PipeChat Digest #5355 - Thursday, May 19, 2005
 
Re: Colin
  by "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com>
Re: Colin
  by "N. Russotto" <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com>
Re: Colin
  by "N. Russotto" <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com>
RE: Colin
  by "Garrison W Johnson" <johnco18@comcast.net>
Re: Organist/choirmasters (longish)
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Re: Rollschweller and cone valve chests. - the response
  by "Andy Lawrence" <lawrenceandy@gmail.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Colin From: "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:10:11 -0700   Normally I ignore this kind of silliness (and there is plenty to = ignore), but in this case I can't forbear. NFR (whoever he is) clearly = attempted and managed a friendly bantering tone. Alan Taylor's posting = is the very essence of what I think of as intolerable snotiness, so = finely realized as to be probably incontrovertible proof of underlying = character.   MAF   ----- Original Message -----=20 From: alantaylor1=20   Is there anyone else as bad mannered or quite as stupid as NFR on this = list? There are quite a number of members of this list,NFR, that find = much of interest in Colin=92s postings. What a pity that you don=92t = appear to have just a little of interest to say. Perhaps silence might = prove your best bet, until you can think of something interesting to = post.=20       More, much more please Colin.           Alan   London       You know, Colin, I think that's the shortest email I have ever seen = you write! Congratulations on learning the value of words. I figured you = for a 'barrister' as you use three words where one is required. :)      
(back) Subject: Re: Colin From: "N. Russotto" <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:17:22 -0400   OH COME ON Alan, don't you have a sense of humor somewhere? IT WAS A=20 JOKE!!!! WIth an IQ of 134, I'm not often called 'stupid', and bad mannered= ?=20 Well, Jesus bloody Christ. Some people are just so stodgy and inane. Come= =20 on, now, Alan, don't be asinine. Colin got the joke, and if he asks me to= =20 apologize, I will. If a moderator insists that I stop making jokes, I will.= =20 However, until then, I see no reason why you must blanket me as an idiot in= =20 such a way, especially because SOME people *cough* you *cough* insist on=20 mongering rumors that could be devastating to the Ally Pally. I would look= =20 forward to you and your little "unofficial" site being taken off-line. They= =20 are damaging to us all, and a crock of crap, if I may add.   NFR   On 5/18/05, alantaylor1 <alantaylor1@members.v21.co.uk> wrote: >=20 > Is there anyone else as bad mannered or quite as stupid as NFR on this= =20 > list? There are quite a number of members of this list,NFR, that find muc= h=20 > of interest in Colin's postings. What a pity that you don't appear to hav= e=20 > just a little of interest to say. Perhaps silence might prove your best b= et,=20 > until you can think of something interesting to post.=20 >=20 > More, much more please Colin. >=20 > Alan >=20 > London >=20 > You know, Colin, I think that's the shortest email I have ever seen you= =20 > write! Congratulations on learning the value of words. I figured you for = a=20 > 'barrister' as you use three words where one is required. > :) >=20 >=20 > NFR > =20 > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 17/05/2005 > =20       --=20 Nicholas F. Russotto Somers, Connecticut Organist, Holy Cross PNCC Enfield, Connecticut Moderator/Owner: Monarch of Music=20 http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/monarch_of_music/  
(back) Subject: Re: Colin From: "N. Russotto" <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:19:01 -0400   If you all looked at the signature, it's Nicholas F. Russotto, by the way. = ..=20 .. thats Nick for short. . .=20   On 5/18/05, N. Russotto <ravenrockdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > Thank you, M. Fox >=20 > On 5/18/05, M Fox <ophicleide16@direcway.com> wrote: > >=20 > > Normally I ignore this kind of silliness (and there is plenty to=20 > > ignore), but in this case I can't forbear. NFR (whoever he is) clearly= =20 > > attempted and managed a friendly bantering tone. Alan Taylor's posting = is=20 > > the very essence of what I think of as intolerable snotiness, so finely= =20 > > realized as to be probably incontrovertible proof of underlying charact= er. > > MAF > > =20 > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > *From:* alantaylor1 <alantaylor1@members.v21.co.uk>=20 > > =20 > > Is there anyone else as bad mannered or quite as stupid as NFR on this= =20 > > list? There are quite a number of members of this list,NFR, that find m= uch=20 > > of interest in Colin's postings. What a pity that you don't appear to h= ave=20 > > just a little of interest to say. Perhaps silence might prove your best= bet,=20 > > until you can think of something interesting to post.=20 > >=20 > > More, much more please Colin. > >=20 > > Alan > >=20 > > London > >=20 > > You know, Colin, I think that's the shortest email I have ever seen yo= u=20 > > write! Congratulations on learning the value of words. I figured you fo= r a=20 > > 'barrister' as you use three words where one is required. > > :) > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Nicholas F. Russotto > Somers, Connecticut > Organist, Holy Cross PNCC > Enfield, Connecticut > Moderator/Owner: Monarch of Music=20 > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/monarch_of_music/ >=20       --=20 Nicholas F. Russotto Somers, Connecticut Organist, Holy Cross PNCC Enfield, Connecticut Moderator/Owner: Monarch of Music=20 http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/monarch_of_music/  
