At this stage I'm looking at the possibility of a C200 and a 25-note midified pedalboard (off an old Conn organ.) It looks like several places that *need* to buy an organ are reluctant to do so and I'll just have to be able to provide my own instrument (hopefully being able to charge a "hire fee" to help pay for it).

With due respect, pipe organ purists are not guaranteeing the demise of the organ: hobby organists, who fail to understand what a pipe organ is and how to use it, are guaranteeing the demise of the organ.

No electronic will ever have the response or sensitivity of a good tracker. Moreover, I know of too many hobby organists who do not understand how to use what they've got. Give me a one manual tracker of half a dozen stops, and I can make more music with that than any electronic you throw at me. And no, it won't be "too soft" for the building - that's all in the scaling. Sure, it wont do the whole repertoire, but no instrument will - at least not musically! I've seen some ridiculous specifications for certain buildings - This idea that everybody needs 24 speaking stops is just silly!

No professional violinist, or oboist or any other type of musician would ever be told that their instrument has been superseded by technology. The organ is exactly the same.

We don't need more electronics, or more stops: we need organ builders to provide smaller and finer instruments at good prices, and organists who truly understand expressive playing, articulation and repertoire.

...and I can definitely hear the difference between an electronic and a real organ: it's all under the hands!

I will agree that some of the organs produced during the "organ reform" period are so harsh and unpleasant, I could understand a negative reaction to them. With degrees in organ, even I can't listen to some of them for long. When a well-voiced instrument with warmth and clarity is installed in a live space, magic happens.

Not liking trackers doesn't make one a "hobby organist." Sometimes they are not practical. I would prefer a good EP to a badly built tracker, but that's the rub. Some organs are not well built and don't fit with the acoustics of the space. There are places like my own, where installing any more 16' stops would require digital rather than pipes. There simply isn't the space for them unless we put them in the yard.

Some of the purists can get caught up in a mind set that creates "problem instruments" for anyone who follows them when they inevitably leave. The next organist can inherit your darling re-creation of a classic 17th-century Windsucker & Son with the attitude of, "How can I get rid of this clunker?"

Same here, Kevin. With 4 or 5 colleges within 50 miles with thriving organ departments, I don't see that state of demise, either.

I have seen organists who were able to get their way with pastors, music committees, etc. and get a period organ that might have been wonderful in another church. When the organist left, the instrument was scrapped because it was never a good fit for the particular denomination and the type of literature done there.

Organists need to think into the future and realize they are investing a huge chunk of the church's money. A more balanced or middle of the road instrument may be a better choice than a strict period instrument. Just as organs from other periods have fallen out of favor, so might the currently favored ones. Actually, there is no "might" to it. Currently favored tonal designs could easily be rejected by succeeding generations of organists.

Organists are just as guilty of the, "it's all about me and what I like" syndrome as any group of guitar bangers. Is that good stewardship of the church's resources?

CharlesW, surely the instrument calls the shots to some extent? You do what the instrument is capable of and develop a repertoire around it. I think this is actually quite a nice way of doing things as it means you end up with different parishes specialising in different things. I must admit, I've never really understood all the desire for eclectic organs in Catholic churches. Catholics don't do evensong (apart from the Ordinariate) so they don't need organs that can do full swell and all the other obvious things. In your average Catholic parish, there isn't much of a choir and the Catholic repertoire doesn't make as many demands in terms of accompaniment. As long as it has a reasonable chorus and a stopped diapason for the plainchant, it will meet most needs more than adequately.

Organists also need to learn how to work with what they've got! There are those organists who decry the lack of tonal colours on an organ for hymnody. I can't help but laugh to myself, thinking, "There's nothing wrong with the colours, but plenty wrong with your playing. Try harmonising a few verses differently, rather than playing the same thing over and over again with different stops."

I would rank as a "hobby organist" anyone who has not put in the time to understand and at least reach some proficiency in the art of touch on the organ. If you have not taken the time to understand this most basic element of playing the organ, please, PLEASE do not take it on yourself to advise anyone about major instrument purchases. Here is a hint: if you think that there is no difference between direct electric, digital action (I guess this is what you'd call it), electro-pneumatic and tracker, in terms of sounds produced and musical possibilities, then you are not qualified to have any opinion on the matter. I suppose you can voice an opinion, but nobody should listen to you. In the same way, if you think electric pianos are the same as pianos with physical strings, you know nothing about this instrument and should not act as if you do. Please have the humility to find people who understand the instrument before you help make a ridiculous architectural decision that will shape music making for the next 20-30 years. Thank you.

