In the Phoenix area, I would recommend visiting the Richards and Fowkes organ at Pinnacle Presbyterian in Scottsdale, and the Paul Fritts organ at Arizona State University. If the sounds of those instruments engage you, that will go a long way toward informing a decision, and both of those builders are very much alive and well.

I'm sorry, but I have never been fooled yet by a digital organ. I can always tell the difference. It's just not the same, no matter how much the marketing and publicity Insists that a digital is just as good. And, I have heard and played the most up to date and whooptido ones available.
I really don't care what people think, everyone can like whatever they want. but I wonder, why are so many famous organists pushing people to recognize digital organs?
The truth is, that there is money involved, and I hate how the digital companies have practically destroyed the market for pipe organs with their crap. Yes, crap.
They are a rip off. Can't we be honest about this?
I sometimes wonder that organ builders should have copyrighted their pipe sounds.
Don't you think it unethical to record a pipe organ builder's sounds such as Aoelian Skinner, or C. Coll, and sell them as your own work, without acknowledgement?
isn't this just wrong?
Ok I'm done too.

So we're all just jealous, Noel? No, I think you'll find that the reason there is such strong opposition to toasters in this forum is because they're musically inferior. Plenty of hate and rudeness, sure, but not much jealousy. Take the extent to which these have been expressed as a measure of the dissatisfaction that electronics have been giving the organists who play them.

The scenario you present about organ builders that are "willing to deal [with] you on your terms, no matter how short-sighted, misguided and faulty they are" could never happen with a toaster salesman, could it? I mean, really?

Let me provide some "positive" advice (again): don't buy a toaster, buy the real thing. Be prepared to buy something that is small, simple and well-built, and adjust your repertoire accordingly. No, it won't have 50 billion different sounds, but what it will have is a few very fine ones. If you understand how to use the playing action properly, you'll find that they're more than adequate. Frescobaldi didn't even have second manual. Neither did Tallis, Cabezon or Pachelbel (in many cases). The number of nineteenth-century composers who wrote for organ OR harmonium shows that their repertoires are adaptable for smaller organs. Organists who constantly want yet another stop have usually failed to come to terms with the ones they've got. Better to spend time learning how to arrange hymns (as the German church music degree students do, to the point where they can improvise perfect harmonisations at services) and perfecting the art of being an organist.

Speak with a reputable pipe builder first. Find out your options. Yes, it's expensive, but it is an investment for the long-term future. Digital instruments, while they have their place in certain circumstances, are almost always quick fixes. A fine pipe instrument, big or small, is a wonderful legacy to leave future generations, and it shows a real commitment by a parish to the art of sacred music.

In four months, we will begin the renovation process of the 1935 Casavant in our chapel. We are makings some additions, such as a Great Mixture, Tromba 8 (that goes down to 16 in the pedal!) plus a new Tuba, all in the style of the original instrument. The solid foundation of a well-built instrument allows for its successful renewal and for these additions. This organ has a wonderful history and it promises an even more wonderful future.

I'm sorry - there is no such thing as a "digital organ builder". I have no hate for digital organ builders; I simply do not acknowledge that this professional category exists. In the real world, we have pipe organ builders; and people who sell elaborate synthesizer/speaker complexes that somewhat imitate the sound of a pipe organ from a distance, for untrained ears. These folks do not build instruments; they build speaker systems that imitate instruments. I'm sorry if I've hurt the feelings of anyone who devotes their life to the art of approximating real instruments through sampling and speakers. There is a real expertise to this endeavor, of course, but it's different from the art of building pipe organs.

As far as builders of organs, to reply to donr, I would also suggest contacting Kimberly Marshall at Arizona State - St. Albans winner, extensive experience on historical instruments, etc. Local organ professors can often be your best allies, as they have both knowledge and an interest in seeing more excellent instruments go up in their area. Of course, you have to be careful that the organ fits the needs of your parish, rather than just adding to a "bouquet" of academically interesting organs around town.

And as with anything else, there is the top tier, a lower tier that it still good quality, an iffy tier, and a tier to avoid at all costs. Most people would rank the top tier in America today as: Fritts, Pasi, Richards & Fowkes, Taylor and Boody. A second tier (still good quality) would probably include Cassavant, LeTourneau, Andover, and others. You can go into more detail parsing the builders into different categories. But there is often not as much price difference as you would think between the tiers - maybe a difference between $40k/stop at the top, $30k at the next level, and often $25k or more for not-great builders. Better to have a smaller quality organ, than lots of stops from a lower-quality builder.

No hate, just a pragmatic assertion that a digital sampling and reproduction via speakers of an instrument's sound is not the same thing as the instrument itself.

I would say that Casavant, Letourneau, and Andover can build instruments as good or better than those builders in that supposed "top tier." Those supposed tiers are emphasizing some stylistic rather than construction differences. Remember when the 60s top tier was based on building screeching mixtures and rattling flutes in imitation of supposed historic instruments? Take those supposed tier differences with a grain of salt. All of those builders are good and can produce fine instruments.

All good companies, redsox1, and I am not wedded to mechanical action. With some organs that have both electrified and mechanical consoles, I hear the mechanical rarely gets played.

However, I think any organist now playing a Hammond, is not going to complain if you give him a Letourneau. He won't say, "I am so depressed! This Letourneau does not have authentic simulated Schnitger wood in the case. I can't stand it!" Any organist with the Hammond would consider himself blessed to get any instrument by those builders we have both mentioned. Some of our perfectionists get way ahead of themselves.