(back) Subject: RE: Colin From: "Garrison W Johnson" <johnco18@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 23:52:11 -0400   NFR   If you please! There are some of us who revere the name of Christ! = Please do not mis-use it. -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org]On Behalf Of = N. Russotto Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:17 PM To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Colin     OH COME ON Alan, don't you have a sense of humor somewhere? IT WAS A JOKE!!!! WIth an IQ of 134, I'm not often called 'stupid', and bad = mannered? Well, Jesus bloody Christ. Some people are just so stodgy and inane. Come on, now, Alan, don't be asinine. Colin got the joke, and if he asks me to apologize, I will. If a moderator insists that I stop making jokes, I = will. However, until then, I see no reason why you must blanket me as an idiot = in such a way, especially because SOME people *cough* you *cough* insist on mongering rumors that could be devastating to the Ally Pally. I would look forward to you and your little "unofficial" site being taken off-line. = They are damaging to us all, and a crock of crap, if I may add.   NFR     On 5/18/05, alantaylor1 <alantaylor1@members.v21.co.uk> wrote: Is there anyone else as bad mannered or quite as stupid as NFR on this list? There are quite a number of members of this list,NFR, that find = much of interest in Colin's postings. What a pity that you don't appear to have just a little of interest to say. Perhaps silence might prove your best = bet, until you can think of something interesting to post.       More, much more please Colin.           Alan   London       You know, Colin, I think that's the shortest email I have ever seen = you write! Congratulations on learning the value of words. I figured you for a 'barrister' as you use three words where one is required. :)     NFR       -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: = 17/05/2005           -- Nicholas F. Russotto Somers, Connecticut Organist, Holy Cross PNCC Enfield, Connecticut Moderator/Owner: Monarch of Music http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/monarch_of_music/  
(back) Subject: Re: Organist/choirmasters (longish) From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 04:02:36 EDT   In a message dated 5/18/2005 1:07:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, effarbee@verizon.net writes:   we may also question why you limit yourself so terribly.         do NOT consider it a limit........... dale in Florida  
(back) Subject: Re: Rollschweller and cone valve chests. - the response From: "Andy Lawrence" <lawrenceandy@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 04:42:43 -0400   I guess my ignorance has been brought to light once again. Ventils at Yale? I thought this was a Skinner? The Skinner pitman action has a separate valve for each pipe. Or does Yale still use the old Hutchings chests? And stop by stop for the crescendo? I've never come across an organ yet that doesn't crescendo in this manner, even the piece of junk that I play. Could you explain specifically how the mechanics you describe are different from every pitman organ scattered throughout teh US? I'm confused, and very curious. Andy   On 5/16/05, Colin Mitchell <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I suppose it's good to be put on the spot; especially > since I wrote of something I have very little > experience of ie:- cone valve chests and > rollschwellers. Thus, in "knowing" something about it, > I really know nothing, since I've never really had the > chance to explore a big German romantic organ built > after 1900. >=20 > I think possibly only "Brindley & Foster" ever used > cone-vale chests here in the UK, but there may well > have been others. Brindley had, of course, worked > closely with the German organ-builder Schulze, and > there was an interchange of workmen between the two > firms whilst Schulze was in England. >=20 > However, not to be daunted, I "think" I know at least > some of the answers to the questions posed. >=20 > Forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't a cone-valve > arrangement shut off the wind supply to each pipe > individually, using charge and discharge registration > wind supplies within the chest? >=20 > That, of course, would eliminate any sag or "bounce" > in the larger areas of air associated with > slider-chests and ventil chests, and would allow > seamless addition and subtraction of registers. >=20 > Assuming that I am right (!).......the next conundrum > is to explain the essential nature of (say) a German > Walcker organ, and the way in which they differ to > other types of organ. (I think the same can be said of > Sauer instruments and other contemporary German > Romantic organs of the period). >=20 > On my last but one