PipeChat Digest #5432 - Friday, July 1, 2005
 
Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's express con
  by "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com>
Re: PipeChat   Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums
  by "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com>
Re: Service Music Publishers
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Sampling an Instrument
  by <RMB10@aol.com>
Sampling and more
  by "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net>
IRC Reminder
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
snaredrum effect
  by "Steve Gilson" <sgilson@sympatico.ca>
Re: Sampling and more
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: AUSTIN ORGANS: TO BE OR NOT TO BE...(x post)
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's express con
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: PipeChat   Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: PipeChat   Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums
  by "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com>
Sampling?
  by <Gordongoede@aol.com>
Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's...
  by <TubaMagna@aol.com>
Re: Sampling?
  by "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com>
Re: Paul Jacobs newspaper article
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's express consent From: "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:25:03 +0100   Hi   Sampling can be subject to copyright law - as some musicians have found to =   their cost. I suspect that there could be moves to include sampling for = any commercial purposes in this, although I don't think it's happened yet.   As to including restrictions in a contract, surely that's up to the = parties concerned to sort out.   I can understand the reluctance of some builders to allow their work to be =   sampled - as they then have no control over the marketing (or the final quality).   Every Blessing   Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gil Page" <kestrel6@earthlink.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:59 AM Subject: Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's express consent      
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums From: "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:27:48 +0100   Hi   Sorry to disagree - but ALL music is "real" music! And equally acceptable =   to God!   Every Blessing   Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Smith" <kipsmith@getgoin.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:48 AM Subject: Re: PipeChat Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums     > Unfortunately it is true that "real" music, the music preferred in = church > by most of the listers (YOU know what I mean!) requires that some > learning has gone on in our formitive years to be fully appreciated.    
(back) Subject: Re: Service Music Publishers From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:23:54 EDT   I find that there is a lot of drivel just being pumped out by the = "composers" for the sake of a paycheck. One must wade through a lot of trash to find = the gems in the collections. I don't look for a certain publisher, I look for =   the piece that catches my eye. If it happens to be published by a decent company that's good, if it's by some off the wall publisher, that's ok, = too. There are many other smaller publishers out there who are publishing music, some =   composers are opting to self-publish, too. I tend to gravitate to them = first before I go to the "biggies." Check out the offerings from Vivace Press, = Zimbel Press, Calvin Taylor Music, among others. Also not listed was Belwin Mills/H.W. Gray (Warner Bros.) which has a good selection of single works, = too. There is so much good music that gets over looked when you only go to a couple = of publishers. While I'm not discounting what MorningStar, = Augsburg-Fortress, and Concordia have, because there is some good music that they put out, there = is a wealth of good music for church outside the walls of their collections. =   What I find is that there are some cute pieces in there, so much of it is formulaic and after a few pieces, a lot of it sounds the same and that I = just have to wade through it to find the decent piece that doesn't sound like = the previous 6 or 8 pieces. With some of these other publishers, the = composers don't seem to be stuck in the same mode of compositional form and give more = variety of style and genre. They are worth looking into as you want to become a better musician.   Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Sampling an Instrument From: <RMB10@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:44:58 EDT   =3D-> ...there are some organbuilders (including some on this very List, as I recall, who specify in the contracts that the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's express consent. <-=3D   Once the instrument is accepted by the church (or school, or concert hall, = or whatever institution) and the final payment is made to the builder, is the =   organ not the sole property of the purchaser? How would or could the = builder stipulate that the organ not be sampled by a digital company? That would = be like the builder saying that if the organ was ever to be rebuilt or = enlarged only that builder was to do the work. Look at how many times Casavant has = rebuilt Moller organs, or Moller has rebuilt Aeolian-Skinner organs, not to = mention the Wicks rebuild (and digitization) of the Kney at the Huntingdon College = in Alabama or the Tamburini rebuild they did in Chicago. The original = builders did not say that they and only they could rebuild the instruments.   There might be some sort of clause that only authorized service people = take care of the organ so that the warranty is valid, which is a legitimate = point. I mean you wouldn't want a deacon from the church up there tinkering = around because he thinks that he might be able to knock a few pipes back into = tune. If the church has spent a serious amount of money, they should spend money to =   have a real organ technician service the organ properly. There are too = many hacks out there masquerading as pipe organ tuners as it is. A clause = saying that no one could sample the organ just wouldn't hold up in court, I wouldn't think. The organ is the church's property and if they want to let someone = come in and record the pipes, they can do it. It wouldn't void the warranty as = long as no one was tinkering with the mechanics of the organ. If the sampling = was done in the church and no pipes were taken out, I just don't see how = anyone could tell the church what to do. The organ is the church's and if the = church feels it wants to share its property with Rodgers, Marshall-Ogletree or = Allen, it's their business.The pipe builder might not be happy, but it's really = no one's business but the church's, since they own the instrument.   Monty Bennett  
