PipeChat Digest #5080 - Thursday, January 13, 2005 Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by "Duane Austin" <email@example.com> Re: Hymn playing, particularly registration by "Jim McFarland" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tonal Styles by "Daniel Hancock" <email@example.com> harmonic flutes by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> re spanish basilica by <Keys4bach@aol.com> Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by <Keys4bach@aol.com> Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by "Daniel Hancock" <email@example.com> Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by <TubaMagna@aol.com> Re: harmonic flutes by <TubaMagna@aol.com> Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by <RMB10@aol.com> Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles by "Jim McFarland" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Richer Content In Praise Songs by "T.Desiree' Hines" <email@example.com> Re: Richer Content In Praise Songs by "T.Desiree' Hines" <firstname.lastname@example.org> re Mb re style by <Keys4bach@aol.com> "Praise Songs" as heard by an outside observer by <TubaMagna@aol.com> Tonal Styles by "Colin Mitchell" <email@example.com> Re: "Praise Songs" as heard by an outside observer by <Keys4bach@aol.com> Re: "Praise Songs" as heard by an outside observer by "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Richer Content In Praise Songs by "Jonathan Orwig" <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: "Duane Austin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:20:46 -0600 A Men Duane ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Bovard" <email@example.com> To: "Pipechat email list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles > Whoops....!! > > We're so sorry for *that* ugly little excursion, everyone. . . > > Please join me in waving bye-bye to Alex ! ;-) > > Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming . . . :-) :-) > > --Tim > Pipechat Co-Administrator > > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:email@example.com > Administration: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com> > List-Digest: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com> > > > > > _____________________________________________________ > This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm >
(back) Subject: Re: Hymn playing, particularly registration From: "Jim McFarland" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:19:53 -0500 On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:18:54 +0800 "Jan Nijhuis" <email@example.com> writes: > Even in an equally tempered world, changing your tonal center from a > flat key, to a sharp one (G, D, A, E, B, or (God Forbid) F#) will > change the perception of the music as being brighter. > > Why that is? ... I suspect that this phenomenon would not be perceived if you played the piece Monday, and then again on Tuesday in the higher key. But, there is always a sense of brightening in upward modulation. ( It is probably an emotional response.) With orchestral instruments, the upper ranges are usually brighter, particularly with winds. In this case the sound does brighten, but it has nothing to do with the fact that you are playing in a different key. If the temperament is truly equal, all of the dissonances and degrees of consonance remain the same, regardless of the tonal center. Jim "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." --Mae West
(back) Subject: Tonal Styles From: "Daniel Hancock" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:22:36 -0600 <American Classic, French Romantic, Neo-Baroque, and English <Cathedral... Here are the one's I've found... On my own.... <American Classic, French Romantic, Neo-Baroque, English Cathedral, <Symphonic, Spanish Basilica, Modernist (look at Julian Rhodes) <Any others??? <Alex Well, I think the types of tonal styles are arguably innumerable. You can divide up the tonal styles of organ-building at once into country. Each country (at least, each country that has organs!) will have its own tonal style for each of the following periods: Medevial, Baroque, Classical (maybe), Romantic, Modern. That gives you a potential for at least five divisions per country. Certainly not all English Cathedral organs can be classified together, some might be English Romantic, others, English baroque. I daresay the tonal styles, though similar, would differ. Then, you can break down each country-period, say German Baroque, into regional tonal styles. The organs in various regions of Germany were not necessarily constructed under the same tonal ideals during the Baroque period. =20 And if you can get all of that sorted out, then you've got to account for cross-regional influence. Early American organs were influenced by English instruments of similar period, but such things evolved, and one might say that the "American Classic" has evolved from those early Anglo-American organs. (then again, one might not, arguably, too!) I, for one, would be curious to know what others think (am I making this too complex?) and most specifically, what is "Spanish Basilica?" Intrigued by the question, I remain-- Daniel Hancock Springfield, Missouri