trip to Holland, I heard Reger > performed on the big Walcker instrument at Doesburg; > close to the German border. This was fascinating, > because I heard the type of instrument for which > Reger's music was properly intended. "Amazing" is the > word which springs to mind. >=20 > The impression I got was of hugely heavy bass > registers, a great whirl and swirl of sound from the > great mash of 8ft tones combined, and chorus-work > which only added brightness to the 8ft tones, but > without any real sense of a chorus effect, such as > would normally be found even in French or English > romantic organs (and also, early romantic German ones > too). >=20 > Everything, it seems, is subservient to the intention > of creating an "orchestral" effect rather than an > "organ chorus" effect. >=20 > In England, as in France, we are conditioned by the > absolute dominance of the Swell Organ and an abundance > of other enclosed divisions; capable not only of > acting as a volume control, but allowing a wide > dynamic expressive control of a type virtually unknown > on German organs. To get the expressive crescendo or > diminuendo, the German Romantic organist only has > recourse to the addition or subtraction of stops; made > much easier by the provision of setter-actions and > rollschweller controls, and virtually impossible to > achieve by hand or with normal thumb/toe pistons. >=20 > We move on.... >=20 > I have mentioned that I live quite close to the great > Schulze masterpieces at Doncaster and at Armley; two > very different organs. Armley is all "donner und > blitzen" with a smattering of ethereal effects and a > positively angelic Echo division, but at Doncaster, > there is a veritable wealth of quieter flutes > (exquisite) and mild string tones, subtle mixtures > and, for the most part, (except the replacement Great > reeds and a Solo Tuba by J W Walker in the 1950's) > rather thin reeds which do not add a great deal of > power or weight to the whole. (The Full Swell at > Armley is quite restrained, with no 16ft reed and, in > its original form, no super or sub couplers.) >=20 > HOWEVER, bring on those open-foot, big-scale, > un-nicked Schulze Great Diapasons, and you are soon in > "canned lightning" territory.....wow! It is a sound > like no other, and has made the Armley Schulze > especially famous across the world. (The Doncaster > Great chorus is less strident, but rings around the > building nevertheless). >=20 > That essentially "baroque" Diapason (Principal) type > of chorus was to become heavily suppressed over the > next 50 years, and is not really in evidence in the > Walcker organ at Doesburg. Instead, the emphasis has > shifted towards 8ft tone and very subtle upperwork > which adds just a wee bit of brightness, but more > importantly, and upwardly expanded dynamic which > counteracts the massive 32ft and 16ft pedal tones. >=20 > In fact, ITS ALL ABOUT DYNAMICS rather than terraced > choruses. >=20 > Because the name of the game is expression, each > register can be freely added to another with some > impunity. Thus, Flutes and strings blend, the > Principal (Diapason) registers just add power to the > softer registers, and the whole behemoth is just one > great oozing, seething mass of dynamic sound as a > result......the very thing which brought about the > German baroque organ-revival. >=20 > OK....let's jump on a jet plane and head across > England and Stateside, armed with our Reger tome > which, of course, we have practised to perfection! >=20 > First to a big Harrison & Harrison organ. Impressively > powerful Diapasons, slider-chests, fiery Swell reeds > enclosed in a massively effective swell-box, big Great > reeds, huge Tuba sounds and Pedal basses which have > more rock and roll than Elvis. Then there is a stupid > little enclosed Choir organ, a collection of > attractive Solo stops (all enclosed except the Tuba) > and lots of thumb pistons, swell pedals and pretty > ivory stop heads. >=20 > The seamless increase and decrease in dynamics can > only be achieved by using the very effective Swell > organ coupled through to Great. Even then, the whole > sound is forceful and BRIGHT as compared to a Walcker > organ, for example. The BIG sound is that of Swell > reeds burning through the gloom and bursting out into > the building with impressive effect. >=20 > No matter what one does, it does not, and cannot sound > like a big German organ of the Reger period. Thus, to > achieve any sort of dynamic increase or decrease, we > have to resort to specific "points" in the score to > add or subtract registers or manual divisions. >=20 > Authentic Reger has gone out of the window, and we are > suddenly in the land of TRANSCRIPTION. >=20 > We fly on to Yale University....... >=20 > American organs (even very large ones) are essentially > modelled around the same blend of English style > chorus-work with a French-style dominant Swell,as > their smaller brethren are in the UK. OK, there are > differences in specific detail, but WE would recognise > YOURS, and YOU would recognise OURS. >=20 > Obviously, on such a huge instrument as the Newberry > Memorial organ at Yale, there is a vastly increased > availability of orchestral effect, which moves such an > instrument one step closer to the German romantic > organs of Walcker or Sauer. Nevertheless, without