cgz, there you go knocking polyester and burlap. Is nothing sacred?

Sounds like an interesting idea, Palestrina. Best of luck.

johnmann: "If you are an organist, your opinion is of zero value. You are too invested in the topic to offer objective advice."

You wrote that in purple - I'm not sure you meant it as a joke, given the rest of your comment.

Perhaps, with great sampling and a wash of acoustic that renders a lot indistinct, it might be possible to create a digital organ that sounds exactly like a real organ from downstairs. For the sake of argument - maybe. Still, I have never heard a digital organ that remotely approaches that level of realism. But even if the sound coming out of the speakers was perfect, the action (and thus the playing experience) of such an organ could never be likened to that of a good tracker. And this would be an interesting and useless experiment. It reminds me of the current CGI film making craze, where even everyday and readily available things are done in CGI. I guess to show that we can.

Even if you could sample a perfect cello sound, could you sample the technique of applying bow to string; the interplay of left and right hand; and the infinite nuance that technique makes possible for the music?

Part of the reason that it's important for real organists to weigh in here is that they understand their instrument. The organ is not a binary on-off kind of instrument. Until you understand that fact I suppose samplings and speakers and monumental synthesizers would strike you as just as good.

Comments removed by author, unqualified to participate. Forgive impetuosity from all perspectives.

@kirchenmusik, my sarcasm was mirroring the ridiculous notion that acoustical engineers who aren't also organists, have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Certainly organists know a thing or two about organs. But I find that when it comes to judging minute variations in sound, "experts" are often less reliable than laymen.

You can see this in many fields. The Paris blind wine testing of 1976 put wine experts to shame. They can tell you all about wine but taste buds have physical limits which experts compensate for with imagined distinctions.

And yes, you can digitally imitate nuance to perceived perfection. Perhaps, the misunderstanding is the mistaken idea that binary means nuance isn't possible. String a bunch of bits together and you can express nuance. Is it infinite? No. But again, neither is human hearing. You can get close enough for it to become physically impossible for humans to distinguish. And again, I don't know if such organs actually exist but it's not because it isn't possible.

When someone tosses that word 'purist' about, dont' listen. Tune him or her out!

That's good enough for those who follow conventional wisdom. Those of us who are utterly beguiled by the idea of being invested with the power to ensure the demise of something naturally want to hear more. How can one become one of these purists of who you speak?

Ah, but the horse! Now there was transportation. None of this newfangled Ford and Chrysler for my ancestors. They would have known better if the technology had caught up with them. ;-)

Like most things, technology can be a blessing or a curse. Trackers can be a good choice, but not always the best choice. Building layout, choir placement, and whether or not you have a combination action can be significant factors in whether or not a tracker is the best choice in a specific location.

Electronic organs
are just as novel
as the spin
on VII.

They came in
on a breeze
and will go out
with the sneeze.

Look me up
in a hundred years
and report back...
pleaze!

My only other comment would be to get either a good digital organ, or a good pipe organ. Hybrid instruments are a nightmare to work with. I've played two in parish churches and they have always been temperamental and riddled with problems.

Unless you are talking about somebody sitting late at night in their den playing a Lowrey organ with auto rhythms and chords with one note music on the stand and a glass of scotch on the rocks in hand....now that's a hobby.

This is also the best way to experience "On Eagles Wings."

Hartleymartin's proposal for a small parish instrument sounds quite useful. My pastor maintains that the true skill of an organist (he's one himself) is more apparent on a small instrument than a large one. He has a point, since it requires creativity and ability to pull off some of the literature on a small organ.

"Hobby organists?" Not a good term. I have also heard amateurs that can out-play many professionals. Don't bet on professionals always having an understanding of how the instrument is constructed. Some of them just play but know little of the mechanics of the organ. Let something tear up and they are just as clueless as the average parishioner as to how to fix it. Even some college organ teachers can be mediocre musicians. I have met a few of those. Who is the better organist - the "amateur" who plays constantly changing literature for the liturgical year, or the "professional" who plays the same but tired ten pieces for thirty years?

Electronics? Francis, those electronics are going to outlast both of us. They are not going anywhere, like it or not. Last I heard Allen and Rodgers are still producing instruments, and churches are buying them.

This is such a useful discussion, and I'm learning so much. Speaking of Mollers, I just checked out the Organ Clearing House and they have a number of really nice small organs that would be perfect for our chapel. I have my eye on this one.

I agree that "hobby organists" is not a very useful term. I do think there is a distinction, though, between people who have reached a level of mastery in organ playing and understanding of the instrument and those who have not. And it has nothing to do with pay scale or whether you do other things for a living or how many organ degrees you have. I could care less about academic snobbery, as I've heard plenty of doctorate-holders who aren't great players. And competition winners that you would never want to listen to from a musical standpoint.

