"The digital salesperson who says "the digital organ is just like a pipe organ" and fails to convey why it is in many ways superior to a pipe organ* is as guilty as those who mislead what the true costs of pipe organ purchase and conservancy are."

See, this is the kind of statement that got everyone riled up in the first place. If you want to argue that digital organs fill a practical need for cheap, and are better than nothing or better than guitars and bongos, then we can have a conversation. If you actually believe that digital organs are in many ways superior to pipe organs AS INSTRUMENTS (i.e. not just superior because they are cheaper), then I submit, again, that you do not know what you are talking about - and do not understand the pipe organ. And I, again, wish that you would not advise anyone on organ building. Not because you are a bad person, but because it would not be truly helpful to convince priests that digital organs are in many ways superior to real ones.

And to be clear, I am arguing for organs with real pipes over digital approximations. A good tracker is the very top in my book, but electric-action and electro-pneumatic action instruments can be wonderful as well.

Personally I don't think a digital would sound as good on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgAcRn_NFM

...and on that note we conclude this fiery discussion on the organ. :-)

I'd like to dispute the idea that an organ builder making use of digital "stops" is reputable. If I hear of a builder doing this, it sets off alarm bells immediately. Why? Because the builder has basically conceded that they have not succeeded in creating a self-contained specification that is suitable for the building. If it physically won't fit in the building, it shouldn't be there in the first place. The idea of adding electronic stops to a small chapel organ is as ridiculous to me as fitting the Berlin Philharmonic into a high school classroom for a performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle.

Well, Noel, why have I managed to consistently find instruments for the cost of a contraption* or less? Am I using inferior products? One of the instruments that I consulted on was installed for about $25K and was built by one of the finest English firms of the early 20th century. In some cases, I've obtained instruments for free. In others, the parishioners have helped to move them under the supervision of a professional organ builder. Why shouldn't the parish get involved? Provided that the organ builder supervises, it's fine. Carrying pipes, for instance, isn't exactly something that requires a builder - as long as the person carrying it knows all the obvious things, it all works out nicely.

It is possible to build inexpensively. We just need more organists who are prepared to work with smaller instruments that still do the job properly. Given that I have a background in both music and management accounting (including manufacturing processes and cost allocations), I do know what I'm talking about. I am also commencing a project to ensure that more such instruments are built.

The only standard I'm applying to organ builders is that they should be able to build a successful instrument within the constraints of a particular space and budget. If the pipework that is there is inadequate by itself, the whole thing hasn't been scaled properly to start off with. No amount of electronic contraptions attached to it will make it successful. That's not a bias: it's a PROFESSIONAL standard. It's not a matter of playing action - they can use whatever they like. Basic rule: whatever instrument goes into a building should be self-contained. It won't do everything, but it should fill the building properly. If it doesn't, it's failed.


*Contraption was endorsed earlier and I'm going to stick with it.

The rudeness calling digital organs contraptions and other terms really should stop.

When "purists" get vilified these calls for civility can seem a tad disingenuous. By your account you've already had a good laugh out of starting this tread.

There are buildings that do not have enough room for pipe placement that will serve the room. Pipe builders should turn down the job to let a digital take its place?

Umm, there's no room for pipes, so...something like the local Rodgers with a screaming pipe mixture and a 2' gedeckt from tenor C? In that scenario I'm more of a similacrum purist, but why not a harmonium instead?

I agree with you insofar as I despise a hybrid instrument of any sort. If the organ has room for a 16' Open Rank and a stopped rank at the same pitch, one can always go with a resultant 32' - there are not many churches which would require an open 32.

My recommendations are to have either a pipe organ or a digital organ and not to blend the two. Every such hybrid instrument I have encountered was riddled with problems and I will not recommend them.

I know that you disagree with my paper specifications for a small 2-man organ of about 10 ranks, but consider this. You basically need a good chorus of Diapasons for hymns, softer flutes or a dulciana for psalmody, a string celeste would be nice, and a good reed stop (I like a Trumpet) for Solo lines.