(back) Subject: harmonic flutes From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:34:33 +1300 Let me begin a new thread, but one related to comments in recent times: Why is it that so many people seem to want harmonic flutes everywhere = these days? In my experience, harmonic flutes often don't blend well with anything at all, and have a habit of sounding rather like honky open metal flutes. In fact it was often the case in English-tradition organs through till the = end of the 1950s that builders would put in a harmonic flute at 4ft to go with the 8ft Hohl Flute or Claribel on the Great. That sort of tone is ghastly for accompanying singing and useless in the classic schools of = composition. Stopped or chimneyed flutes, on the other hand, have a habit of blending with other flutes, or with mutations, or even with Diapason ranks. Even if I had 45 to 50 stops, I'd not include a harmonic flute at all as there are so many more useful stops. Yes, I do know the arguments about Cavaille-Coll, Romantic French music etc., but I'm not convinced as most churches don't have the kind of acoustics Cavaille-Coll worked in, and also Romantic French music may be a blast as an occasional closing voluntary, but cannot be used during the average parish service where accompaniment to singing (be it = congregational or choir), and little "fill-in" bits are mostly required. Yes, I expect a heap of comments in favour of harmonic flutes: I'd really like to hear reasoned arguments and not just a heap of "I love it" = remarks. Fire away! :-) Ross
(back) Subject: re spanish basilica From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:36:42 EST In a message dated 1/13/2005 3:27:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, email@example.com writes: "Spanish Basilica?" this is an Allen 603 with 4 card reader stops using the Spanish trumpet............ makes the basilica in your ears and nose curl..... going to choir NOW>... dale in Florida
(back) Subject: Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:38:07 EST i go by the boss and the boss moved him out........ next. dale in florida
(back) Subject: Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:38:30 -0800 (PST) Hello, No one flamed him at all! Regards, Colin Mitchell UK --- Myosotis51@aol.com wrote: > Seems to me we had a young man asking questions... > > And instead of teaching him (isn't THIS the best > place to ask questions?), > we flamed him and kicked him off the list. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
(back) Subject: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: "Daniel Hancock" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:41:53 -0600 >Seems to me we had a young man asking questions for a research paper on=20 >organs. Most non-organists, and likely many organists, don't even KNOW >there are=20 >tonal differences. Yes, he did make some generalizations, but ignorance=20 >(innocence?) would do this. >And instead of teaching him (isn't THIS the best place to ask questions?),=20 >we flamed him and kicked him off the list. >Great way to learn. >Victoria =20 But, for those of you who have never met him, Alex has a history of turning nasty against those who question his infallible opinions. This is the same young man who has been on the DIYAPASON chat list asking for free handouts (of pipe ranks, windchests, and everything else you need to build organs) so he can convert his jumble of used pipe ranks into the first-ever complete replica (but with additions--mostly 32' and 64' stops!) of the grand St. Sulpice Cavaille-Coll organ in Paris. Not that he has any other place to locate it but his metal-building-workshop, he plans to "endow" some Cathedral of his choosing with the instrument upon completion. =20 Anyway, when list members tried to suggest alternate, more easily accessible routes for him to pursue--or simply suggest other methods of pursuing his dream, he became quickly agitated and insulted the whole lot of them, which promptly resulted in his being booted. It seemed that all he wanted was free handouts so he could "quickly" complete his project! In our case, it's one thing to state your opinion in a forum like this, it's quite another to rudely insist that yours is the only one of value, and remain close-minded to other possibilities. =20 He has been known for acting in similar manner on other internet forums, as well. =20 However, I'll have to say, I'm intrigued by his questions, and hated to see his dismissal quite so soon. Daniel
(back) Subject: Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:50:14 EST As a point of information, Mr. Hendrickson asked me for Cavaille-Coll's "standard" scales, because he is building a "smaller version" of the Saint = Ignatius Mander for his home. SMG
(back) Subject: Re: harmonic flutes From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:56:05 EST Dear PipeChatters: For those of you who receive (and read) The American Organist = magazine, there is a brief historical and technical article on open harmonic flutes = on page 81 of the January issue. It discusses the five hundred year history = of the harmonic flute, its design, construction, use, and specific nomenclature. Sebastian M. Gluck New York City http://www.glucknewyork.com/ ..
