How is it possible to talk about the e-cigarette, calling it that, and saying then saying it is not a cigarette, after calling it a cigarette in the first place?

How about, non-burning stick that emits a visible vapor that would appear to look like something that is is not? Since "toaster's already taken.

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

If I could find any eggnog in this woebegotten foreign land I would raise a toast to the suggestion that we all lay off hot-button topics until after the Christmas eve parish extravaganzas. As it is, let me just wish everyone a most blessed Christmas!

The writing is on the wall. It's not the future, it's now.

Harpsichord ---> Piano
Pipe Organ ----> Digital Organ

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I am noticing a lot of personal rhetoric on this particular thread. Perhaps it should be closed, as I am noticing the level of animosity rising slowly. I implore those involved to please discontinue the rhetoric directed at a person's character, intelligence, training, and/or perceived lack thereof by one party or another.

Admins: perhaps this thread should be closed.

Melofluent, the logical extension of your argument is that we shouldn't spend money on our churches full stop.

There are also plenty of straw man arguments in your post: nobody here has a problem with organists of varying abilities. Those of us who have studied, however, do have a problem with those of lesser experience and knowledge advising parishes about what instrument is suitable for their needs.

Given that I have spent most of my posts arguing for smaller organs that can be installed for roughly the same price as a contraption, I don't see how you could accuse me, or indeed anybody here, of being unrealistic or decadent.

Pipe Organ ----> Digital Organ

Over my dead body.

What's getting lost in all this "rhetoric" is that these "instruments" are pieces of crap. Again, I said this earlier and I'll say it now: I've played at more than a couple churches with electronic organs. And each was failing within 5 years.

If you don't mind having mass with the occasional "ssssssssss....CRACK! ... sssssssssss" sound randomly interspersed - and yes this is what I've seen on more than one occasion at more than one church - then drop $100,000 on one. Why not.

Actually, on further reflection... Noel's post is telling... If we accept his evolutionary model, the harpischord led to the piano, and the pipe organ had the harmonium as a kind of offshot/successor... Note how they didn't call it something like a 'hammer harpsichord'? New instrument gets a new name.

Where electronic imitations do emerge, it's also interesting to note that they find niche roles in performance, rather than replacing the original instruments. Richard Carpenter may well have liked some electric imitations of pianos, but these have never made it into the concert hall, for instance.

I wouldn't use church legislation to argue for the pipe organ. Although, I do think the Church's dislike of recorded music in the liturgy is a helpful clue.

There is a valid point about the irrelevance of the delivery mechanism, which was actually more in line with the Baroque and Renaissance approach to music. The particular instrument chosen for performance was not set in stone. And someone may grow accustomed to the organ and its repertoire, or start playing on a digital instrument. And those instruments may fill a valid need in their particular parish. But Again, all we are saying here is that a digital instrument that approximates the sound and playing experience of the pipe organ is better than nothing. In terms of exposure to the instrument and its repertoire.

However, even if perfect sound is theoretically possible (and I've never experienced anything approaching that from speakers), the playing experience - the nuances of touch and expression - can never be the same. And that makes an incredible difference to the player.

The problem some of us have with this thread is a refusal to acknowledge the real difference between a pipe organ and a sampling/speaker system. And a refusal to acknowledge that devoted years of study (whether of playing or of organ building) can lend expertise in this matter. Those saying that digital organs are not as good are dismissed as jerks and "purists" whatever that means.
It's a frustrating discussion, reminiscent of most church music discussions these days - where anyone with a guitar and a heart for God assumes that they are just as knowledgeable about church music as anyone else. And if they "like" something it is therefore valid and anyone who says otherwise is a jerk and a purist. And we need to get with the reality of the times and not look into history for models. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I would love to see a bit more respect for historical models, for musical integrity, and for those who have devoted themselves to study and a craft and scholarship, on the CMAA forum of all places!

Still, this is a very interesting discussion and obviously caught the attention of many here. I haven't seen anything that warrants shutting it down.