I wouldn't be so biting about this, except that these are major decisions that affect the future of music making in a parish, and the future formation of young musicians from that community. I don't think tracker is the only possibility, although it is the best. But at least aim for an instrument with physical pipes! This is not snobbery or purist thinking. This is arguing for an actual instrument, rather than a digital imitation of one!

On a practical level, three points - the Church does advise against recorded music in the liturgy. Maybe this is a hint there should be a reality and integrity to how we make music in public worship.

Second, digital organs don't go out of tune. Physical pipes do. Of course, the marketers will say that the digital sounds can be matched to the changing physical pipes. But I have never seen this work well in reality - and I have played mixed digital-phyical organs. And listened to the complaints from the organists at those churches.

Third, I just want to second some sensible voices above. You don't have to have 50 or 150 stops on every organ. I would take 10 or 15 good stops any day over a giant physical-digital monstrosity with no aesthetic value. Anyone who has played on some of the small, but stunningly beautiful historical instruments in Europe (again, people who have taken time to understand the instrument) can attest to this.

I am a technician that deals with Pipe Organs, Hybrid Organs and Digital instruments. Each has its place depending on lots of factors. Building limitations, Denomination, Music programs and Liturgy all play a part in selecting the "correct" instrument for a given situation. While small tracker instruments have their place, a 7 rank, single keyboard iinstrument with a hitchdown pedal simply won't work in a large space, especially with a congregation that actually SINGS !
The RIGHT organ will be different for every installation. When consulting with a parish, I keep in mind the very basic of considerations: Form Follows Function !

NOT: We need a 4 manual because the church across the street has a 3 manual. NOT: We have to have a tracker even if it means we can't do all the music we might want, including the Widor 5th !

I have voiced Digital instruments in such a way that most people couldn't tell it was real pipes. That being said, I can usually tell !

Pipe organs cost more, and require regular maintenance. Digital instruments cost less, need less maintenance and have a much shoreter life span. Also, most digital installations suffer from lack of proper maintenance, such as replacing speaker cones and rebuilding amplifiers on a schedule (Usually about 15 years)

There are many electronic organs out there that now sound terrible because the speakers and amps have slowly degraded over many years and the the parishioners have gotten used the subtle changes and don't realize just how bad it's gotten !

In simple terms; Good Digitals, Good Hybrids, Good Electric Action Pipe Organs and Good Trackers are all good and Bad Digitals, Bad Hybrids, Bad Electric Action Pipe Organs and Bad Trackers are all BAD !

Doug,

I am an organist, not a technician :)

And in simple terms, Good Digitals cannot be compared in any reasonable way to Good Trackers. As a practitioner of the art of playing the organ, I reject your relativistic assertion that Good Digitals are in any way equivalent to Good Trackers.

Please don't twist my words in a effort to formulate a disagrreement. I didn't say that a Good Digitals was the same as a good Tracker. I siad that a good digital can be a good instrument IN THE RIGHT PLACE. and I have heard many Trackers that are indeed GOOD instuemtns in WRONG PLACES.

I would ask that every member on this list who has NEVER played anything but:

1. A real pipe organ
and even better:
2. A tracker pipe organ.

Please identify themselves. Now.