(back) Subject: Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:59:45 EST >I have reread his posts. There is not a damn thing wrong with his >questions. >There are NO stupid questions, only stupid answers. There wasn't anything wrong with his question--it was legitimate. = However, it was his obnoxious post in reply to everything that caused him to get = the boot. Regarding tonal styles, it's too hard to just say "neo-baroque." Who's interpretation of that are we talking? What era of organ building are we = talking about--the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's? The fact that he kept only = wanting four "styles" of tonal finishing made me wonder if he was really writing a = paper of he is at a church that has purchased a digital organ that has the = option of having several voicings and he was trying to figure out what he was supposed to do. In any regard, he's gone and I won't miss his bad attitude. I like it = when new people come here to learn, I don't like it when people come here and = bring negativity. Monty
(back) Subject: Re: *ADMIN POST* re: Tonal Styles From: "Jim McFarland" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:01:35 -0500 On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:41:53 -0600 "Daniel Hancock" <email@example.com> writes: > However, I'll have to say, I'm intrigued by his questions, and hated > to see his dismissal quite so soon. This was my point. Jim "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." --Mae West
(back) Subject: Re: Richer Content In Praise Songs From: "T.Desiree' Hines" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:20:10 -0800 (PST) A lister wrote: >If church was meant to have contemporary music, God would have put it = there in the first >place. Instead, he put chant and classical music there that >dates back to the very beginning of time; there have been monks >forever, singing those wonderful lines of chant. Uh... Some conferences may give us resources to increase our job = security/self-marketability. Don't knock it till you try it. = Statements/feelings like this will continue to halt advancement. And whose to say the God only likes Monks and Chant? What's the purpose = for that statement? Why such feelings? After I attended the conference in Charlotte...my mind and self were = exposed to REALLY GOOD forms of renewal music. As a mentor of mine = said...some people are just so above going to conferences like that = one...and will continue to have job issues. Even at my new church, things = work so well because I went in with an open mind, and resources in place = that are already adaquate and better than my last one. If I recall correctly...Ein Fieste Burg was Contemporary for its time...a = bar song I think. While all the wonderful forms of traditional music have = lasted, there is still so much good renewal music out there, but are we = going to the conferences that have that music? Does anyone else on the = list even know who these composers are? OR are we only going to AGO and = OHS? A lot of us in this field are missing out on a LOT of really good music = that will help save the profession and keep steady paychecks. Seriously. = Going to these conferences, you might find something you like. I even = stepped out of my comfort zone and played the Hammond in a class on = Hammond playing. It was not bad at all. Maybe some of us who are in Sacred = Music are afraid of Renewal devices because we don't know what's there or = what to do. That's my weakness. I now know a little bit about the Hammond, = so the glare-down-the-nose is not so harsh now. But, until I knew what to = do in the least amount, I was insecure and did not like what I did not = know about. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! =96 Get yours free!
(back) Subject: Re: Richer Content In Praise Songs From: "T.Desiree' Hines" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:23:53 -0800 (PST) RMB10@aol.com wrote: As to Episcopalians always being traditional, you need to go see some of = the large churches and what they are doing. It's a sad state of affairs in = many of their churches. Many have abandoned the pipe organ altogether in favor = of contemporary worship. What's sad is that some of these churches were once known for having major music programs. Fom TDH: I think St Martins in Houston wil be a good example for large Episcopal = Churches to follow. They state on the website that there is renewal = music...and they just got that fine new Schoenstein. TDH --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! =96 Get yours free!
