PipeChat Digest #5230 - Saturday, March 26, 2005
 
Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments  Matt Responds
  by "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com>
Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments  Matt Responds
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments
  by "Jan Nijhuis" <nijhuis@email.com>
Re: New Digital Comparison
  by <Justinhartz@aol.com>
ebay policy
  by "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net>
A" trend"?
  by <Justinhartz@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments Matt Responds From: "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:39:08 -0800   May I just say that the following festival of typefaces and opinions = strikes me as being as confusing (and worthless) as I can imagine. ----- Original Message ----- From: bnorth To: PipeChat Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:05 PM Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments Matt Responds     From what you say here and your earlier posting, you continue to slagg a = company that has been around for a number of years and still is in the = business of manufacturing and selling electronic organs. The pipe organ = business has been in decline for years, but if you look at the number of = closures and amalgumations of congregations throught the United States and = Canada, the major market for electronice organ manufacturers, its growing = smaller. If, as one poster stated, that 90% of their business is in church = organs, I suggest that that market is shrinking too. You have mention = three reasons for your comments about Rodgers, but I don't see any solid = facts to back up ur comments. I still would like to see some concrete = proof, not rumors.   And it was the rumors that helped shut down Austin. You may have a = point about them not supporting older instruments, I dont know, thats the = first I have heard that comment on any of the organ chats. If the other = organ company is as good as you say it is, you dont need to knock the = opposition to gain points with consumers. Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments Matt Responds     I made the "iffy" comment for several reasons ... and I do not equate = it in anyway to what just happened with Austin. They are different = "worlds" entirely. The entire pipe organ industry has been in decline for = decades now, the E-org builders are not in the same situation. Don't = forget the disastrous losses Kim reported on several large projects, and = the role they played in her decision.   Reason number one is the recent upheaval when Rodgers dismantled most = of it's dealer network. Reason number 2 is that Rodgers exists ONLY = because of Roland's willingness to keep subsidizing it. I do not think = this is a very stable situation. At least Kim Austin was calling the shots = at Austin. Reason number 3 .... their reputation for NOT supporting older = models is a big factor why folks choose Allen over them, even if they = prefer the Rodgers sound.   I don't think they can overcome these negative factors and I'm not = responsible for any of them.   As I said in my last post .... let's all try to remember this thread 5 = years from now as we survey the E-org world.   Matt   bnorth <bnorth@intergate.ca> wrote: "I disagree on the matter of choosing Rodgers over Johannus for = several reasons. Right off the bat, it is very "iffy" that Rodgers (never = profitable for Roland) will be around for much longer. "   While Matt has the right to his opinion, I wonder, in light of the = recent closing of one of the great pipe organ builders, that comments like = those above do nothing to strengthen an already shaky industry. I don' t = know if others on this list were bothered by his comments, but I was and = have been thinking about this since i read them . Just so the record is = straight, I own an Allen organ, but have toured the Rodgers factory. ( I = was impressed by their work, and recommed taking the tour if you ever have = the chance)   Matt, unless u have concrete information that you can share with = us, that the statement above is legitimate, I suggest you appologize to = the list for that comment, I find it very much out of line and hope others = do as well. One of the reasons the other company said they were going out = of business were comments similar to those above.     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!  
(back) Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments Matt Responds From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:15:01 -0600   Oh yes they are! If you look at the figures for organ construction you = will see that although the majority of instruments built today are = electronic, the numbers of electronic as well as pipe instruments are = declining. Praise bands ... Declining church attendance ... Whatever, = but inescapable.   John Speller ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mattcinnj=20 To: PipeChat=20 Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:24 PM Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments Matt Responds     I made the "iffy" comment for several reasons ... and I do not equate = it in anyway to what just happened with Austin. They are different = "worlds" entirely. The entire pipe organ industry has been in decline = for decades now, the E-org builders are not in the same situation.