cone > valve chests, it is unlikely that registration changes > would be totally "seamless" even if set up that way on > a General Crescendo pedal. For a start, the reeds, > when brought into operation, would be totally out of > balance and would predominate. There would be the > previously mentioned problems of wind sag and bounce > as ventils open and close.....and this WOULD BE HEARD! >=20 >=20 > It just doesn't happen like that on German organs of > the period.....the changes are so subtle as to be > almost done by magic. >=20 > I cringe to think what great clunks,plops and hisses > would emerge from an organ such as Yale, if the great > dynamic "pulses" found in Reger's music were to be > replicated as if it were a German romantic organ. I > guess that Reger would begin to resemble a Yorkshire > "clog dance." (Apologies to Jarle Fagerheim in Norway) >=20 > However, let's be a little less pessimistic musically. >=20 > Did Reger actually KNOW what he was doing when he > wrote for the organ? >=20 > As I stated previously, his organ-works were a bit of > a committee effort; the chairman of the committee > being Karl Straube, who really DID know what he was > doing. ("The maker of organists") >=20 > Emotionally, Reger was complex, intense, hard-drinking > and melancholic genius....perhaps he was "on the dark > side" of the divide between sanity and madness. I > would argue that unless one can have an extraordinary > empathy with the tortured nature of his inner-being, > then Reger is not for you. >=20 > Perhaps of equal importance, is the fact that he > somehow encapsulated the madness of the age, the > imperial ambitions of Germany and the agony of an > escalating world war. >=20 > He was also a crap organist, apparently! >=20 > Max Reger was a Symphonist and Pianist, where dynamic > control is virtually instantaneous and unlimited; even > in a brief moment of the scoring. The fact that the > rollschweller made this sort of dynamic control > POSSIBLE, does not necessarily mean that it is > DESIRABLE, in my honest opinion. >=20 > Does Reger's wonderful music become less if it is > TRANSCRIBED to a different style of instrument? >=20 > Maybe that's the wrong question? >=20 > Perhaps I should ask, did the music of Bach suffer at > the hands of Virgil Fox? >=20 > Somehow, in spite of all the artistic licence and > romantic/orchestral excesses, the music of Bach shone > through like a beacon, no matter what he did to it. I > believe the same to be true in reverse with Reger. >=20 > Take OUT some of the romanticism and exact dynamic > detail, and the music of Reger still shines through, > and being honest, I think to much better effect very > often. Call me names or throw old wooden trackers at > me, but I suspect that the music of Reger often > IMPROVES with the aid of the eraser pencil and the > less frantic use of dynamic change made possible by > the rollschweller. >=20 > I mentally go back to those early formative years, > when I heard the great Fernando Germani lift the lid > on the inner soul of Reger.....I was 15 years of age, > overwhelmed by the intensity of the music and > virtually speechless by what I heard. >=20 > I have loved Reger's organ music ever since (with a > few somewhat tedious exceptions), and yet, I was > hearing Reger TRANSCRIBED by Germani and played on a > big Harrison organ totally "unsuited" to the music. >=20 > I would also point out, that when I travel to Holland, > I go to hear Bach and Reger, as well as anything else > I may discover. To hear Bas de Vroome or Jos van der > Kooy,playing Reger at Haarlem, is to hear something > extraordinary IN TRANSCRIPTION (a word Jos van der > Kooy uses in describing performances of romantic organ > music on that instrument). The fact that the > performers and assistants plan the registration > meticulously beforehand, says so much about the > integrity of the true artistry of each, and they come > pretty darned close to what Reger intended, I feel > sure, but without a single registrational aid in > sight.....just a lot of hands grabbing at stops, and > replicating the effect of a German rollschweller. >=20 > Wonderful stuff indeed! >=20 > As a final thought, perhaps Reger should have done > what Bach did, and not put any dynamic markings or > other details on the manuscript. That way, we'd not > have to sit for hours worrying about how to play the > music. Instead, we'd sit for hours discussing the > reasons why he left the dynamics out! >=20 > Meanwhile, the REAL organists would just "KNOW" from > the dots what Reger intended! >=20 > Does that answer the question(s)? >=20 > I do hope so..... >=20 > Did I cover everything? >=20 > No, I forgot something! >=20 > Reger belched and farted a lot!!!!! >=20 > However, here's something to enjoy which I bet very > few have yet stumbled across.....a real recording, > done in 1937, of the celebrated 5-manual Sauer > instrument in the "Jahrhunderthalle" at Breslau, on > which can be heard Bach and Reger....fascinating! >=20 > http://www.dra.de/dok_1002.htm >=20 > Enjoy! >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Colin Mitchell UK >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >=20 > ****************************************************************** > "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> >=20 >