PipeChat Digest #5415 - Saturday, June 18, 2005 1876 Roosevelt 3m from Trinity Church, Boston, Plays at OHS Convention by "William T. Van Pelt" <email@example.com> Is Prerecorded Music Better Than Recorded Music? by "Bill Hauser" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Pre-recorded Music by <AGODRDANB@aol.com> Re: Johann Michael Bach by "Colin Mitchell" <email@example.com>
(back) Subject: 1876 Roosevelt 3m from Trinity Church, Boston, Plays at OHS Convention From: "William T. Van Pelt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:33:15 -0400 Matthew Bellocchio, chairman of the 2005 OHS Convention, relates this fascinating survival of a large and early Roosevelt 3m masterpiece built for Trinity Church, Boston, and which will be released from longer than three decades of silence so that it may be heard on Monday, July 18, 2005, at the hands of Christopher Marks, organist of Syracuse University: A Boston Cinderella In the south end of New Bedford we will hear on the final convention day, = Monday, July 18, an organ which may well prove to be the "Cinderella = story" of this year's convention. In 1876 Hilborne Roosevelt of New York = built a three manual, 47 stop, organ (opus #29) for H. H. Richardson's new = building for Trinity Church in Boston. This organ was the first = significant incursion by a New York builder into the home territory of the = Hooks. It had Barker levers on all divisions and a small Echo organ = controlled electrically - both "firsts" for Boston. It was later moved to = Trinity's rear gallery and electrified by Hutchings-Votey in 1903. In 1926 = when E. M. Skinner installed a new organ (op. 536) in Trinity, the = Roosevelt was moved to St. James RC Church in New Bedford, where it was = installed with only minor changes by W.W. Laws. This organ has not been used since a tower roof leak silenced it in the = 1970s. A group of convention committee members and volunteers have been = working to have it playable for our visit. This important 19th century = instrument is one of the more remarkable treasures to be heard at this = year's convention. It was built for what was perhaps the pre-eminent = church in Boston, a city renowned for organ building. Roosevelt surely = would have known that this organ would have to be nothing short of a = masterpiece. This rare survival from Roosevelt's early career will be = played by Christopher Marks, Syracuse University organist.
(back) Subject: Is Prerecorded Music Better Than Recorded Music? From: "Bill Hauser" <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:04:23 -0500 JUST WONDERING ON THIS FRIDAY EVE
(back) Subject: Re: Pre-recorded Music From: <AGODRDANB@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:03:38 EDT Hello everyone! (That sounds like Karl Hass) I felt moved to comment on the traffic regarding the 'recorded music' issue. Personally I detest it in the Church, I have grown up in the Anglican tradition, and am just now (after 40+ years as an Organist) begrudgingly = accepting electronic organs. I have played some wonderful Rodgers, Allen, Alhborn, = Johanus, and Seville machines, they do serve a purpose, but lets face it they are = not Pipe Organs. That said, I think it comes down to Church tradition, and = basic good taste. Some churches regularly use 'sound-tracks' to = accompany their choirs, with some almost good, to not so good effect. I = find that most R/C (now that they are off that guitar mass = Jag!!) Episcopal, and Lutheran congregations are stepped in a more or = less classical tradition, which I fully embrace. If the church is well equipped with an excellent sound system, = and uses a well recorded Pipe organ, or chamber group to lend accompniament, it can work. The horror begins when the youth choir uses someone's boom box = to play some rock-liturgy. I am addmittedly a card carrying crumundgin, but in the end = good taste and some standard of artistic reality must prevail. In the community where I reside an elementary school vocal = group has advertised that they will be presenting Orff's Carmina = Burana. Has the world gone insane?!! Now I feel so much better! (If only my spell check would = work!) Old stick in the mud, Dr. Dan
(back) Subject: Re: Johann Michael Bach From: "Colin Mitchell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Hello, Thanks to Stephen for that very detailed response to my question about J M Bach. I think the quality of what I heard simply leapt off the page, and this is what fascinated me. Thanks again. Colin MItchell UK --- Stephen Roberts <email@example.com> wrote: > Dear List, > > Johann Michael Bach (1648-1694) was of the > generation that preceded J.S. Bach. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com