Why a Pipe Organ is Better than a Digital
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    Well, I wouldn’t blame you in that case. You’re fortunate that your chosen repertoire is happily accommodated by only “blue and white”. I’m not interested in playing an orchestra either, fwiw. But my interests span from 1650’s all the way to living composers. I like to do text painting for hymns, too, if the instrument can allow it.

    To me, even the most modest service instrument needs at least the following: principal (pref. one for the Gt. and another for the Ped.), open flute, capped flute, string, celest, reed, soft 16 flue for pedal. Adding any upper work and we have very quickly made it to 10 ranks, of what is still a very modest instrument. Many builders want 20-30k per tank these days. Some cheaper builders will be close to 15k/rank (and that may even be with repurposed pipework from a previous instrument).
    Thanked by 3DavidOLGC LauraKaz CharlesW
  • Palestrina
    Posts: 422
    I take the points above the desire for more colour... but is it strictly necessary?

    The Compton Miniatura series is long-lived and useful in a range of contexts... and most of those organs have a flute, string and diapason only.

    Are these the kinds of organs that I would like to play ideally? No. Would I prefer one of these to an electronic? Absolutely, under all circumstances.

    A few thoughts:
    1. Reeds - Nice to have if you can afford their installation and maintenance. Necessary? Not so much (with exceptions for registration-specific repertoires e.g. Basse de Trompette). A diapason can provide a solo line just as easily as a reed.
    2. The lost art of varying texture - One can work within the limitations of a small instrument far more effectively with this in mind. Bach's Vivaldi transcriptions did not require imitative stops; their effectiveness is entirely in the quality of the writing.
    3. What does the Catholic liturgy actually require? I'd suggest, from the standpoint of choral support:
    a. The capacity to accompany a congregation in hymnody, responses etc, and
    b. The capacity to accompany a smaller group in plainchant.
    If an organ can do that, surely it is then up to the organist to find ways of working within the constraints of the instrument?

    I say all of this, incidentally, as a diehard fan of all things tracker and early (and by 'early', I don't mean what Taruskin would think of as an extension of modernism, but 'early' in the way that GoArt, Jacques van Oortmerssen and others have demonstrated is possible).
    Thanked by 2OMagnumMysterium francis
  • TCJ
    Posts: 986
    I played on a six rank with a Diapason, String, Flute, Flute Celeste, Trumpet and Pedal. Small thing, but definitely had enough to be interesting. Would I have liked more? Yes. Was it more fun than my current 40-stop digi-trash? Way more so. I actually had a reed that sounded like a reed.
    Thanked by 2LauraKaz francis
  • lmassery
    Posts: 422
    I recently came across a beautiful 7-rank organ with these specs. You could do so much with an instrument this size in the liturgy.

    8' principal 61 pipes
    4' octave 73 pipes
    1 1/3 Quint 49 pipes
    16' Gedeckt (wood) 97 pipes
    8' Viola Dolce (FF) 56 pipes
    8' Viola Celeste (TC) 49 pipes
    8' Oboe 61 pipes
  • francis
    Posts: 10,822
    Imassery

    Location? Builder? Pics? Recordings?
  • lmassery
    Posts: 422
    Francis, I came across it on the database. Have not heard it

    https://pipeorgandatabase.org/organ/63448
  • redsox1
    Posts: 217
    I was actually going to post about that very instrument! Charles Kegg is quite skilled at creating these small but colorful instruments. Patrick Murphy has also succeeded at this. E.M. Skinner, and later Aeolian-Skinner, built many small, but incredibly useful organs.
    It can be done!
Add a Comment