We have a three manual Copeman Hart and wouldn't swap it for anything. It's a delight to the ear and an absolute pleasure to play.
If you're ever in Abergavenny (Monmouthshire) let me know, you can come and give it a whirl.
Terence Gilmore-James regularly practis(c?)es on it, Abbot Alan Rees (who had advised us not to get it) fell in love with it. Numerous other recitalists have enjoyed its richness. A press of a thumb-piston and it whips across from English to Continental voicing too. Yay!
Pipes versus digital
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
Re: Pipes versus digital
RobH wrote:It must sound pretty fantastic.
Yeah, I'd say so. It sounds like a good pipe organ, anyway. When we sang at the Bridgewater Hall last month, the choir's general verdict seemed to be that our is better than theirs.
(It's not a fair comparison! The BH organ is voiced for listening to in rapt silence, not accompanying a congregation of 2000, so no wonder it struggled.) Buying a pipe organ with the same spec as our instrument would have cost well over a million pounds, and that would have been sinful.Where our digital organ really wins out - the purpose behind the choice of 'digital' and the design of this instrument - is in the way its flexibility, particularly in the distribution of the sound sources, is at the service of the liturgy. Only the most expensive pipe organs run to a separate nave/West end etc. division, and they're a b*gger to keep in tune.
That's what ours was made for: support for congregation in the nave, the choir, a cantor at the ambo, the celebrant at the altar, a giant-size congregation filling the chancel... We have an instrument designed to accompany all of these. Owners of mere pipe organs should be jealous. 
M.
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Re: Pipes versus digital
I'm listening to mcb's instrument on CD as I type (Makin's Demo CD is Simon Lindley at mcb's place) and it does sound fantastic. Possibly the only thing that gives it away as not being real pipes is that nowhere do you hear an odd gushing of wind or a reed that's not quite in tune.
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Re: Pipes versus digital
Owners of mere pipe organs should be jealous.
Luvitt!
Re: Pipes versus digital
[quote="docmattc"]I'm listening to mcb's instrument on CD as I type (Makin's Demo CD is Simon Lindley at mcb's place) and it does sound fantastic. Possibly the only thing that gives it away as not being real pipes is that nowhere do you hear an odd gushing of wind or a reed that's not quite in tune.[/quote]
O.K. We'll never agree about the superiority of pipe organs, but, to be fair, most smaller churches do not require an 'all singing, all dancing' organ with multiple departments all over the building. Obviously, a pipe organ meeting such requirements will cost a great deal, but for most churches a pipe organ can be affordable and is far preferable.
It is interesting that Simon Lindley's recording sounds realistic (pipe organ like). In my experience, most digital organs sound like good recordings of pipe organs but are lifeless compared to the real thing. You may notice that the esteemed Mr Lindley, although happy to demonstrate the Makin organ, chooses to play a magnificent pipe organ (Leeds P.C.) which he has put up with for a third of a century!!
If it's large organs you are talking about, it's absolutely impossible to imitate by electronic means the thrill which is imparted by a really fine pipe organ. Simply can't be done. But, if funds don't permit and you have to be content with a good imitation, then a digital instrument is, obviously, the best solution to date.
R.
O.K. We'll never agree about the superiority of pipe organs, but, to be fair, most smaller churches do not require an 'all singing, all dancing' organ with multiple departments all over the building. Obviously, a pipe organ meeting such requirements will cost a great deal, but for most churches a pipe organ can be affordable and is far preferable.
It is interesting that Simon Lindley's recording sounds realistic (pipe organ like). In my experience, most digital organs sound like good recordings of pipe organs but are lifeless compared to the real thing. You may notice that the esteemed Mr Lindley, although happy to demonstrate the Makin organ, chooses to play a magnificent pipe organ (Leeds P.C.) which he has put up with for a third of a century!!
If it's large organs you are talking about, it's absolutely impossible to imitate by electronic means the thrill which is imparted by a really fine pipe organ. Simply can't be done. But, if funds don't permit and you have to be content with a good imitation, then a digital instrument is, obviously, the best solution to date.
R.
Re: Pipes versus digital
Without wishing to throw buckets of cold water over this thread, does anyone else feel that if a christian community has large amounts of money available, then perhaps they should be studying the parable of the sheep and goats before making spending decisions?