Are you an amateur, in that you love the instrument and its repertoire? Prove it by learning something about the history and inner workings of organs. Prove it by doing some study of touch - find some masterclasses with different teachers through the AGO or go to an organ academy on your continuing education money. Or join an organ tour to Europe if you've never been. Don't just say "I love playing the organ therefore I am qualified". Now, even if you don't invest time and energy developing your skill and knowledge of the instrument, I am sincerely happy if you are offering your gifts to improve the Church music situation we face today. HOWEVER, please do not take it on yourself to advise your parish or colleagues about organ purchases. That's all I'm saying. And even though I have invested a great amount of time in organ study, have a doctorate, etc., I wouldn't dream of advising on an organ project without pulling together a committee of my former teachers who really understand building and installation. It's just too important for that.

johnmann: "@kirchenmusik, my sarcasm was mirroring the ridiculous notion that acoustical engineers who aren't also organists, have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Certainly organists know a thing or two about organs."

Well, yes organists know a thing or two about the instrument they have spent countless hours working with. Is that a mean or abrasive statement? I suppose that acoustic engineers have something to contribute to a discussion about sampling and reproducing sounds. Is that the same as a discussion about the instrument - the organ? An instrument which produces sound by sending pressurized air through pipes? I don't think so. A piano has strings and hammers. A harpsichord has strings an a plucking mechanism. A guitar has strings. An organ has pipes. All of these sounds can be sampled and reproduced - theoretically, perfectly. But then we are talking about reproductions of an instrument's sound, rather than the instrument itself. It makes all the difference in the world to the player.

Kichenmusik and PaixGioiaAmor - am with both of you entirely. Those who advise on organs really, really must know the instrument... Upside down, inside out, respectfully I say to thee... Cue Diana Ross!

Just as a case in point about why this is important... hartleymartin, I'm sure that you must enjoy playing, but the specification that you've given for your ideal 'parish' organ contains some egregious errors... Let's look at that speccy again...

Great:
8' Open Diapason
8' Stopped Diapason
4' Principal
4' Open Flute (shared with positive)
2-2/3' Nazard
2' Gemshorn

Positive/Swell:
8' Rohrflute
4' Open Flute
8' Trumpet or Oboe

Pedal:
16' Bourdon
8' Gamba

Okay, now you said that you wanted the Nazard and 2' on the Great to go with the Stopped Diapason. By doing that, you've basically killed the objective of the Great organ since the blockwerks of the Medieval period: to provide the plenum. There's a reason that the 2' on the Great is usually an Octave or Principal: it caps the plenum properly. So, for the sake of some kind of dubious clarinet effect (which may or may not work), you've just killed the plenum.

Adding a second manual is expensive, for a start. When you do, it should be a defined division with a purpose. I don't see any developed purpose in the second manual here. What's more, there's no tuning stop - ie. there's nothing for the organ builder to tune the reed to - or any of the flues of that matter. No, it won't do to tune them to the Great because the thing's in a box of its own. You've just created a division that could be permanently out of tune.

Duplexing the 4' flute on the Great is pointless because it simply won't match the Great stopped diapason: it must be scaled to fit the Swell flute. So it will never work properly in the position you've given it in the tonal scheme. The Great and Swell flutes can't be of the same scale because the characteristics of each division are different.

I'm also not sure what the 8' Gamba is supposed to do on the pedal. Add to the 16'? ie. some sort of doubling because the 16' is too weak by itself. If you were going to try to beef up the pedal, the obvious thing to do would have been to duplex the 8' diapason off the Great - pretty standard party trick for organ builders, going back ages. So there's a Gamba there which is probably too weak to make much of a dent underneath the Great OD, and also unlikely to be of use against the flutes in both divisions because it would simply be too distinctive for blended trio textures.

What I get out of that specification therefore, is a Great that isn't a Great, a Swell/Positive/Whatever that doesn't actually have any defined purpose, and a pedal division that doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm sure that hartleymartin isn't alone. On paper, maybe quite a few people here thought that the scheme looked okay. But this is why organ builders and organists who have really studied the ins and outs of the instrument (with reference to historical models) are needed!

Now, my one manual scheme stands. Just a reminder here - Anybody who wants to get in on this project, which is to produce instruments with small stop lists (but a lovely big sound that can fill a church) at a cost that will compete with the eternally ghastly toaster, please send me a PM. If we get enough people together, we can get this thing going, and benefit a LOT of parishes internationally.

It depends. I have a Schantz 2' flute that can sound down any 2' principal, any day. it actually sounds more like a principal than a flute. Clarinet sound wouldn't be a bad thing. I do it often with an 8' flute and 2 & 2/3, or my imitation oboe which is a reedy sounding string with 2 & 2/3. It works! That gamba could add some texture to the pedal if it leaned a bit toward a reedy sound. The bourdon is probably too weak as the only 16', or so it seems to me. Something more like a soubasse would have a little more power, but the bourdon could be voiced for that. It is all a matter of voicing. In truth, you can take any stop regardless of name, and customize the tone. I haven't heard two stopped diapasons that sounded identical, so voicing again would determine its effectiveness.

