Digital Organ Choice

[FelixLowe]

Above: Marcussen and Son's organ.

This performance of BWV 552 Prelude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji-FsTrWfXo was recorded from a small Marcussen and Son's.

About the Marcussen and Son's organs, the company issues its own biography, as follows:

The organbuilding firm was founded in 1806 by Jürgen Marcussen and has been located since 1830 in the small town Aabenraa in the Southern part of Denmark. In 1848 the founder's son, Jürgen Andreas Marcussen, joined the firm and after this the firm bears the name Marcussen & Søn.

In the first decades many pipeorgans were built for churches in Denmark, Sweden, Germany etc., of which several are still in use today, including the oldest from 1820. In 1902, Johannes L. Zachariassen, a grandson of the founder's daughter took over the firm. To begin with the firms activities were still under influence of the baroque organbuilding tradition. Then a change towards organs with more fundamental tone took place, and about 1900 the development moreover was characterized by inventions as pneumatics and electricity.

In comprehension that organbuilding by this had taken up a wrong direction, the firm Marcussen & Søn - under influence of the German organ movement - as early as 1930 went back to the classic North-European organ with wide sound spectrum, reliable slider windchests, and simple mechanical action with precise function.

The central figure in this remarkable process of development was Sybrand Zachariassen (1900-1960). At the age of 21 he took over the management of the old organ-building firm and within a few decades the instruments of the firm achieved international reputation, and they have particularly contributed to the basis for the mechanical pipeorgan of our time.

These activities proceeded when S. Jürgen Zachariassen 1960 became president of the firm, with several organs delivered for European countries, and now for overseas countries as well, e.g. Japan and The United States of America, where the Marcussen-organs also were installed in concert halls. Today the total number of organs built has grown to about 1125.

In line with the considerably growing interest for preservation of historic organs, Marcussen & Søn has also been entrusted important restorations, e.g. in Holland (St. Bavo Kerk, Haarlem and Nieuwe Kerk, Amsterdam). In Denmark the restoration/reconstruction of the organ in Roskilde Cathedral (which is included in UNESCO's Heritage List) and Helsingør Sct. Mariæ Church, where Diderich Buxtehude was organist 1660-1668, are widely recognized.

In 1994/95 the firm was converted into a family-owned limited company and Claudia Zachariassen - 7. generation in the family Marcussen/Zachariassen - joined the firm, and since 2002 she is president for the company. Marcussen & Søn, makes all the component part of each individual organ in it's own workshops, including all such activities as carpentry, metalwork, in addition to the casting of the metal needed for the pipes, reed making and eventually the voicing.

[LastCorpseStanding]

All this talk of German organs is making me want to get one! Clarion, you've talked about how much you've enjoyed the German stoplist on your Phoenix - do you think it would be a good choice for congregational singing in a church? I was talking to Don Anderson yesterday about the possibility of an organ for my current church, which is saddled with an old Viscount analog. While I'd originally asked about Hauptwerk, Don mentioned that he has been working on a similar system that uses jOrgan to front his own samples. The cost he was looking at, with 6 speakers and a subwoofer, was almost $11,000 less than Classic wanted for a similar HW. Both thought they could re-use the old console, and perhaps the pedalboard.

My questions, then, are these. How will the Phoenix samples hold up against, say, a HW Silbermann sample set? Is jOrgan a good interface? Is there enough difference between the Phoenix and HW to justify the price difference for a congregation? I know I'd be able to tell the difference, but I wonder about the average person. Compared to what they have, even a low lever Rodgers would destroy it. I love the HW samples, and I'd buy Walker again in a heartbeat, but I have to consider the considerable budget limitations of the church, and the Phoenix sounds like a hell of a deal. Any thoughts?

[FelixLowe]

Of course, some people would much prefer to own and play the real thing than a digital equivlent when it comes to pipe organs, such as the writer in the article attached below. But with today's digital innovation that enables rather realistic imitation of organ voices, it is only a matter of the budget and space available, when it comes to making a decision. However, as I wrote in an earlier message, it is possible to make many stops out of relatively fewer pipes these days with the Classic Organ Works technology that enables extensive intra- and inter-rank borrowing, to create even mutation stops and mixtures. Even I myself was shocked to discover that I had designed, albeit on paper, a very rationalised disposition of a compact practice organ featuring 37 stops just with under 400 pipes, assuming the use of Classic Organ Work's technology!