Alan
Alan
Re: Pipes versus digital
What people seem to be missing in this discussion is the central fact that Digital Organs have fundamentally different methods of sound production from Pipe Organs. The task then is not necssarily to get a Digital Organ to produce a sound similar to that of a Pipe Organ but maximise its own properties - Yes, it really can do some things that a Pipe Organ cannot manage or, at any rate, do them more effectively. This means that, in the field of instrumental voluntaries for example, composers need to sit down and produce a digital organ repertoire and similar exercises should be carried out when the instrument is used alongside singers and other voices. If you simply treat a Digital Organ like a Pipe Organ you should not be disappointed with the results. Digital organ manufacturers who set out to make the instrument sound like a Pipe Organ, or at least give it the outward appearance of one (e.g. by the way stops are labelled) in the long run do it a disservice.
Thomas (Muir)
Thomas (Muir)
T.E.Muir
Re: Pipes versus digital
I should have thought it was a foregone conclusion that a pipe organ produces sound in a completely different way to a digital instrument; Pipe organ is a wind instrument and a digital is an electronic 'synthesizer' (The equivalent of a digital violin in an orchestra!)
What are these things that a digital organ can do which a pipe organ cannot manage? I would like to know. I question the statement (dmus3tem) that "if you simply treat a digital instrument like a pipe organ you should not be disappointed with the result". Nearly all classical digital organs try to make their instruments sound like a pipe organ - that is their goal. They label their stops and make their consoles as near to pipe organs as they can, so whether you like it or not, they are COPIES, albeit acceptable and impressive to a number of people.
What are these things that a digital organ can do which a pipe organ cannot manage? I would like to know. I question the statement (dmus3tem) that "if you simply treat a digital instrument like a pipe organ you should not be disappointed with the result". Nearly all classical digital organs try to make their instruments sound like a pipe organ - that is their goal. They label their stops and make their consoles as near to pipe organs as they can, so whether you like it or not, they are COPIES, albeit acceptable and impressive to a number of people.
Re: Pipes versus digital
To assert, however justifiably, that digital manufacturers try and make their products look like Pipe Organs and then claim that this somehow makes them inferior is still to evade the central issue, which is that they are fundamentally different instruments. This may be a truism, but it behoves us to consider the implications. When we say one instrument is superior to another are we not saying we have not thought very hard about how to use the latter? Of course there is some excuse for this, given that digitals have only existed for a few decades, whereas Pipe Organs have been around for centuries. Many of us have also come to digitals from other keyborads. Nonetheless the attempt should be made. Otherwise we are in danger of missing a great series of musical opportunities. Such a process comes on two planes: that of composition and performance. In both cases it is necessary to isolate the properties inherent in a digital instrument. Here are some suggestions that I invite people to add to or modify. By the same token it is useful to conduct the same exercise with Pipe Organs, or for that matter, any other instrument.
(1) The electronic sound, like any sound, is unique to itself.
(2) Paradoxically, one of its properties is the fact that it can be 'coloured' by other sounds. The potential here is almost infinite, and greater than with any live instrument I can think of - including Pipe Organs. Like any property it can be abused - especially when you try and make a facsimile of an original sound. Note too that Pipe Organ designers have been guilty of the same offence in the development of particular stops. Nonetheless, it is - from an aesthetic point of view - of itself, an inherently neutral property. What matters is how we use it.
(3) Digital organs have the ability, in terms of dynamics, to move from absolutely nothing to FFF. This is something no live instrument can do to the same extent, although some get pretty close to it.
(4) Digital keyboards have instantaneous response. Only small Pipe Organs or ones with electronic action can match. You never have the problems arising from 'delay', unless they are associated with the size of the building. Even if you do, by judicious positioning of speakers and adjustment of their controls, you can do much more about it.
(5) Digital Organs of course use speakers. By definition these can be made directional. Yet, if you want, you can set them automatically to fill the building just like most Pipe Organs. Directional sound does not just mean you can place the sound in one part of a building, you can also direct that sound away from other places. What is more you can do much of this virtually at will from the console, even with just two speakers.
(6) Digital keyboards can be made touch sensitive. You can also have sustaining pedals. Yet at the same time, as with a Pipe Organ, by altering the controls, you can have endless sound simply by holding your finger down on a given key. You can also exactly regulate the rate of decay and amount of echo you have.
(7) Digital keyboards do not just have transposing controls, some give you the ability to 'tweak' the general pitch up or down microtones. Some even incorporate glissandi effects.
(8) Points (2)-(7) make it inherently much easier to combine digital organs with different combinations of voices and instruments.
(9) The very standardisation of sound - as opposed to the idiosyncracies sometimes found on particular Pipe Organs - can be an asset in itself, especially from the point of view of the composer determined to ensure he gets the sound he wants.
Thomas (Muir)
(1) The electronic sound, like any sound, is unique to itself.