By the way, the near-constant comment thrown out here about historical copies that are liturgically unfit is a real red herring. I can think of a few examples, certainly (and primarily from the early years of the historical organ movement), but by and large the historically-influenced builders make serviceable instruments that fill a liturgical need daily at churches all over the country and world. Good builders look back into history for inspiration on layout, scaling, materials, and so forth. As they should. That's why they are good. It's not a matter of copying for academic purposes. It's a matter of knowing one's field and the history of one's craft before making new things. As we should expect from anyone - architect, composer, iconographer, sculptor, etc - who makes anything for a Catholic church.

Personally I like the discussion. It is very informative.

The thing to gather from Noel's arguments is that he is a champion of progress, that he thinks electronic instruments are just as good (maybe even better) than real pipe organs, and that the piano is basically a better version of harpsichord. That is definitely what he thinks, and what he thinks the rest of us should think too.

No. Didn't say that, don't think that.

I do think that one can foster interest in the other, and does. It goes both ways.

Here is the answer to the war between electronic and pipe instrument proponents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdBi7PqHI8w

It's not a meaningless argument. It's a real disagreement about Church music, which is something important to everyone, and so is the $ involved, and so is the suggestion, even hidden, that maybe we're not doing 100% of what we could.

I worked with an Allen and never thought of replacing it. Partly because I don't have that kind of knowledge of organs to make the first move on a new installation. But I think the legislation supports pipe organs rather than recorded sounds. "Wave of the future" or not.

If you think the arguments on this thread are exciting, read on some of the organ forums and e-mail lists. The slings and arrows are especially potent.

That being said, this thread exemplifies all the pieces currently put forth from both sides. I have had the good fortune to assist in putting an instrument in to a church and am currently working in my own parish to do so. It is a process of education both to the architects and to the building committees. But. as I heard from a builder recently, most of the new instruments in this country are going into Catholic churches. While that might shock many of us, his point was that so many new buildings are being built that are Catholic.

My.02 (worth nothing).

Kevin, your builder friend is correct. Nearly every issue of the AGO magazine and The Diapason lists a new instrument in some Catholic church.

All,

In one sense, the argument for a digital replacement instrument is that these are just as good sound-wise and cheaper, but in another, it's an intrinsic denigration of the pipe organ. It's also a theological insult, whether it intends to be, or not.[Please, Admins, read that carefully]

Some people drive Yugo, and others drive Lamborghini, and some people even drive something in between. There certainly are differences between these two, but both would qualify as an automobile. Some people prefer standard transmissions, while others prefer automatic transmissions. Depending on the type of driving the vehicle does, one may be preferable to the other. (I personally prefer a stick, but since I drive a van, I don't have that choice right now.)

On the other hand, the Mass is a theo-centric event. What we offer in the Mass is the best that we can offer: Christ Himself. We build an entire building to house the Tabernacle, so people can come to worship God there, in His Holy Place. To choose an electronic replacement when there is another option available seems to be intentionally saying "I want the inexpensive, so I can do better things with my money."
This is why choosing an electronic replacement for a pipe organ should be depricated.

Cgz,

Wonderfully reasonable. That is a very persuasive argument indeed.

CGZ's argument is completely sound, yet there are moral issues that go even deeper in this entire matter, i.e., those of the utterly immoral one of deception and cheapness (I do mean 'cheapness', not 'inexpensiveness'), of the cruel and cavalier debasement (as in dumbing down) of the public's artistic and aesthetic sensibilities, all in addition to the craven and niggardly economic mentality that accompanies any choice for an organ simulacrum over that for an organ. Simulacrum, synthesiser: both are the appropriate signifers of that not-real which some would have us believe to be a legitimate alternative to the real. Falseness, fakery are two other apt words that come to mind. Are Catholic Christians who presumably have some handle on morality really arguing that these alternatives have their presumed validity based upon the treachery inherent in arguments such as 'well, most people, even trained musicians, can't tell the difference', therefore we can make fools of them and it's alright??? This is the implied nature of their entire argument. It is nothing less than deceit, a deceit which (sinfully!) preys on the credulity of the of the uninformed and unwiting. This is the sole attractiveness of these simulacra: they 'sound LIKE' organs (actually, they don't) and they are cheaper (not less expensive). So what have these folk left for an argument? Nothing. Nothing at all. These gadgets may be fascinating to the technology crowd, but not to musicians with any integrity. They may find usefulness as practice instruments in one's home. They may have a place in the practice rooms of a poor college. But they should be given no truck in Catholic worship. What can these philistines offer in favour of a glorified organ synthesiser other than the fact that with it you can make fools of some people who are loathe find the money for an organ because they would rather spend it on carpeting or new kitchen equipment, etc., etc.!? Nothing. They are pedalling plastic flowers that really do not smell like roses! They don't smell like roses, and they are not, ultimately, cheaper.