The following article, albeit with a strongly biased view against digital imitations, does give an inspiring view from a scholastic viewpoint with regards to the socio-cultural context of the organ in the past and at present.

Happy Reading!

Pipe Organs as Metaphors:
Voices of Times and Traditions

Agnes Armstrong



Metaphor is a rhetorical term defined as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another by way of suggesting a likeness or analogy between them (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1956). In metaphor, one thing represents another. Metaphors help us to better understand our surroundings. By comparing the characteristics of familiar objects or ideas with similarities and differences of other objects and concepts, we are able to make more sense of the world around us.

Shapes and forms of artistic expression inform our perceptions of a particular era, of a particular culture. Because each of these perceptions relies directly or by extrapolation on the senses of each perceiver, there is no one reality. There is, however, a shared reality - a reality existing only as it is shared with others - and this accounts for widely-held perceptions, opinions and ideas, along with our communal acceptance of metaphors as concepts. Investigating what kind of metaphors are evoked by the musical instruments of a certain culture may prove useful to those attempting to understand both the culture and its musical expression, because every musical instrument is a representation of and thus a metaphor for the society in which it is created.

In our western world, music is a highly textualized culture. Written texts are perceived as archetypes, asserting the correctness of the society in which they are produced. Our culture relies heavily on written histories and literature to proclaim our truths and exchange æsthetic information. Organ metaphors abound in literature from many periods and traditions.

Seventeenth-century English poet John Milton used the organ as a symbol of the cosmos in his "Ode on the Morning of Christ's Nativity," and himself was later likened to the organ by Alfred, Lord Tennyson - nineteenth-century British Poet Laureate - in an eponymous poem written in 1863 ("Milton - Alcaics"). Another nineteenth-century writer, Robert Browning, portrayed organs as "huge houses of sounds" ("Master Hugues of Saxe-Gotha" in Dramatic Lyrics, 1842). All these and many more literary organ references may be found at "The Organ in Literature" section of the marvelous "Dream Organ" website created by the late and greatly-lamented Julian Rhodes. Julian's frequent and welcomed contributions to PIPORG-L showed evidence of a brilliant mind as well as a deep passion for the pipe organ.

Pipe organs serve as metaphors on a number of levels. In a basic way, the instrument can be seen as a metaphor for the people who design and build it. The very structure of a pipe organ is a representation of a human being, with scores of moving parts and a wind-breathing system, all integrated into a complex machine. Producing sounds organized in several dimensions, it speaks a musical language which communicates with its auditors. The bellows are the lungs of the instrument. The pipes themselves are referred to in anatomical terms, their components being labeled as body, foot, mouth, and lip.

As for the tonal aspect of the organ, just contemplate the plethora of pipes - pipes of every size and kind, of every shape and color - tall or small, slender or wide, from booming diapasons to lilting flutes to brilliant trumpets - "families" of pipes. Organ pipes are a metaphor for humanity. Pipes in a newly-constructed organ must "settle in" and "make their own community" - large organs in large cities, smaller organs in towns and villages. While great organs - as great cities - offer rich and extensive opportunities for both player and listener, less elaborate instruments suggest the limitations of small towns everywhere.

More importantly, each pipe organ is a metaphor of the particular society and culture in which it is created. From the hydraulii of ancient Greek and Roman times, through the Neo-Classic instruments of a retrospective twentieth century, to the electronic and digital imitations rife in our own generation, the pipe organ embodies cultural history. Designs of pipe organs are analogous to those cultures in which they are built and are therefore paradigms of the societies which produce them. Thus each instrument is a representation of the society or segment of society in which and for which it is created. What is there about a French pipe organ that is inherently French? What do the brilliant trumpets on classic Spanish organs represent? Why are certain theatre organ timbres so distinctively different from the tones typical of church organs? In each period of time, in each society, each culture, each pipe organ is a reflection of the people who created it and the people for whom it was created.

European traditions of organ building are very old, and through centuries of evolution their individual styles have been distilled and refined. Diversities of organbuilding traditions mirror the diversities of indigenous European and European-derived societies historically as well as geographically. Every musical instrument represents the technology of its time. Pipe organs have survived through centuries of change, of being adapted to every current style and taste, every new technology. Yet the organ is the organ. It has changed, grown, accommodated, and still retained its character - the mark, I submit, of a true classic.

