitchell = and Lou Pfaff will tell you, the only two Listers who I've met, I'm not really frightening in the flesh. ;-()   Ross      
(back) Subject: RE: Slush From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:24:39 +1300   >OK. =A0A couple hours ago I was going to call you a crypto-Lutheran, = but didn=92t want to insult you, so I didn=92t do that. =A0But . . . well . = .. . maybe a little bit   No, not even a little bit. As we have only about a dozen Lutheran = churches in the whole of NZ, and only one in the Wellington area, with the next = some 250km away, I'm not influenced b y the Lutherans at all. The only pipe = organ in a Lutheran church in New Zealand has just a 1m tracker of 8 4 2 1.=20   >OK. =A0My Lutheran-ness LEANS with you; but not at all legalistically. = =A0   You'll have to explain all of this.   > =93Joy=94 is far better expressed by Silbermann than by any British = builder. =A0(Boy, is THAT opinionated!=97but I=92m sure you know I=92m just = joshing.) =A0   Possibly I'm enjoying this too? Oui? Non? Yea, verily. When done with = good humour and nothing nasty ad hominem intended, abuse can be fun. Agreed?   >Thank you, Ross; good chat!   Likewise, but hey, don't quit yet! There must be much more that can be = said about the difference in worship crossculturally and = transdenominationally (wow, what big words for this time of the year).   Ross      
(back) Subject: RE: Oceans of Strings From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:22:49 -0800 (PST)   Hello,   Ross is a killjoy!   If clergy types can stand there with arms held high and with tears rolling down their faces, why shouldn't the organist give them good reason to?   Give good ol' American religion some credit.....indeed....let the credits roll!   Welcome to Hollywood!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK     --- TheShieling <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   > Self-indulgent slush > of this kind, to me, has > no place in worship. > > And no, please don't brand me as a killjoy.       __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Oceans of Slush From: "Tim Bovard" <tmbovard@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:39:02 -0600   Charlie fails to mention why organbuilders design instruments to be = capable of providing full slush combinations. (the chimes too, for that matter, which should preferably make an occasional entrance in any slushy = performance)   It makes bluehaired little old spinster ladies 'pee their pews in glee'. Then they write BIG FAT checks to the organ/music fund...! ;-) ;-) ;-)   --Tim (who would probably leave the trems outta Charlie's mix, unless it really *is* a theatre organ, but whaddever....! <g>)   At 01:52 PM 1/6/2005, you wrote: >The "proper" title for this type of registration is "Full Slush."