I've seen quite a few small English chapel/parish organs which basically have an 8' stopped and 8' open diapasons, 4' principal, 12th and 15th and a 16' bourdon and they work well. Most of these instruments will only ever be used to accompany hymns, chant and play a few voluntaries.

hartleymartin, my specification provided for most of the things that you suggested, but there are a few issues with yours:
1. The extra 8' string rank is redundant on your instrument. It's expensive because it's a full-length 8' rank. If you have a small organ, you can get the effect from half-drawing the diapason against a full draw of the string. It will undulate, no problems.
2. Adding a reed rank is expensive. If the diapason is voiced properly, it will work well as the solo rank. I've seen it in some very fine organs. It's easier for a parish to maintain too - at least all the flues will go in and out of tune with each other at the same time. I'd expect my speccy to need tuning every 3 years or so.
3. The trouble with your specification was that the second division didn't have any defined purpose.
4. You don't really need that string rank for accompanying chant or psalmody. That's what the flute should do ie. the string is an optional extra.
5. The specification I've given will do more than accompany - There's a vast repertoire that can be played on it, from Bach to Buxtehude, to Frescobaldi, Byrd, Tomkins, Vierne. It's a matter of more organists learning to make do with what they've got!

Depends on how the slider action is built, surely? Not an ideal solution, but use it in its sweet range and it'll do the trick. Thing chromatic elevation toccatas...

I think that getting rid of the bottom octave of the 8' Diapason is a cardinal sin: it supports the entire plenum, and getting rid of it means that the organ loses all the weight it needs in the bass end of the registers. It's essential for pieces 'pro organo pleno', unlike the Nasard, which only colours the bright 8-4-2 chorus.

Imagine BWV 552 on that organ without the Diapason in the bottom octave. The pedal needs the manual coupled in for that kind of piece (and smaller Baroque organs often had the lower manual coupled to the pedal permanently anyway). That striking motive leading down to the bottom E Flat would sound silly and couldn't match the manuals properly. The lack of a second manual isn't a problem in this situation though - You simply get a fast registrant to alternate between the 8-4-2 chorus and the 8-4 flutes. There are plenty of pieces along these lines that wouldn't work without the bottom octave of the diapason, which really is the most valuable register in the organ. If it's a choice between some extra upperwork and a diapason through its full range, the latter is always the option to take.

I don't think that the instrument that I've proposed really needs provision for extensions either: as I said before, more organists need to make do with what they've got, rather than always wanting more stops. What I've proposed has the bare necessities.

We all know what an organ is: it is a musical instrument with tuned and scaled pipes which are made to sound by pressurised wind, and controlled from a keyboard. It has been thus for over two thousand years, since it was (at least legendarily) invented around 300 B.C. by an Aegyptian, one named Ctetibus. No pipes, no wind = no organ. It's actually that simple. Some people don't seem to get this. They seem to resent that electronic and digital instruments which mimic the sound of organs aren't accepted by organ lovers as organs. Well, they aren't organs. They just really aren't. So what if they fool the elect? So the greater is the deceit! They may be cheaper, as would be expected of an imitation. This isn't puristism or ivory tower academicism: it is simple honesty and realism. Such realism guarantees the future of the organ. The makers and purveyors of organ simulacra, organ synthesisers and contraptions are the only threat to the organ's future. In fact, if their makers could guarantee the demise of the organ they would likely laugh all the way to the bank.

I empathise with those who have to play synthetic intruments while wishing that they had an organ. No one ever said that being a choirmaster and/or an organist was often anything other than a labour of love with many hurdles to jump: and few are those who are blessed with ideal environments. Adopting the language of makers of simulacra, however, is not required of those who find that they must make do with an organ simulacrum.

Why wouldn't you get the ranks on the pedal rescaled if they're weak? That would seem to be a better solution than adding contraptions.

My point is if the flute was scaled properly and interacted well with either an 8' principal on the Pedal or the coupled down diapason from the Great, you wouldn't need the extra ranks. I feel I am repeating myself here... Organists need to stop thinking in terms of extra ranks!

The first post I had had a nice Kilgen organ -- 6 ranks. My memory of what exactly there was isn't great but I seem to remember:

Diapason: 8', 4', 2'
Viola: 8', 4'
Trumpet: 8'
Flute: 8', 4', 2'
Mixture: III (I think)
Bourdon: 8', 16'

I think I missed a couple stops, but it was pretty small. I loved playing that organ and I still think it's my all time favorite for organs that I've played. I learned on a 3-manual pipe organ, but it just didn't have the same feel or personality of the Kilgen. I played a combination Allen digital/pipe that was huge (four manuals) and enjoyed it, but the little Kilgen still blew it out of the water, so to speak.

I think I'd be in organist heaven if I could have that organ to play again. I'd never get tired of it.

The shared bass octave I spoke if was as a temporary measure until more could be added. In a single manual instrument, I would want open Diapason to the bottom.

Look to the example of the organ I linked in previous post to see what I mean.

CharlesW, has it occurred to you that your instrument might not be suited to the repertoire that you're playing? From what I remember you writing early, it is of fairly modest size. French toccatas really require a large instrument with reeds and mixtures, a well-developed pedal division and some registrational aids. Making do with what you've got means that you change your repertoire to suit the organ rather than changing the organ to suit your repertoire. Why don't you look at the music that these composers composed for smaller instruments?