(back) Subject: re Mb re style From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:48:27 EST In a message dated 1/13/2005 4:00:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, RMB10@aol.com writes: a church that has purchased a digital organ that has the option of having several voicings and he was trying to figure out what he was supposed to do. touche` clearly what was going on and one brand has a 5th option.....so, where would that have gone.... i say the style should be, whatever i want it to be and everyone else is wrong..... or not. dale
(back) Subject: "Praise Songs" as heard by an outside observer From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:57:48 EST Dear PipeChatters: I must preface this post by stating what may be obvious: I am not a professional church musician, and I was not brought up in the Christian = tradition. Oddly, however, I have spent a majority of my waking hours in service to Christian denominations, and have attended as many services in churches = (of all types) as I have in synagogues. What leaves me disappointed (and impatient or offended) by mainstream "praise" music is the fact that I find the "songs" indistinguishable from = one another. At first (and often last) blush, they appear to rely on a steady, = monotonous beat and simplistic harmonic progressions to affect the = listeners' mental state, but I am consistently left unmoved. When I see four-CD sets of such = music advertised on television, I see throngs of tens of thousands, eyes = closed, arms outstretched, open palms toward heaven, tears streaming down their faces, all in response to what to me is passionless, formulaic writing. I fully understand that my response (or lack thereof) is very rare; whatever I am missing, millions of Americans are not only "getting," but = loving. I make a distinction between hymnody and "song" in worship, just as at = Christmastime, I am moved by "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing" and "Once in = Royal David's City," and can do without "Jingle Bells," "Have a Holly, Jolly Christmas," and "Thumpity Bump." The former I find dignified and = passionate, the latter I see as appropriate for a joyous gathering outside of the worship = venue. Once again, these are just the perceptions of one person. I also find that the "dumbing down" of liturgical responses and = service music in mainstream denominations (not just charismatic, evangelical, mass-appeal churches) to be a bit insulting to the worshipper. The argument that "all great music was pop music in its day" does NOT hold water. The music we revere of ages past was the GREAT music of its = day. That is why we still study it, teach it, and use it for worship and enjoyment = in modern times. There are dozens of composers who are obscure or forgotten, = while the most gifted produced work that is revered to this day. I often hear people discuss somebody as producing "good music for what it is," or "not = bad for a modern composer," or "well, it's the best thing going, the least of the evils." These questions are NOT limited to Christian worship. Pop music, = praise bands, and lounge-singing has invaded some "progressive" synagogues, where = two-part music is considered either "old and stodgy" or "too churchy." Is there a reason that greatness is not emerging? What if people wrote = in older styles, instead of trying to be harmonically and rhythmically "different," or "daring," or "modern," especially when they work so hard = to write something awkward? Might there be a balance between self-conscious = modernism and an attempt to recreate Bach's late period Stylus Majesticus? Are we so afraid = to write good traditional music that we resort to bubble-gum pop music? Just some ramblings from an outside observer. Sebastian M. Gluck New York City ..