Perhaps it will be easier for most readers of this essay to see the point of cultural relevance by looking at organs built in America. In the development of structural principles, some consistency of design seems to have been considered a desirable trait. The great drive toward standardization in an increasingly mechanized society since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has resulted in such phenomena as the adoption of the AGO console standards. We often hear criticism of American builders' naïveté in the choice of stop names, even in the spelling (misspelling) of names taken from European sources. It's not at all unusual to find within one American organ an assortment of stops with French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English names. Yet, what is more typically American than such eclecticism? If America is truly "the great melting pot" of cultures, isn't it appropriate that her pipe organs reflect that point?

Pipe organ builders are not mass-production industrialists. They are artists, architects of sound, dreamers, creators. In medieval times, a builder would move his workers and often his entire family to the site of his next organ. They might even take up residence inside the cathedral being built around them, sometimes for a year or more. There they would be devotedly occupied with building the organ, constructing "a kind of building within a building" (H. Heathcote Statham, The Organ and Its Position in Musical Art, London 1909).
Pipe organ players are artists, too. Moved by the power of great sounds and the visceral sense of the surrounding acoustic, with all the resources of the instrument at their finger- (and toe-)tips, they create order out of chaos, eloquence out of uproar, music out of noise. Awesome or unassuming, vigorous or delicate, organ music is capable of affecting its listeners in countless ways.

Consider the semiotics (the study of signs and symbols, what they mean, and how they relate to the things or ideas to which they refer) of religious institutions endowed with grand pipe organs, instruments which speak often unseen from above and behind, diffusing loud booming tones into vast acoustic spaces, and producing palpable vibrations designed to transport the listener beyond everyday indifference into the realms of time and place. Such impressions are mystical, indeed. A valued musical instrument with potent spiritual connotations, the pipe organ carries strong references, conveying messages and meaning to its beholders.

Pipe organs are complicated and expensive machines. At the same time, throughout their long history they have been considered highly desirable possessions. Inexpensive alternatives to the costly custom-built pipe organ have not always been easily realized. In the nineteenth century it was the harmonium and the American reed organ which warmed the heart of every underfunded vestryman. Even the poorest parish could have one or two of these in chancels and choir lofts, in rooms far too small to house large pipe organs. Although recognized as substitutes, these instruments didn't pretend to be the same thing as pipe organs, but viable substitutes. In the twentieth century, with the expansion of electrical and electronic applications, the advent of recording and digital sampling technologies coincided with the communications explosion. The increasingly slick advertising by which manufacturers of electronic instruments now make inflated claims to sell their wares cause the traditionalists among us to cringe in horror.

Yet for good or evil, this too, is a mark of the society in which musical instruments are produced. Consider the twentieth-century development of man-made materials - especially plastics - which enabled the mass production and distribution of goods: but at what price? Many would argue that such mass dissemination of mediocre merchandise is done at the sacrifice of quality and æsthetics. A Tupperware™ container is inexpensive, durable, and useful. Every home can have one - more than one. It's not beautiful - but then, it's really not pretending to be. It doesn't have the same feel in your hands as an exquisite handmade porcelain Limoges tureen. A plastic container is utilitarian, not decorative.

From this point of view, it is hardly surprising that cheap imitations of art objects abound - "knock-offs" we call them - those inferior replications of highly-priced designer jewelry, scarves, leather goods appearing for sale on the corner of the very street where the exclusive department store carrying the originals is located. So we should not be astonished at the proliferation of electronic instruments which call themselves "organs" but which are in fact nothing more than imitations of pipe organs. Even though the digital revolution which employs sampling of actual pipe sounds has brought the two genres closer and closer together, the fact remains that electronic instruments are merely imitations, just as the "genuine Bolex watch" being sold on the street corner is an imitation of the high-priced one from the famous Rolex company being sold inside the fashionable department store.

We live in a time when widespread distribution of merchandise to consumers is a commendable enterprise. It is a time of egalitarian merchandising on a broad scale. Everyone must be provided an opportunity to own everything. Quality seems not to matter so much as quantity. We want more for our money, not better. Is it any surprise then, that relatively inexpensive substitutes for musical instruments are so prevalent?

It is not only the pipe organ whose very existence is threatened. Symphony orchestras are slowly being replaced in film and theatrical productions by synthesizers and previously-recorded sound. Cheap electronic toy keyboards kept in a child's bedroom (so as not to disturb anyone else) are replacing yesterday's familiar piano of the living room. Modern families gather around television sets and DVD players or home computers, not pianos or parlor reed organs.