Purist! There's that pejorative stone lobbed again into the fray as if it automatically illegitimised any target and gave the lobber thereof an air of untouchable legitimacy. Well, it doesn't! Those labelled purists are actually realists. They are intellectually honest about the terms, concepts and realities pertaining to the subject at hand. And the subject at hand here is organs. We all know what an organ is; and, what an organ isn't, don't we! No pipes, no wind = no organ. So, here comes this fellow (male or female) who wants to legitimise electronic substitutes, so, for the unlearned he/she conjures up the genius to call them digital. And few, in this age of technology, would not be impressed with a DIGITAL 'organ'! The only problem is that it isn't an 'organ', it is a simulacrum of an organ: the naked truth is that it is a synthesiser which may, if the acoustics are right, sound to the undiscerning 'like' a 'real' organ. To the discerning its sounds, regardless of acoustics, are obviously not dissimilar to a good CD on good equipment. Yes, what one is hearing is recorded sounds amplified on speakers: listen carefully! Oh, but not to be outdone, this fellow says 'yes, but I'd rather have a "good" digital instrument than a "bad" pipe organ'. True, naturally no one would want a bad 'pipe' organ. The solution is to get an organ made by one of our fine organbuilders, not a simulacrum, a synthesiser. Further, there are those who would rather have 80 'ranks' of synthesiser than a dozen ranks of organ. With them, no realist can hope to win the argument, and they will fool themselves into believing that their simulacrum really does sound like a real organ. The demise of the organ is not near at hand, unless it is helped on by the intellectually dishonest who champion the presumed legitimacy of simulacra, of synthesisers, over organs. One does not, unfortunately, deny that simulacra have their place, perhaps as practice instruments in the home, and such. Some would say as a temporary solution in a church which plans to get an organ. This may be a valid instance, except that, very often, the 'temporary' turns out to be permanent. Another sad result of those fellows who toss the purist stone about with such an air of presumed certitude is that those who know no better will think 'oh, tell me more about this marvel, I CERTAINLY would not want to be one of those old purists!' Whatever a purist is or isn't, count me amongst those who are realists!

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

And, I would differ with Palestrina on one point. Just because strict Roman rite Catholics do not do evensong, they may very well utilise full swell and other amenities of such organs in the playing of hymns, accompanied ordinaries, and such, at mass. I have attended too many masses in which the music was utterly flavourless because of the lack of imaginative and inspiring registration by the organist, as well as by the tonal blandness of the singers being led by a choirmaster who had, really, no concept of imaginative and inspiring choral dynamics. Also, while I personally prefer tracker action, I can appreciate that there are many situations in which it is not feasible, and that there are many non-tracker organs which are a pleasure to play even though they have not the personality, the intimacy, of a tracker, nor the dynamic sensitivity.

When in university an old dowager gave the U of H a carillon. A Schulmerich bell synthesiser, to be exact. I was chosen to be sent to the Schulmeric people to learn how to play 'bells'. It was most interesting and educational, in that I did learn a lot about bells. About what they are, and what they aren't. About one boast that the Schulmeric people made I was studiedly unimpressed and mightily dismayed, namely, that they had put several bell founders out of business. Yes, dear colleagues, the demise of the organ is not at hand. It is not threatened by realists whom some would like to sideline as those awful 'purists'. It may yet flourish even though quite a few folks champion simulacra, synthesisers, as legitimate alternatives. These alternatives cannot ever sound like the organs they replace: the laws of physics governing the sound source forbid it!

kirchenmusik, it is a fact that most people can't tell the difference. Quite a bit of what we organists do is only relevant to, or even noticed by other organists. Some of these distinctions get really subtle. As for "forming" the congregation, you have to be kidding. Most folks just get their obligatory hour in on Sunday, and do their best to tune it all out, music included. You will indeed be fortunate, in terms of formation, if a few years after your demise someone prays for your soul instead of saying, "Yeah, that old kirchenmusik's shorts were too tight, weren't they?"

In my own situation, I make do every Sunday with a 60+ year old, thirteen rank Schantz. It was voiced for the building and it works well enough. Buying anything else is out of the question given the economy and the state of parish finances. I tell all who bring up the subject and want the size of an electronic, that the Schantz can be repaired in another 50 years. Not so with a digital. It would be obsolete and would have been a bad investment to begin with.

Julie -
There are indeed some organs that still use bellows. To be more precise, there are some new organs being built that have hand-pumped bellows in addition to their conventional blowers. There are several in Houston. One is the new Fritts instrument at St Philip's Presbyterian, the other is a Visser-Rowland at Pilgrim Lutheran. There are very likely some very old instruments around that yet require themselves to be hand pumped.

Very cool, Mr. Jackson! I would love to hear one someday. I imagine the bellows option might be useful if the power ever went out.