(back) Subject: Sampling and more From: "Nathan Smith" <erzahler@sbcglobal.net> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:01:52 -0400   > > > Unless the builder paid for the organ, I really don't see > how they have any right to restrict sampling. Nor do I > understand why they would want to do so -- other than, I > guess, out of spite. Or fear, perhaps.   Companies that go about sampling other people's pipes in order to make an organ-like product are what we call "freeloaders". Their businesses as they know it would not exist unless they were able to copy the hard work of others, as they are not organ builders. Why on earth would a builder willingly let another "builder" copy his/her sound only to then turn around and market organs in direct competition (not that fake organs are much competition soundwise)?   That would be like McDonald's letting Burger King copy the Big Mac. Sure, the Big Mac that BK copied no longer exists (or in a different form), but now BK is cranking out Big Macs and is putting McDonald's out of business!   If you were to sample the engine sound of a Jaguar your friend purchased, and wanted to make a device to recreate that sound, and place it in a Ford Aspire hatchback, and sold it as having an authentic Jaguar sound, I am pretty sure you would have some legal issues, without having permission from Jaguar to do such a thing, regardless of who ownership is conveyed to. Builders are rightfully very proud of their instruments, after all of the hard work invested in them, and have an interest in the long term future of those instruments.   I suspect that a company could stipulate that the organist had to dance the "hokey pokey" before playing the organ each time, albeit that would be difficult to prove.   >>I told you....I read it. It's far too long, too repetitive, speculative, pseudo-scientific, full of dull geneology and tribal law, hideously mis-informed about creation and more notable for the sins of omission than the content.<<   Ah what do you know anyway?     I always like to put it this way:   If you had just accidentally driven off a cliff and were plummeting to your certain demise, who would you cry out to? Something some man made up? Or the God of the Bible?   - Nate    
(back) Subject: IRC Reminder From: "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:09:40 -0500   Just a reminder that we will be "chatting" on IRC Tonight as we do every Monday and Friday night. Even though this is a Holiday weekend both in the US and in Canada there will be a group of us on-line and we invite others to join us especially those that have not joined in previously. We begin at 9:00 PM EASTERN time.   For information about how to join in please go to http://www.pipechat.org/irc.html   Happy Canada Day to our Canadian members.   David -- **************************************** David Scribner Owner / Co-Administrator PipeChat   http://www.pipechat.org mailto:admin@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: snaredrum effect From: "Steve Gilson" <sgilson@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:21:29 -0400   Easy to create a snare drum effect - all you need is an old Wicks direct electric, take out a couple of pipe and trill the "empty" notes...that should create a loud enough click for ya! <grin>   Steve    
(back) Subject: Re: Sampling and more From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:58:51 EDT     In a message dated 07/01/05 8:02:57 AM, erzahler@sbcglobal.net writes:   << That would be like McDonald's letting Burger King copy the Big Mac. Sure, the Big Mac that BK copied no longer exists (or in a different = form), but now BK is cranking out Big Macs and is putting McDonald's out of business! = >>   The problem is really more akin to churning out millions of fast-food = burgers and having all of the customers claiming, with pride, that they cannot = tell the difference between a Big Mac and Kobe Filet Mignon.   SMG    
(back) Subject: Re: AUSTIN ORGANS: TO BE OR NOT TO BE...(x post) From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:14:27 EDT   Updates on Austin's operation have been published in the major English-language trade journals. The re-opening of the firm, with their own funds, was discussed in the =   major English-language chat lists (including the two that received the mass-mailing query to which this is a response). American newspaper articles have been reprinted on both of these chat lists, and have included official statements by the principal = protagonists. While the firm's role in the future of American organbuilding remains uncertain, it is not the first time that Austin has faced adversity in = their long and productive history. Bear in mind that the catastrophic = self-destruction of the American economy over the past four years has affected many = industries, not just pipe organ building, and within that sphere, not just Austin. Reading is a wonderful thing, and can help us keep abreast of facts, = or at least statements presented as facts. Time will tell, but in the mean = time, speculation is at best unproductive speculation.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City  