How many churches have cast-bell carillons in their towers? How many thousands more have machines from one of several companies which manufacture specialized tape players with sophisticated timing mechanisms that cause "bells" to play at certain hours? Recorded on-site at some of the world's most famous carillon towers, hymns and other tunes ring out from the even the most modest of steeples. For only a few hundred dollars, any little village church can deluge its neighborhood with the sounds of carillons containing 25 bells and more. Few passersby ever stop to think that these bells cannot possibly exist in that tiny spire.

Not so long ago, the "carillons" produced by such firms as Schulmerich consisted of cast metal tone bars struck by tiny hammers. The resulting sounds - amplified by microphone pick-ups - were broadcast through speaker systems into sanctuaries and out into the street. Attached keyboards allowed players to perform hymns and other tunes in real time. If today's digitally recorded tapes are carillon substitutes, the bell sounds emanating from them are illusions of carillons. In much the same way, where analogue systems once produced imitations of pipe organs, digitally-sampled organs now produce illusions of pipe organs.

Do we not live in an age of virtual reality? The public's ability to differentiate - or even it's interest in doing so - is being constantly challenged by clever imitations of familiar objects. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the music world. To many folks more occupied with the other aspects of their busy daily lives, it matters little whether the instrument is authentic or electronic, or whether the sound is acoustically or digitally produced. In our time we are bombarded by sound from every side, constant and continual sounds of every kind. Much of it is considered noise. Only when sounds are organized in particular ways is music the end result. How sound - or even music - is produced is of minor interest to most of the population. We have become numb to sounds and insensitive to the sources of them. Our language has even developed a vocabulary to describe the phenomenon. We say we have "tuned out."





All this brings us to the larger question: whither goes the pipe organ?

1. From the point of view of the listener, by what values are we judging our music and the instruments on which it is produced? By what values do we judge the musicians who perform the music? What is the "magic mix" that says to a critic, to a listener, to a performer, to a composer that the music is "good" - that it has value? What makes the musician good - the composition good - the musical instrument good?
2. From the point of view of the musician, how can we effectively communicate to an audience what we have learned to feel - what we have accomplished intellectually, spiritually - in living with the music we play and living closely with our instruments day-to-day?
3. From the point of view of the organbuilder, how can we keep our work relevant in a constantly-changing society? How can we design and construct instruments for the future, and not only reproduce relics of the historical past?

All these things are judged by those values considered most worthy by that society in that time and in that place in which they are being judged. Such problems are not unlike those experienced by some earnest clergyman who studies in depth the sacred scriptures, who lives close to his God on a daily basis, but who must come down off the mountaintop on Sunday mornings to speak to those who don't. Philosophers and scholars know the problem, too. Our attempt to put answers to these questions, to understand the undercurrent, is expanded by the use of metaphor.

In our time, music is an omnipresent commodity in ways that it has never been before in the entire history of the world. If music is truly food for the millions, how can those millions possibly understand what musicians feel, what musicians know? How can they know what musicians or organbuilders are doing - why or even how they are doing it? These are problems on which many musicians reflect, and to which few know an answer. For most of us, the only solution seems to be to keep on doing what we are doing, to keep on feeling what we are feeling, to keep on knowing what we are knowing, and hope that a few crumbs will drop by the wayside and be picked up by those souls hungry enough to want to be part of the experience.

Whither goes the pipe organ? We might as well ask, whither goes the world? About the author: Agnes Armstrong holds advanced degrees in music from the State University of New York, the College of Saint Rose, and New York University, where her dissertation explores historical performance practice. Known for her research on nineteenth-century organists and organ music, she has published a commemorative calendar of the life of Alexandre Guilmant, an edition of the organ works of Ernest Chausson, a bilingual book on organist Joseph Bonnet, and numerous articles. She concertizes on famous pipe organs and lectures at symposia throughout the United States and in Europe, and performs at conventions of the American Guild of Organists and the Organ Historical Society. Her compact discs are available from the Organ Historical Society. She has taught at five Pipe Organ Encounters for young organ students. She was elected President of the International Reed Organ Society in 1995, continuing for three terms. She is presently organist and choir director at both Saint John's Lutheran Church in Altamont and Helderberg Reformed Church in Guilderland, New York.