(2) Paradoxically, one of its properties is the fact that it can be 'coloured' by other sounds. The potential here is almost infinite, and greater than with any live instrument I can think of - including Pipe Organs. Like any property it can be abused - especially when you try and make a facsimile of an original sound. Note too that Pipe Organ designers have been guilty of the same offence in the development of particular stops. Nonetheless, it is - from an aesthetic point of view - of itself, an inherently neutral property. What matters is how we use it.
(3) Digital organs have the ability, in terms of dynamics, to move from absolutely nothing to FFF. This is something no live instrument can do to the same extent, although some get pretty close to it.
(4) Digital keyboards have instantaneous response. Only small Pipe Organs or ones with electronic action can match. You never have the problems arising from 'delay', unless they are associated with the size of the building. Even if you do, by judicious positioning of speakers and adjustment of their controls, you can do much more about it.
(5) Digital Organs of course use speakers. By definition these can be made directional. Yet, if you want, you can set them automatically to fill the building just like most Pipe Organs. Directional sound does not just mean you can place the sound in one part of a building, you can also direct that sound away from other places. What is more you can do much of this virtually at will from the console, even with just two speakers.
(6) Digital keyboards can be made touch sensitive. You can also have sustaining pedals. Yet at the same time, as with a Pipe Organ, by altering the controls, you can have endless sound simply by holding your finger down on a given key. You can also exactly regulate the rate of decay and amount of echo you have.
(7) Digital keyboards do not just have transposing controls, some give you the ability to 'tweak' the general pitch up or down microtones. Some even incorporate glissandi effects.
(8) Points (2)-(7) make it inherently much easier to combine digital organs with different combinations of voices and instruments.
(9) The very standardisation of sound - as opposed to the idiosyncracies sometimes found on particular Pipe Organs - can be an asset in itself, especially from the point of view of the composer determined to ensure he gets the sound he wants.
Thomas (Muir)
T.E.Muir
Re: Pipes versus digital
It is a fact that the manufacturers of digital organs do deliberately make their products to look (and more importantly, sound) like pipe organs. dmus3tem seems to be more concerned about the actual use of the instrument rather than the tonal qualities produced. In response to the points in his post:
1) I agree that the electronic sound is unique to itself, but that is only because it is impossible for the makers to imitate a pipe exactly, which is definitely their aim.
2) How we use the instrument (digital) is not a central part of the argument. The main point is whether or not the sound of digital organ is to be preferred to the pipe organ.
3) Most pipe organs (even small ones) have a dynamic range from pp - ff and most litugical situations would not require any more extreme dynamics.
4) I would question the implication that most pipe organs are not as instantaneous (key action response) as digitals although I agree that in very large and resonant locations this can cause problems with delay. Elderly pneumatic actions on pipe organs can be slow, but this is usually due to the need for restoration and is not a fair comparison with a new electronic action.
5) The question of filling the building with sound is a foregone conclusion when talking about electronic/digital organs or anything which uses an amplifier and speakers. There is absolutely no limit to the amount or location of the actual sound (decibels) produced. But, again, the tonal quality and beauty of the sound produced (end result) seems to be being overlooked in this discussion.
6) Yes of course, with digitals, there are unlimited possibilities regarding reverb., decay of sounds, sustain etc., but again, in the Liturgy do you really require all these facilities?
7) Admittedly, transposing controls can be very useful and most modern pipe organs with electronic action incorporate this device. However, a digital organ which can be tuned into other instruments, very slightly sharp or flat is a definite 'plus'.
Why one should ever need a glissando effect in the Liturgy is beyond my ken!
In reality, a pipe organ, being a live musical wind instrument (an instrument of concussion) blends far more easily with voices and other instruments. If one argues that an electronic/digital organ is so versatile you could argue that it would be acceptable to use a good recording of a choir on occasion instead of live voices as this would be more versatile, i.e. the volume could be turned up to fill the church with sound and some of the voices could come out of speakers in the west gallery or in the sanctuary. The possibilities are endless, but again I say that it all comes down to quality. Do you have the beautiful altar screen regilded with real (very expensive) gold leaf which is the very best, or do you use a cheaper but reasonably effective gold (brass filings) paint. Go for the best if you can possibly afford it. In the end you will never regret it. The merits of digital organs are many, but as dmus3tem argues, most of the advantages have nothing to do with the quality and beauty of tone. It is no good being able to go from pppp-ffff if the result, particularly if the ffff is a loud but not very beautiful uplifting sound. But in the end one man's meat ....................