(back) Subject: Tonal Styles From: "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:01:38 -0800 (PST) Hello, I wonder how many recognisable "styles" of organ building there were in history, and how many there are now? Am I asking the right question, or are there just four styles? Regards, Colin Mitchell UK __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
(back) Subject: Re: "Praise Songs" as heard by an outside observer From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:12:15 EST In a message dated 1/13/2005 4:58:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TubaMagna@aol.com writes: Just some ramblings from an outside observer. to which i can only say, so it is. we in that tradition want numbers......big big numbers. so we read the books and they say 7-11 songs and no organs are the key to = big numbers. we have a slowly growing contemporary service serviced by a praise team.....the people that used to come to traditional worship at that time = are leaving in droves....... Cont worship--155 last year, 250 this missing trad---450 last year.......000 this year. the other 2 traditional services are up about 100 people. our guess is = that we have lost 150 people total. is it worth it? only our grandchildren will truly know, but those 150 = people are now gone..and no longer participating in ANY area of our church = body..... i know a plastic surgeon specializing in re attaching noses to faces that = have recently been spited........ hey, less work for me. dale in florida
(back) Subject: Re: "Praise Songs" as heard by an outside observer From: "Colin Mitchell" <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:19:37 -0800 (PST) My words, What a lot of ground Sebastian covers! Personally, I like SOME pop music and actually listen to it. SOME pop music is quality and evergreen. I think of classic singer/songwriters/artistes such as Dolly Parton, Michael Jackson, Barbara Streisand, George Michael and The Beatles......they've all made my days brighter when I just want to relax rather than listen seriously. Then I turn my attention to "praise music," and what can I recall? Well, there's that one about, "If I were a wiggly worm," and...erm....erm....there must be others....erm. Oh yes! "He's got the whole world in his hand." That's the sum total of my knowledge. I think it would be fair to state that I have never been able to take any of it seriously, or even remember it afterwards. I only recall the "worm" thing because the theology is positively pantheistic, and the other because I recall thinking what a very large hand God must have...unless were really resting on the bossom of Abraham! Perhaps it's just me, but I just find most religion incredibly predictable, incredibly dull and incredibly dated. They can bring on the rattles, the dancing virgins and the drum kits as much as they will, but it doesn't alter the fact that the theology is really in the dark ages. Is it too much to hope that I may someday be challenged and made to feel uncomfortable in church; like I really have no option but to say "Sorry" rather than "Praise Jesus" all the time. If I want light entertainment, I have lots of CD's and a TV, and if I want it live, I'll go and see a professional entertainer! Regards, Colin Mitchell UK --- TubaMagna@aol.com wrote: > When I > see four-CD sets of such > music advertised on television, I see throngs of > tens of thousands, eyes closed, > arms outstretched, open palms toward heaven, tears > streaming down their > faces, all in response to what to me is passionless, > formulaic writing. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page =96 Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
(back) Subject: Re: Richer Content In Praise Songs From: "Jonathan Orwig" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:46:41 -0800 I should stay out of this debate, really.... But I can't... it is a reality of life, and something I've spent a long time formulating my opinions on. First of all, let me say my heart goes out to you who have seen your worship style obliterated by a new pastor, or one just returned from the latest church growth conference... I think I've been remiss in not making it clear that I think the above is = (in nearly all cases) Not a Good Idea, especially if the church is growing and = thriving as it is.. I also know when this topic arises, emotions get the better of our logic, = and we fail to think clearly... several of you have responded knee-jerk fashion, and = it's clear you did not get my point. - I have never denigrated traditional worship, only worship of ANY style done poorly. - Saying all of the contemporary stuff is utter crap and worthless to God = is very shaky ground... YOU may not find it moving, and YOU are welcome to = make that judgement as it pertains to YOU... if it feels like by doing this style, you are not giving your best to God, then by all means, DO SOMETHING THAT DOES - There is throw-away music in all styles... one person wrote privately that perhaps 10% of this will stand the test of time... I'd agree wholeheartedly... I collect hymnals, and 85-90% of the music in some of them is either unknown or rarely sung... In summary: (how many times amd ways do I have to say this before people will read it = and UNDERSTAND?) I am not in disfavor of traditional music or worship - I DEPLORE worship of any style when done sloppily, without preparation and for reasons other = than glorifying God. My main point was (and is) to IMPLORE you all not to = make blanket statements and judgements about Praise bands and that genre of music. That is only taking a slice of the data and your bad experiences (those which support your conclusion) upon which to base conclusions. As respectfully as possible I must suggest that this is poor = logic, bad scholarship, and serves only to further divide us on the issue. Please, know that I respect your opinions, am sympathetic to those = of you who have endured emotional, spiritual and financial hardship as a result of changing styles. Please, do not lump all of us Praise Band leaders and our contemporary worship services together... some of us really do try to do this to the best of our ability and in a manner that is worthy. I don't demand that you like what I do (or even agree with it!), but I would ask that you at least try to honor the work I put into doing it to the best of my ability Peace, -Jonathan Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/