The article you were reading was taken from:

[Clarion]

All this talk of German organs is making me want to get one! Clarion, you've talked about how much you've enjoyed the German stoplist on your Phoenix - do you think it would be a good choice for congregational singing in a church?

Absolutely!!!!!!! But that's only my opinion. Notwithstanding that all Phoenix organs are set up with grand ole English Romantic Anglican as the default organ. While not going all out in an effort to capture the strident ugliness of 16th century offerings, I couldn't be more enamoured with the somewhat more romantic neo-baroque samples from the absolutely beautiful St. Mark's German Hallmark samples! Most of my time at the keyboard these days concentrates upon liturgical oriented repertoire; and for me, the (neo) Baroque organ is definitely the way to go. While the default English Romantic spec would definitely garner the affection of any Anglican congregation, the Baroque spec just kicks the whole effort up another notch with it's most wonderfully superior articulation, without becoming ugly or strident.

I was talking to Don Anderson yesterday about the possibility of an organ for my current church, which is saddled with an old Viscount analog. While I'd originally asked about Hauptwerk, Don mentioned that he has been working on a similar system that uses jOrgan to front his own samples. The cost he was looking at, with 6 speakers and a subwoofer, was almost $11,000 less than Classic wanted for a similar HW. Both thought they could re-use the old console, and perhaps the pedalboard.

While I find the Phoenix's most recent venture into HW-land somewhat fascinating; and to that end I opted for a full range of midi options on my organ; after a somewhat more than satisfying experience with my 1.5 year old instrument, I can't imagine any kind of modification that could possibly augment the intial setup.

My questions, then, are these. How will the Phoenix samples hold up against, say, a HW Silbermann sample set? Is jOrgan a good interface? Is there enough difference between the Phoenix and HW to justify the price difference for a congregation?

In all fairness, I am not in a position to compare the Phoenix resident samples to HW stuff. The resident Phoenix voices are ever so wonderfully complete and satisfiying, that I've never been impelled to seek anything better.

I know I'd be able to tell the difference, but I wonder about the average person. Compared to what they have, even a low lever Rodgers would destroy it. I love the HW samples,

With fully available midi oportunities, I still remain less than convinced that HW stuff offers any benefit over my current Phoenix installaton. Phoenix voicing is already so great, that even if there is something better out there, I can't envision any need for such.

and I'd buy Walker again in a heartbeat, but I have to consider the considerable budget limitations of the church, and the Phoenix sounds like a hell of a deal. Any thoughts?

Yeah! Dunno about you, but from very close to the outset, Phoenix sounded like "a hell of a deal!!"

[FelixLowe]

If my future budget permits, I am really thinking of building a pipe one instead of a digital equivalent, since I have designed a 37-stop organ, with extensive use of regals instead of full-length reeds. This is to make it so compact that it doesm't have tooccupy excessive space in the home and can fit nicely into the cabinet of the organ. The key to building a North German Baroque pipe organ with Classic Organ Works' Pipe Control Computer (PCC), whereby pipes can be borrowed within and in between ranks. I am thinking of maybe Marcussen's pipework. This is really the magic of today's digital technology, to make what was not possible in the era of tracker action a fantastic reality. If this organ is built, a midi-out can be prepared for to enable plugging in a Content sound module for practice, either the out-of-the-box one or a custom-made one, so as not to wear out the leather on the reservoir and the relays on the soundboard too quickly. The only problem with using regals is that they may get to be tuned quite often. The Bible Regals in the old days in the German Courts certainly needed tuning quite frequently, from what I have read about how even weather changes would render them out of tunes. But I don't know about Messingregal and Holzregal, certainly two regal stops I am quite in favour of using just by seeing their description in Audsley's book titled "Organ-Stops and Artistic Registration" by George Ashdown Audsley, published by Warner Bros. The reason is that their small sizes can be better fitted into a compact cabinet. I am also planning on using Holzregal 16' for the bass, instead of Rankett 16 or Sordun 16' normally found on practice organs. If the Holzregal is not satisfactory, then, one may have to fall back on Rankett 16'. For the Holzregal 16', I feel it can work with Bourdon 8' and the choralbass 4'. When three are drawn, I guess it should be sufficient for the purpose of home practice.


Above: an example of a set of Holzregal pipes, which I guess, may be a substitute for the Oboe and Clairon stops for the swell.