Now you are trying to dictate our literature as well as our instrument designs. ROFL. I don't recall French instruments being heavy with mixtures, since Cavaille-Coll didn't even like them. The reeds are definitely there, and that can be really expensive to replicate. French toccatas are nice to do on occasion, but they are not an every week thing.

Actually, my organ is a powerful instrument, despite its size. Its only real weakness is the pedal division which could be fixed. It has an independent 8' pedal flute rank, unenclosed, which is largely useless. It is thick as mud, and I don't know why it is even there tonally, other than lack of money 60 years ago when it was installed. I am told by a reputable builder that those pipes could be removed and a 16' reed put in their place. I have 20-30 feet vertical space above the organ, just no horizontal space. Something to consider, I think. I am working on that.

Tell you what, I won't call you before I make modifications to the instrument. LOL.

You don't know this instrument. One of its bigger problems is that during a rebuild in the mid 1990s, the church had a Baptist organist who understood little of Catholic tradition or music. He tried to take what was designed as a French classic instrument with a little early Romantic influence, and voice it into a large Romantic instrument. It didn't work, as you might expect, and the divisions are out of balance with each other. The whole instrument needs re-voicing back to, I think, something closer to its original tonal design. I am working on that, too.

It could use an extra rank or two - certainly no more than two. Had funds been available, I suspect a bit more would have been built into the instrument. I grew up with this instrument so I remember how it used to sound. There is a nearly identical organ, same builder, same tonal scheme, in a church about 60 miles from here. I have been there to check it out, so I realize even more of what was changed than what my memory provides. It is good to have a non-altered example nearby of what this organ should sound like. That will be invaluable for restoration purposes.

http://www.pjmorgans.com/HTML/projects/electric_opus/opus54_stlukes_lititz.html
http://www.keggorgan.com/ProjectDetail.cfm?yJNum=135

Check it out. Small organs can be well designed and built to play a varied repertoire.

From the organ salesman as reported by Catholic Choirbook:

"Never say that. Tell them they should consider this organ because it is capable of more exact control over the formation of musical sound than any other instrument in the world and being digital eliminates the expense of tuning and periodic maintenance."

The second part of that statement I will leave aside, because I honestly don't know exactly how maintenance breaks down between a digital and real pipe organ. There would be many factors to that discussion, including make and model, climate, timeframe, and so on.

As to the first part, this is an empty sales pitch. The digital organ is binary - on/off. A good tracker organ allows me practically infinite nuance in the formation of musical sound. I suppose an electronic piano salesman would use the same line, in comparison to a real piano with strings and hammers. And that would also be nonsense. Even - an unethical (because false) thing to say which will only convince those who don't understand the instrument.

Now, Now, Earl-Grey... we are not going to drink your tea! The church upholds and promotes THE instrument worthy of the liturgy. Don't get me wrong... I absolutely love and promote the GC and polyphony as MOST fitting for the liturgy, but the organ has its place, and it is an important one.

Melo: We are getting along just fine! Some people here are getting a good education!

As for electronic versus real pipes, no one would dare think to have a computer 'sing' the choral music... even if you couldn't tell the difference! God prefers (sorry Fr. K) worship in spirit and in truth. That requires real human voices.

However, if we refuse to sing, then the "the very silicone chips will cry out."

Earl Grey - I don't agree that this has been unproductive and uncharitable. But you make an excellent point about vocal music, which is the highest liturgical goal.

And I think sometimes organists get obsessed with organ projects, to the detriment of the rest of the program. For example, lets say you have the funds (say 2 million dollars) to build a monumental instrument from a top builder. That same 2 million at 1.5% payout would give off 30k/year - enough to hire 8 section leaders for weekly rehearsals and liturgies. Maybe the choral core is a better first step than a giant instrument.

But if you're going to buy something real organs are still better :)

hartleymartin, to be honest, I disagree with the idea of building an organ in stages at all. I'd rather have something smaller and all in at once than piecemeal additions from potentially 80 different sources over the years. I have seen far too many organs with "prepared for" stops that have never been provided. Doing it all at once means that the voicing relationships can be worked out properly. Basically, I disagree with your original scheme, and your thoughts about mine! Am I being dogmatic? Sure. Do I think it will produce a better result? Absolutely.

On the point of unit organs, I really would advise against these. They're often just unnecessary expansions of stoplists. Organists need to make do with less. Too much demand for big organs and stoplists out there!!