Faith and morals may flow infallibly from the Vatican, but commendable musicianship doesn't. Nor has it, I think, in a very long time.

Charles, I can't help but wonder whether you have an actual dog in this fight. I'm guessing you don't, and so are focusing only on the rhetoric. But why are you engaged here at all?

I'm imagining an alternate universe in which classical guitars were the subject of the thread, and on that score you would be the teacher. Here, others are the teachers of both you and me, and rightly so.

Now Charles, be nice to Jackson. He was once associated with Lutherans and they can be a corrupting influence. You can take the boy out of the Missouri Synod but you can't always take the Missouri Synod out of the boy. I commend Jackson for getting away from them. How anyone can align with a religion created by a country that has started and lost two world wars is beyond me, although I have to say I do like their cars.

Non-purple: Jackson has high standards but everyone can't meet them. We are not all fortunate to be in his surroundings in Texas. Some of us are stuck with oompa loompas and yahoos. ;-)

Jackson has high standards but everyone can't meet them. We are not all fortunate to be in his surroundings in Texas. Some of us are stuck with oompa loompas and yahoos.

I'm in Texas, and I still have the oompa-loompa/yahoo problem.

Every single aspect of this work is like this. Everyone makes choices based on the local situation, but the choices don't change the height of the standards

Very much this.


And in case it wasn't clear enough, my statement above about "Noel thinks xyz" was entirely sarcastic. Not humorous. Just sarcastic.

Anyone who thinks Noel "The Catholic Frogbook Choir Man" Jones doesn't have high standards clearly doesn't know him. I took his point entirely to be as follows:

If you are not willing to compromise on some part of your high ideals, the result will be that no part of your high ideals will be implemented or survive.


I think all reasonable people would agree to this. The question that then flows out of it is:

Among the many ideals that constitute perfection, which can/should/must be compromised in order that the other ideals can be achieved?

With a relatively small number of exceptions (dogma and doctrine being non-negotiable), I don't know that one can make hard-and-fast rules in answer to the question. Only prayerful and prudent responses to the needs in a particular community.



In fact:
That (the need for prayerful responses to specific times and places) is one of the reasons (I believe) for the succession of Apostolic leadership, ongoing relationship with the communion of saints, and the entire "institution" of the Church as a body:

To wit- If everything we needed to know and do in all times and places could be written down and codified into a clear and unambiguous set of rules, then that set of rules could have been composed by the Father, delivered by the Holy Spirit, and explicated one time by the Son. But that isn't what happened.

We have been given a community - not just our local congregation, or even just the current population of Catholics - but a community that stretches back 2000 years (maybe longer, depending on how you think about these things). They are here to provide ongoing support, guidance, wisdom, and so forth.

The community here - crazy as it is sometimes - is a part of that ongoing tradition of guidance.

One of the reasons (maybe THE REASON) I support use of the propers is NOT because I think it is part of a set-in-stone bunch of rules, but because it represents what a group of people more devout and connected with the liturgy developed in their attempt to answer the question "What music is fitting for this work?"

Can we choose something different? Of course we can. Should we? Well, that supposes we know better than them. Which we do, in terms of what our current local community can and will accept. But highly doubt that any of us knows better in terms of what is most relevant and appropriate to the glory of God and the sanctification of His people. (But, you know - maybe you do know better. I don't.)

Germaine to the current conversation (and my opinion here is super relevant, since I know diddly-squat about organs): There is a tradition. There is a community. But you also have to figure out what is best for your local community - taking ALL things into consideration. If that means a synthesized organ-sound device, then that's what it has to be. No one else (like you over there - yeah- you) should make you feel guilty or less of a musician or whatever because you were part of making those decisions.

(And, of course, the possibility and allowance for compromise should not be an excuse to take the easy way out of everything. There is a difference between 'impossible' and 'difficult.')

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

Just curious, Francis. Are you still playing that Rodgers - granted, playing it well, but definitely not a pipe instrument, for sure. LOL