Above: The short reeds are a kind of Trompetenregal or perhaps Messingregal, which may be used to substitute for Double Trumpet 16' and Trumpet 8', or even Posaune 16' for the pedal.

When one is constructing the organ of fewer pipes but for a maximisation of stops, it is essential that one should look for possibilities of downward and upward extensions of a rank. Also, as I gave an example before, a contiguous rank of principal pipes of about 84 pipes can yield not only the three octave stops, but also the Twelfth and the Sesquialtera, as well as Mixture III. We are talking about six stops with a mere 84 pipes! If you think about it, for a tight budget and crammed space, that configuration does work wonders.

Classic Organ Works PCC is described in his way on the company's website: http://www.organworks.com/Web/produc...mber Products: "The Pipe Control Computer (PCC) is normally installed in the pipe chamber replacing Pipe organ relays while providing Pipe organ keying functionality using solid state switching. It receives stop, expression, miscellaneous and coupled-key data from the Console Control Computer (CCC) and performs all stop control, borrowing and unification functions for any number of ranks. The computer can easily be programmed to control any combination of unit chests, multi-rank divisional chests, offset chests, etc., as well as stop actions, tremolo controls, swellengines, etc. A rank may be played at any pitch including mutations. A stop may control a single stop-action magnet, a pitch on a unified rank, a compound stop or mixture made from one or more pipe ranks, etc."

"The computer can directly connect to as many as 24 Pipe Driver Boards each of which is capable of controlling up to 96 chest magnets. It can also connect to other driver boards such as PDB, SAMDB, CDB to control swell engines, zimbelsterns, tremolos, chimes, and other chamber equipment . Multiple PCCs may be connected to the same organ console. MIDI out for driving "sound expanders" and alternative applications is also included. Two LEDs are included on the board to aid in diagnostics. One indicates that power is present. The other flashes to indicate that valid data is being received from the Console Control Computer.

"The PCC is available in two types with three versions each. The two types are PCC-1C and PCC-2 (which incorporates dual-console support without the need for an add-on circuit board). The three versions are PCC/16 which has 16 outputs to drive PDBs, PCC/24 which has 24 outputs, and PCC/RS which has 24 outputs of which outputs 21-24 are duplicated in "RS-422" (balanced-line) form, to allow up to four PDBs to be situated a long distance from the PCC.

"Features

• Each PCC controls up to 24 Pipe Driver Boards each driving 96 outputs.
• Programmable to control any combination of unit chests, multi-rank divisional chests, offset chests, stop actions, tremolo controls, swell engines, etc.
• Allows a stop to control a single stop action magnet, a pitch on a unified rank, a compound stop, or mixture made from one or more pipe ranks, etc.
• Additional PCCs can be added as required, in larger organs.
• Support for multiple Pipe Driver Boards in remote locations through RS422 serial-data links.
• MIDI in/out for expander and alternative applications.
• Diagnostic LEDs to indicate receiving data and power.
• Power: 8-15V (5V Regulator on board.)
• Dimensions: 4" x 14" "

[LastCorpseStanding]

Thanks for the article Felix. I think all of us would prefer the pipes given the chance. As I remarked one time earlier, one of the nicest organs I played was the 3 rank continuo at Trinity College, U of Toronto. Although limited in spec, it was far nicer than the 2 manual Casavant in the gallery. Ms Armstrong's parallel of organ pipes representing the settling in of a community really puts a whole new perspective on the organ I'd never considered.

I had no idea that Classic's console control system was as versatile as it is. Those sorts of technical details are well out of my league. Having talked to Arie on several occasions, I mentioned that I could see Classic surviving more on their parts and system supply business, and less on organs. His opinion was that hauptwerk was the only segment of the business really growing right now. Digital and pipe organs are, if not in decline, certainly stagnant. (I know Phoenix may well be an exception.)

It occurred to me that I should ask Don about the possibility of having a license type setup, whereby I'm allowed to have access to the full library, and be allowed x number of stops to be active at any time for a period of time. That would allow for trial of a number of different specs to choose what I think would work best, and, after 90 days or so, it could be locked into the instrument. You never know, maybe that will become the new way of selling digital organs to guys like us that understand how to choose a spec and want a custom stoplist without the custom price.