(back) Subject: Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's express consent From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   An interesting legal conundrum, since one would have to consider the individual sampled sounds as part of the whole for the purposes of any sampling to be "substantially the same."   Any furher electronic modification, such as takes place in digital synthesis, would have the effect of "substantially changing" that which might reasonably be "part of the whole," and would thus become something "substantially different."   Of course, in the normal course of things, nothing is ever "new" or "unique" in pipe-voicing, and it could therefore be argued that there is the right of "public domain" on anything which pre-dates the entity being sampled by whatever internationally agreed copyright expires.   In practical terms, using the legal argument of "intellectual property right," it might be argued that it would be perfectly legal to copy a copy of copy. Thus, it might well be beyond reasonable argument to assume that, acting in good faith, a sample of a Flentrop Principal is, by default, a sample of an earlier style derived from a previous era well beyond the scope of intellectual property law.   As electronic instruments only sample sound at specific points, and then modifies them, I would expect that any intellectual property right case would collpase almost before it started, and even if it didn't, the lawyers would take everyone to the cleaners long before a judgement could be reached.   Much more legally releveant would be the electronic "sampling" of an instrument "in toto".....in other words....recording it for commercial gain as a complete entity.   Technically, it may be possible for Yamaha Instruments to sue Sony Entertainment....a much more attractive battle don't you think!!!!!   It's a bit like the record producer who taps the triangle in a pop-recording session.....he gets royalties for the "performance" for evermore.   My own gut feeling is that musical instruments were meant to be heard, meant to be recorded and the reproduced sound meant to be broadcast. I suspect that the legal arguments would support this view.   Sample away folks!   I can see the lawyers licking their fat lips already!!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   > > Charlie Lester wrote: > > > =3D-> ...there are some organbuilders (including > some on this very List, > > as I recall, who specify in the contracts that the > instrument is not > > to be sampled without the builder's express > consent. <-=3D     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:03:22 -0700 (PDT)   Hello,   Tony and I agree on something at last......   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK   (Listening to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album.)   --- "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com> wrote:   > Hi > > Sorry to disagree - but ALL music is "real" music! > And equally acceptable > to God! > > Every Blessing > > Tony       ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums From: "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:14:03 +0100   Hi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:03 PM Subject: Re: PipeChat Ministry/literature and ... um.. snaredrums     > Hello, > > Tony and I agree on something at last...... > > Regards, > > Colin Mitchell UK > > (Listening to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album.)   Good! Maybe we can come to agree on more spiritual matters at some point = - I'll be praying for you!   Every Blessing   Tony    
(back) Subject: Sampling? From: <Gordongoede@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:29:09 EDT   Im new to the list and dont have a clue what you are talking about when = you mention "sampling?" What is Sampling? Thanks  
(back) Subject: Re: the instrument is not to be sampled without the builder's... From: <TubaMagna@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:40:52 EDT     In a message dated 07/01/05 11:01:26 AM, cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk (Colin Mitchell) writes:     "Of course, in the normal course of things, nothing is ever "new" or "unique" in pipe-voicing."   What an insulting falsehood.    
(back) Subject: Re: Sampling? From: "Rev. Tony Newnham" <organist.tony@btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:43:22 +0100   Hi   Sampling is, in effect, recording each note of a musical instrument, and then arranging for these to be replayed "on demand" - usually controlled from a keyboard. Among early instruments using sampling were the Melotron =   (using short lengths of magnetic tape) and some stops on some Compton electrostatic-generator organs. There was also an instrument that used photographic means - similar to a film soundtrack - but on rotating discs.   These days, the storage medium is computer memory, and various additional processing can be employed to tailor the sound for it's eventual use. Often, only a few notes are sampled, and the gaps interpolated. For more complex sounds, e.g. pianos, the sounds might be sampled at different volumes, for greater realism.   This is really only a basic outline - it can be a very complicated = process.   Sampled sound is used as the basis of many digital organs these days - the =   notable exceptions being Copeman-Hart and the firms using the Bradford system.   Every Blessing   Tony     ----- Original Message ----- From: <Gordongoede@aol.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:29 PM Subject: Sampling?     > Im new to the list and dont have a clue what you are talking about when > you > mention "sampling?" > > What is Sampling? > > Thanks > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> > >    
(back) Subject: Re: Paul Jacobs newspaper article From: "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:57:39 -0500   Lanny Hochhalter posted the following link to the PIPORG-L list and I really feel that it should be posted here on PipeChat as well.   At 7:30 AM -0700 7/1/05, Lanny Hochhalter wrote: >http://www.courant.com/hc-pauljacobs.artjun23,0,6305198.story       I find a couple of quotes from Jacobs so relevant to some of the recent discussions on these lists.   ********************************************* According to Jacobs, organists shoulder some responsibility for the current situation.   "I think that, certainly in the '60s and '70s, organists placed what they thought to be historically accurate above convincing performance," he says. "And we know that audiences are concerned really with what is convincing. Unfortunately, much of the playing and teaching didn't take this into account and turned audiences away from organ music, which is a real shame."   Furthermore, he says, "Organists become far too preoccupied with the instrument. You never hear a pianist saying, generally speaking, `I'm playing on a Steinway D,'" he says. "And I think that organists generally should listen to the music first and foremost and the instrument second. After all, the instrument is a machine, and it's the human being that brings life to the music." ************************************************   David