(back) Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison-Matt's comments From: "Jan Nijhuis" <nijhuis@email.com> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:47:31 +0800   Makes me wonder why an "iffy" company would go out of it's way to hire the = top brass from a competitor (Duane Kuhn and Church Organ Systems respectivl= y) to head up marketing. I think you'll find that COS went the way of Austi= n without the tears and mourning on pipe or e-org chat. Furthermore, I thin= k you'll find fans in every one of the digital organ builder's camps. I hap= pen to like the European voices of Johannus, others have a preference for R= odgers and still others are enamored with Allen and the same all down the l= ine. Does one sound better than the other? The preference for sound is very= subjective. Without proper tonal finishing in the space where the instrume= nt is used even the finest instruments (winded or digital) can sound abysma= l. Is the quality of the woodwork and electronics better in one than the ot= her? Probably.=20   For an "iffy" company, I'd have to say that Rodgers is still big. There's a= big user base, and I've never heard of poor after purchase support. I beli= ve that the association with Roland is an advantage to both companies. I do= n't think Roland is afraid of niche markets ... under their own brand they = still make the CA-80 and CA-80 AK digital harpsichords and the C-280 "posti= v organ." I don't think these prodcuts sell anywhere near the numbers of Fa= ntom's, Juno's, DP, EP and F-series pianos. Most recently Roland has added = a pair of Digital Accordions to their product lineup. Are any kids you know= taking accordion lessons after school? It's not likely, but if Roland Corp= were to jetison the Rodgers brand, I'm confident that another entity would= wish to assume the brand and manufacture of the product.=20   Back to the beginning: That's sort of what happend with Baldwin when COS (c= onvieniently located in Baldwin, WI) assumed the name. Sure those Baldwins = were a stencil of a European brand but the name was well known state side, = and for a time, that was an important asset. Rodgers would be a much greate= r prize with the manufacturing facilities, should Roland make the (foolish)= decision to let the brand go.     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Greenwood" <walterg@nauticom.net>   > Matt, do you have some inside information from Roland management? >=20 > > "I disagree on the matter of choosing Rodgers over Johannus for=20 > > several reasons. > > Right off the bat, it is very "iffy" that Rodgers (never=20 > > profitable for Roland) will be around for much longer. "   -- Jan Nijhuis nijhuis@email.com   --=20 ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm    
(back) Subject: Re: New Digital Comparison From: <Justinhartz@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:53:25 EST   Given the cost of a brand new digital organ, have you considered a = small used pipe organ? Organ Clearing House has many instruments available. Your local pipe organ technicians might know of a church which is = closing and will need a new home for their pipe organ. You may have fewer gizmos to play with, but nothing beats the sound of =   real pipes. Then this REALLY would be the LAST organ your church has to purchase!   Justin Hartz  
(back) Subject: ebay policy From: "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:08:21 -0600   Keith--ebay policy allows an auction to be withdrawn for reason of sale of the item through another avenue. That's nothing new. Some folk that have shops list items and then terminate the auction if a customer walks in to the shop and buys the item.   Obviously, if somebody made a practice of doing that regularly, it = wouldn't go over very well with customers.   Dennis Steckley Lover of Cats, Pipe Organs & 1940-65 Sewing Machines    
(back) Subject: A" trend"? From: <Justinhartz@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:23:29 EST   So, the pipe organ is in danger of extinction? Perhaps we should look at the organist and not the "trend".   In the past few months, two churches in my area had working pipe = organs. The organists in both churches claimed the organs needed to be = replaced, and were "out of date". Both churches replaced their organs with digital instruments (one cost =   $165,000.00). The organists in both churches resigned within months having the new digital organs installed.   Are organists getting a "commission" if they purchase a particular digital instrument for their church?   I see a "trend" which indicates to me that we need to educate = organists in appreciating a church's organ and not pushing their need to have the = "latest thing" to play on Sunday morning.     Justin Hartz