LCS

[FelixLowe]

It occurred to me that I should ask Don about the possibility of having a license type setup, whereby I'm allowed to have access to the full library, and be allowed x number of stops to be active at any time for a period of time. That would allow for trial of a number of different specs to choose what I think would work best, and, after 90 days or so, it could be locked into the instrument. You never know, maybe that will become the new way of selling digital organs to guys like us that understand how to choose a spec and want a custom stoplist without the custom price.

I guess you are talking about the kind of "avoidance of tonal obsolescence" that Allen harps on in its website. I guess Phoenix certainly has such technical capability if it wants to make it available to its customers. And again it would be a matter of a business decision, including costs which may ultimately be incurred for its customers to bear. Technically, I don't see how they cannot allow their customers to choose again, if they don't like the initial setup after 90 days. But if they discover that they don't like it after 900 days, the company would charge them for "avoidance of tonal obsolescence", I guess.

Also you talked about playing the continuo. However, I would think a Casavant could sound far better than a continuo because usually the latter, as we all know, has mostly wooden pipes in it, nearly all of it (as Holzgedackt and Holzprincipals). As such, it sounds very wooden and dull, and lacks brightness. It's only when such device is used together with a chamber music band or in an orchestra that its voice is enriched by other band instruments.

[LastCorpseStanding]

During my time at Trinity College, I played both organs on a regular basis. The Casavant certainly had more variety, but it was a product of their rather dark, dull tonal period. The continuo, on the other hand, had a (I think) Rohrflute 8', a harmonic flute 4' and a 2' principal - metal - which was very bright. The Casavant lacked sufficient mixtures, and the reeds had no bit to them at all. It had an overly large scale open diapason on the Great that I found almost unusable due to it's heavy, thick nature. I know it sounds wrong, but I still preferred the Wilhelm.

With a proper rebuild, and possibly electronic expansion, the Casavant could be great instrument. The chapel at Trinity is all hard surface, very narrow, very long and very high. The acoustics are fabulous for music, terrible for speaking. Even with just the 8' and 4', the Wilhelm was ample to accompany a small congregation for the weekday morning services. The Casavant was used mostly for the Wednesday choral evensong service.

Simply put, the Wilhelm was a better example of a continuo organ than the Casavant was of a medium sized two manual organ. Everything about it was a joy to play.

[FelixLowe]

In an earlier message, I mentioned about the Bible Regal. Here is a video demonstrating how the old German Bible Regal would sound like. The reeds are similar to the Holzregal, only that this Bible Regal uses bronze, instead of wood, for the reed pipes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtGoh1oJRVQ

[FelixLowe]

Also, the much talked about Apfel Regal which was found amongst certain North German Renaissance organs can now be heard on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgqTB7M8pJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxddndKNFlM&feature=related


Above: an Apfel Regal organ which sounds quite like the Schalmey to a certain degree.

Also, hear a Medieval-styled pipe organ perform in solo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hz5...eature=related. Sometimes, it is interesting to hear it scream from its high-register notes and the ringing from the mid-section gives one a nostalgic feel -- the same when one hears the world's oldest playable organ dating back to 1390, so they say, at the Fortress Cathedral in Sion, Switzerland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrTEo...eature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD3z8RGFZdA.

[FelixLowe]

Last night I was perusing many sources regarding organ stops because I hoped to find out whether the Twelfth on the Great manual of the organ is of principal tone or flute tone. It turns out that many authoritative sources on the Internet have given contradictory remarks over such stop. Personally, because my organ was built from sound modules, one of the modules, the Ahlborn Romantic, gave a Quint Flute 2 2/3. But I am seeking an answer for the Baroque German disposition. In Germany, the stop was known as the Quinte or Quinta.

One detailed source I read, says that Quinte more properly denotes a flute, but others say the stop is of Principal tone, which is only tuned slightly softer than the octave ranks, and was built with a more narrow scale of principal pipes.

I wish to know what is the situation on your Baroque style digital organs, or even just what you know should be the standard of today.

I am also interested to know what this situation is when it applies to the Anglican organs, Baroque/ Romantic. Could anyone help address this issue?

What should be the appropriate choice if one has to build the Great manual?

[LastCorpseStanding]

Last night I was perusing many sources regarding organ stops because I hoped to find out whether the Twelfth on the Great manual of the organ is of principal tone or flute tone.

In my experience, a stop labelled "Twelfth" has always been a principal. I'm surprised to hear that it my have been anything else. I suppose if the stop name is anything else, it could be either, or perhaps a spitz-variety stop.