I have an MA in Teaching with majors in Music Ed and organ to go with my Library Science MS. They custom crafted that degree for me to fit my objectives. I had as much organ as the non Music Ed people. So, Music Ed folks gather at 4:00 p.m. where we will beat the snot out of the MM folks, hands down! They are a bunch of wussies so it should be memorable. ;-)

Yes, which to be honest, I don't think that you should be doing: look at hartleymartin's specification by itself. You mentioned that you have a 13-rank instrument. This is smaller and has defined divisions. It just fails. I'm making a point here about organists trying to advise on organs when they don't have the experience to do so. This, I believe, is why we've been flooded with toasters. I know that the specification that I proposed won't sit well with plenty of organists, because they won't be able to play lots of things that they like. I think that most will grudgingly admit, however, that it does provide the essentials, and if it's a choice between a snap-crackle-and-pop toaster, and something small, simple and musical, they'll take the latter and learn to adjust their repertoire and be creative.

I don't see the point of the Trumpet in your instrument by the way... Too big to be a solo stop or a chorus reed. If it only balances against the full Great, it must be shattering when you put in on top of the mixture.

Are there good musicians with Ed degrees? Sure.

I'm speaking of my personal experience here: too many music ed people know a whole lot about clapping games and sing songy choruses that rhyme, but give you a blank stare when you ask what their research specialty is, what they know about opera, music and theatre, polyphony, history, what instruments they play, conducting, etc.

My experience and my bias.

I should add - I met my son's elementary music teacher during open house recently. I wasn't impressed.

I've had occasion to meet several other music educators from my district as well; in most cases, with a couple exceptions, I've not been impressed.

I HAVE known of the existence of some STELLAR music teachers out there. Unfortunately, I've not experienced their existence to be common. YMMV.

CharlesW, my design is actually based on a specification that I've seen used in a building seating 400. Since it's been sitting there quite happily for about 300 years so far without alterations, I think that we can all assume that it's getting the job done, and probably quite well! It's all in the SCALING of the pipework. This is what so many organists forget... It's not the number of stops, nor the wind pressure, nor much else. If the SCALES are correct for the building, the instrument will fill the building. If you look again at my specification, it is essentially a good, uncoupled Great with a few concessions for flexibility. If the Great division of any instrument, by itself, isn't enough to fill the building, the instrument's a dud, frankly.

Organs should not require tinkering after being built, as though they're some kind of Lego project. While we all must adjust to what we've got, we should make sure that we're installing what's best from the outset. HM's speccy fails on paper - I'd hate for it to actually be put up somewhere, and to then go through a billion and one incarnations as different voicers and builders played around with it. Build it once, build it right.

True, Palestrina, get it right if you are there when it is built, and didn't inherit it. Otherwise, tinkering is inevitable. Scaling is critical. I have heard some large instruments with some ranks not scaled properly. They got lost in the background noise. I think those were off-the-shelf ranks which some builders have used in organs for years.

lol A "Voce Humana" on an Italian organ is always an undulating stop... This still feeds into what I was saying before. There's a lot in a name...

Whether it's a Swell or a Positive, the problem with the 4' rank remains: the scales of the Great and Positive flutes are necessarily different. You can't just pluck ranks like that and use them between divisions - it makes no sense. And the Positive is still without a tuning rank.

There's also a fundamental misunderstanding here: Given that the instrument is always scaled and voiced to suit the building, how could the 2' Principal ever be too shrill? This just seems like a Lego approach to organbuilding - a bit of this, bit of that. It's what happens with toasters too, funnily enough.

The pedal shouldn't be a matter of 'boom' at all. It should be a matter of supporting the divisions above it, while still having independence where needed.

Please, please hartleymartin, don't advise parishes on specifications. As kirchenmusik has already said, leave that to people with the experience to know. I'm trying not to be harsh here, and I suspect that hartleymartin is one of many similar organists around the place, but PLEASE DO NOT advise on instruments unless you have full, thorough experience as a player, have studied proper historical models, and understand scaling, voicing, wind pressures etc.

I don't advise parishes on specifications other than to tell them that I want a trumpet stop and to consult an organ builder who knows infinitely better than me.

I think most of us who have been around for a while know who the good builders are, and have heard some of the instruments they produced. It never hurts to talk to the maintenance technicians since they know how well the instruments are built, and how expensive they will be to maintain.

Yes, but you have to watch organ consultants closely, too. I have seen too many dud instruments based on recommendations by consultants who were just out for the money. We have a few of those in my town.