I don't totally disagree with you, I just think some get a bit too picky when many of our Catholic organists are playing really sub-standard instruments, if they even have organs at all. Also, some of our most nitpicky posters are playing electronics. Go figure that one! Any of the organs, EP or M, by those good builders would be a big step up for them.

Some of the instruments I have personally enjoyed most, btw, were 19th century American organs. They are generally beautiful. I have a small 50s Schantz, (scaled to rattle the timbers) but if I were to get too "expressive" with hymn playing, the pastor would ask me to curtail my creativity. LOL.

Just an added side note: My personal philosophy is that I will play what I have as best I can.

For those new to all of this, it is helpful to understand that church organists are among a very small group of musicians who do not have to buy their own instruments.

Organ building in Europe requires training and licensing following rigorous exams. As you can see here, in the USA it only requires internet access.

Gut string players only, need apply. Fingerpicking with natural nails - no synthetic nails or metal fingerpicks. Unfretted banjos and gut-bucket basses....strung solely with real guts. Penny whistles must be made out of real pennies. Only certified Salvation Army tambourine players accepted.

And none of those fancy shmancy amplifiers, either. God's hearing was not damaged by listening to too much Metallica. Wish you could say the same.

Just curious, Palestrina. How much do you think that proposed instrument would cost to build?

There's a tremendous amount of misinformation here, share some more with us, please. This is excellent training for young priests, to be able to get an inside look into the mind and thinking of organists.

Synthesized sound? Synthesizers are so 1970's,

Toasters! It's great hearing that old swear word again, thought it had died out. Reminds me of a wonderful MAC screensaver with winged toasters gliding across the screen I had. I miss it.

Actually, Noel, you've forgotten about all the other musicians who don't buy their own instruments... Violinists, cellists, violists... You know, the ones who play those $1 000 000 Strads that they have on permanent loan from philanthropists.

There are very few players who are lucky enough to get to play such instruments. Maybe a few are provided by philanthropists but the majority are by investors, who see rare instruments as a financial hedge.

Organs are not something that appreciate, obviously otherwise investors would be begging to buy you one for your church!

I'm still waiting for a justification for a toaster when a real instrument can be acquired for the same price or less.

Really, there's no reason to get....nasty. Come up with a contract to build a pipe organ as you have described, for the price you are promising as well as a financial bond that will guarantee the completion of the project - which is a requirement among reputable organ builders today - and post it here - we'd all like to have a look.

The bonding requirement came out of the failure of a number of companies, due to financial problems, leaving churches without new organs and no way to recover the loss.

And then there is the rumor factor. "So and so sold an organ to XYZ Church, he took $38,000 and the church never got the organ." The person who was maligned handled this in a very gentlemanly manner, saying: "Get the name of the church, please."

That killed the rumor.

So from an economic standpoint, it actually makes more sense to invest in an instrument that more players will get the opportunity to enjoy.

The Bishop says, "You want to spend $__________ on a new organ?"

"Well, Bishop, it's always been my dream to buy an organ so that organists can enjoy playing it!"

It is possible for a pastor to be demoted to assistant. In an instant. In the twinkling of a toaster.

Seriously, few take people seriously who use derogatory terms about women, racial groups, food, or church organs.

Or anything. Look it up, it's a fact.

BTW- if Jackson uses that $2.00 word, "simulacra," just one more time...
I swear everytime he's milked that esotericism some poor infant cries out in hunger and a dad has to get out a 1:00am bottle!

Of fine scotch. Single Malt.

Only if the pastor failed to explain that in the long term, the church was actually making a financially sound decision. Basic finance calculations: if you can get an organ for the price of a toaster, and can also show that the net present value of replacing toasters every 10 years is higher than acquiring an organ that will last a century or more, your bishop will see the logic. Some church assets simply require a high, one-off payment. Altars, pews, stained glass. All not cheap.

...which is why they're in debt in the first place!

I just sit down with them and explain if necessary. Initially, they're a bit shocked to hear that they'll be in a better financial position by making the more expensive up-front decision, but most come around. You just explain it in the same way as you would roof renovations... Cheap company = same job in 10 years.

I just refuse to call these contraptions "organs". If simulacrum apparently isn't acceptable either, although I actually thought that was fine. Ecclesiastical synthesiser, church electronic keyboards, take your pick... Not an "organ".

Rhetoric was the first shot fired in this thread, incidentally, by labeling people who advocate pipe organs over other devices as 'purists'.

Purist fussbudgets!

Next thing you know people are going to start claiming that e-cigarettes aren't really cigarettes and bitcoins aren't really money.

E-cigarettes are not real cigarettes. Which is precisely why you can smoke them in public.

"Electronic organs" are not organs at all. They are synthesizers.

I play one, for the next two weeks anyway. If I'd not been fortunate, I'd be playing it a lot longer. I did my due dilegence and stepped up when I could, informing the pastor that to buy another synthesizer was in no one's interest. He agreed and we got lucky.

If it's the best you can do, then it is what it is. But let's not call it what it's not.

I must admit, being told that a technician could "voice" a contraption really annoyed me...

Voicing is an art and takes years to learn, and to equate the delicate task of voicing a rank with manipulating sound samples, well...

Howard Johnson was right in Blazing Saddles, too.

The Church has spoken about the instrument: it should be a pipe organ.

So, I just checked. In this diocese there are two pipe organs, and the rest vary between Sim-simi-sicula-chrons and pianos. Some with two legs, some with three legs and some without strings, which make them blenders.

Where'd the Catholic churches go, since these do not follow the instructions of the church?