In building a Great manual, I've always leaned towards the prinicpal. However, when designing the stop list for St. George's, there was a disagreement between two of the consultants from Classic over which it should be. One wanted a prinicipal, and the other a flute. Consider what you plan on using the stop for. Also, if you're only building a two manual instrument, that may influence your decision.

Personally, I've always liked playing Bach with the prinicipal Twelfth pulled. I think the blend is better with the principal, unless you plan on using it heavily with the Great flutes, which I find much less likely. Again, this choice is really just personal opinion. I'm sure you'll find people that can make good cases on both sides of argument.

One final thought - You may find that the choice of pipe has more to do with the individual builder than the style of organ. That being said, I still think the principal is probably more widely used, at least in Canada.

Wish I could be more help.

LCS

[FelixLowe]

In my experience, a stop labelled "Twelfth" has always been a principal. I'm surprised to hear that it my have been anything else. I suppose if the stop name is anything else, it could be either, or perhaps a spitz-variety stop.

In building a Great manual, I've always leaned towards the prinicpal. However, when designing the stop list for St. George's, there was a disagreement between two of the consultants from Classic over which it should be. One wanted a prinicipal, and the other a flute. Consider what you plan on using the stop for. Also, if you're only building a two manual instrument, that may influence your decision. LCS

Thanks for your info, LCS.

But if indeed a principal tone is adopted for the Twelfth on the Great, then is it true that it must be voiced to sound softer than the octave ranks, and perhaps leaner as well? This issue comes to mind when one thinks about using the Classic Organ Works hardware to borrow the Twelfth from an existing rank of Principal 4', for instance. If the normal volume of the Great Twelfth must be softer and of a slightly different character, (that is, its scale, they say, should be narrow), then a new rank of pipes must be used for the Twelfth. That is, it cannot be borrowed if it sounds too loud when the borrowing comes from an octave rank.

Whilst on this topic regarding the Quinte, then how about in the Sesquialtera? Normally organ literature admits that both ranks of pipes are of open metal pipes, yielding pure organ tone. But Audsley says that not only so but that the Fifth harmonics must also be made to be slightly more prominent than the Third Harmonics. Do you know of any fact that these two ranks are supposedly to be made with different proportions of the tin and lead in them? Or must it be the case of what Audsley said in every case of organ building? And if the two ranks are indeed borrowed from the octave ranks, tonally then, they would become pretty much equal in volume. How feasible is this then, in terms of acheiving proper tonality?

I have been thinking that if budget and space does not allow for an extra two ranks, then maybe I will borrow the Tierce from the flutes. So when the Tierce and the Octave-sounding Fifth join together in tone, then a contrast can be heard that the fifth sounds louder than the third, even though I would say this will compromise the true tone of a Sesquialtera. But for home practice, maybe this passes. What is your opinion?

[Clarion]

In my experience, a stop labelled "Twelfth" has always been a principal. I'm surprised to hear that it my have been anything else. I suppose if the stop name is anything else, it could be either, or perhaps a spitz-variety stop.

In building a Great manual, I've always leaned towards the prinicpal. However, when designing the stop list for St. George's, there was a disagreement between two of the consultants from Classic over which it should be. One wanted a prinicipal, and the other a flute.

The choice between a principal and a flute would probably resolve in favour of a flute for most Canadian ears. My personal preference for the upper octaves, definitely favours flutes; and especially the clear pure bell-like tones in favour of the somewhat more strident cluttered unpleasant harmonically-rich principal tones

[Clarion]

It occurred to me that I should ask Don about the possibility of having a license type setup, whereby I'm allowed to have access to the full library, and be allowed x number of stops to be active at any time for a period of time. That would allow for trial of a number of different specs to choose what I think would work best, and, after 90 days or so, it could be locked into the instrument. You never know, maybe that will become the new way of selling digital organs to guys like us that understand how to choose a spec and want a custom stoplist without the custom price. LCS

LastCorpseStanding,

I don't believe Phoenix will ever provide anyone with a whole bunch of stop-samples to play with! No matter what!!! Basically, each and every Phoenix installation is a monument to its creators; and the effort expended to accomplish that purpose. If organists are going to be playing with a whole bunch of voices, the organ could end up sounding rather terrible; which isn't going to do anything positive for the company's reputation.