This whole thread is fascinating to me - I hope it goes on for a while. It reminds me of the Wal-Mart mentality, as I call it: If I can buy a pair of dress shoes at Wally World for $20, then that must be how much dress shoes should cost. We go to the cheapest option and make it a standard, then judge everything else. This is how my parents operated. So the idea, to them, of buying $100 dress shoes was extravagant and ridiculous. By the way, we weren't poor - I'm talking about a mentality not a necessity. So with clothing, appliances, cookware, tents, fishing poles, etc. etc., my family tended to buy the Wal-Mart version, suffer through a poor product, and buy another every year or two as they wore out. The root of the problem was an ignorance of what goes into the construction of things, in terms of technique and materials, that might make them inherently more valuable. The Wal-Mart mentality drove me nuts because of the lack of foresight and poor quality of the things we bought. This is the American way, and we come up against it when churches are built, when music programs are invested in (or not), when organs are built, etc. Our whole culture is grounded on buying the cheapest thing that looks like the real deal that we can get our hands on. And refusing to think about the future. Yes, lets build a steel-frame box, sheetrock it, and put fake pillars, towers, and maybe even a dome on the outside so it looks like a church. It's practical! And inside we'll put a fake organ.

That's my answer to Dougcampell too. There are situations where a digital organ fills a function, which is a kind of good. But there are no situations where a digital organ is inherently better than a real organ. So the digital organ is only good inasmuch as it is better than nothing.

Sometimes a real something is not quite enough, either. I am told a local congregation has discussed adding an en chamade trumpet to their 6-rank pipe organ. Something is amiss here, as in more basic pipes are needed before getting to the trumpet discussion. I suppose it all makes perfect sense to them.

Noel,

Thank you for the intellectual exercise.

Mind you: we do live in a society which asserts that simulacra are identical with (or at least interchangeable with ) original articles. Turducken, tofurkey, pleather, cubic zirconia and such are wonders of the modern world, but the first two are not turkey, the third isn't leather, and the last one doesn't belong in an engagement ring.
As it turns out, turkey, ham, beef and tofu don't all have the same nutritional content, so even when turkey can be made to taste like ham it is still turkey.

Otherwise, we need no more organists, but instead we should use the much lower maintenance digital preprogrammed automatons.

How is this request to identify germane in any way to the discussion at hand?

Let me rephrase the comment:

How many on this list accept payment for working within a music program that uses an organ that does not produce its sound from pipes.

I should have typed elitist rather than purist. Still kicking myself with a pair of hand-hewn hobnailed boots produced without the damning influence of electricity

And let's not bring theology into it. Sure, we don't allow recordings at Mass just as we don't allow priests to literally phone it in. But we do allow mics which enable amps and speakers to imitate the human voice. There's nothing inherently unworthy about electronic equipment.

Both are the highly, very highly, subjective pejoratives used by those who really have no pertinent or intellectually honest argument. Both are merely snide disqualifiers.

Hardly.

[thank you to the elf who posted the routine reminder. You, like Sheen's angel erasing the blackboard, are appreciated, though you work in the background.

Why not bring theology into it? We're talking about the liturgy, for pete's sake.

Also, I'd contend there is a difference. The speakers attached to a PA system in church are not "imitating" a human voice as much as they are re-transmitting something that is already being spoken/sung into the church. Without them, the person speaking/singing into the microphone would still be audible (even if very quiet for the back pews).

The speakers on a digital organ are not that way, unless you are actually playing an actual pipe organ, and micing it. You are playing back a recording, of sorts. Without the speakers, there is no sound. It's not natural in the way a pipe organ is. It's artificial.

Also, the church has given a fairly strong preference to pipe organs over digital "organs" in De musica sacra et sacra liturgia:

64. As a substitute, the electronic organ may be tolerated temporarily for liturgical functions, if the means for obtaining even a small pipe organ are not available. In each case, however, the explicit permission of the local Ordinary is required. He, on his part, should consult the diocesan commission on sacred music, and others trained in this field, who can make suggestions for rendering such an instrument more suitable for sacred use.

Speaking of Walmart, I've always been a believer in buying quality used items instead of cheap, shiny, new imitations of the real thing. Maybe it's better to recycle an old pipe organ than buy a new one if you can. There's an article in the NYTimes today about a warehouse in Staten Island that collects artifacts and used items from churches that are closing or being renovated.

A pile of old pipes can be seen here.

And besides, Ben, those structural engineers are probably purists! (Maybe even elitists!!!) Which do you think is worse? Should they be reported?

God sees the thoughts of our hearts. This is unarguably true. Why would we use cheap(er) imitations when we can, with sacrifice, use the best that we can?

Well.... that leaves money for the carpet, the electricity bill, the p/a system, the eco-friendly tile, the polyester robes and the burlap banners.

could you 3d print one?