1) I agree that the electronic sound is unique to itself, but that is only because it is impossible for the makers to imitate a pipe exactly, which is definitely their aim.
2) How we use the instrument (digital) is not a central part of the argument. The main point is whether or not the sound of digital organ is to be preferred to the pipe organ.
3) Most pipe organs (even small ones) have a dynamic range from pp - ff and most litugical situations would not require any more extreme dynamics.
4) I would question the implication that most pipe organs are not as instantaneous (key action response) as digitals although I agree that in very large and resonant locations this can cause problems with delay. Elderly pneumatic actions on pipe organs can be slow, but this is usually due to the need for restoration and is not a fair comparison with a new electronic action.
5) The question of filling the building with sound is a foregone conclusion when talking about electronic/digital organs or anything which uses an amplifier and speakers. There is absolutely no limit to the amount or location of the actual sound (decibels) produced. But, again, the tonal quality and beauty of the sound produced (end result) seems to be being overlooked in this discussion.
6) Yes of course, with digitals, there are unlimited possibilities regarding reverb., decay of sounds, sustain etc., but again, in the Liturgy do you really require all these facilities?
7) Admittedly, transposing controls can be very useful and most modern pipe organs with electronic action incorporate this device. However, a digital organ which can be tuned into other instruments, very slightly sharp or flat is a definite 'plus'.
Why one should ever need a glissando effect in the Liturgy is beyond my ken!
In reality, a pipe organ, being a live musical wind instrument (an instrument of concussion) blends far more easily with voices and other instruments. If one argues that an electronic/digital organ is so versatile you could argue that it would be acceptable to use a good recording of a choir on occasion instead of live voices as this would be more versatile, i.e. the volume could be turned up to fill the church with sound and some of the voices could come out of speakers in the west gallery or in the sanctuary. The possibilities are endless, but again I say that it all comes down to quality. Do you have the beautiful altar screen regilded with real (very expensive) gold leaf which is the very best, or do you use a cheaper but reasonably effective gold (brass filings) paint. Go for the best if you can possibly afford it. In the end you will never regret it. The merits of digital organs are many, but as dmus3tem argues, most of the advantages have nothing to do with the quality and beauty of tone. It is no good being able to go from pppp-ffff if the result, particularly if the ffff is a loud but not very beautiful uplifting sound. But in the end one man's meat ....................Re: Pipes versus digital
RobH wrote:it would be acceptable to use a good recording of a choir on occasion instead of live voices
I think we'd agree that using recorded voices would be unacceptable. But by your reasoning, a digital organ played by a live organist would be analogous to the choir on CD, whereas a MIDI recording of organ music would be fine, as long as it was played back on a pipe organ. I think that's the wrong way round.
I'll be blunter: a preference for pipes over digital sound in the absence of a difference in quality seems to me a fairly esoteric and irrational point of view. If, on the other hand, there is a small difference in quality between pipes and digital (and perhaps that's a reasonable approximation to the truth), it comes down to a parish community putting a price on that marginal difference in quality, and weighing it up in the light of the other concurrent demands on its resources. The greatest of these, as Alan points out above, may be the 'preferential option for the poor'.
M.
Re: Pipes versus digital
Of course using recorded voices would not be acceptable and neither would a midi recording played back on a pipe organ, although at least the tonal quality of this would be superior, which is the core of my argument. Also, it is obvious, that a "live" organist is important because of the 'give and take' in the timing when one is accompanying singers. This is not possible when people are singing to a recording. For actual organ music a midi playback would be fine.
Obviously, if there were no difference in the tonal quality between digital and pipe organs the only argument would be over cost. It is the tonal quality that I am banging on about. How anyone can describe it as 'marginal' I really don't know. I realise that working on pipe organs for 38 years may have caused bias in my case and that acute hearing may influence my opinion, but, I'm actually not alone in this view. Going back to my 'esoteric' analogy about the use of expensive real gold leaf on (say) restoring an altar reredos; It is so obvious that the real thing is so much more beautiful (in looks) than an imitation gold paint and will last for many many years. It is very similar with pipes v digital
As soon as one begins to argue about demands on Parish funds (nothing to do with the qualities of pipes or digital!) then the discussion begins to take a different turn and 'worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness' tends to be forgotten about. Lowest common denominator springs to mind - where do we stop? Surely, nothing but the best should be aimed for. I am never impressed by people who argue that it is not worth spending xxx amount on a pipe organ or its restoration when they happily buy expensive 4x4s and the like, just for private use. I know there is no end to these arguments, but again, I reiterate go for the best you can afford. Most people seem to own houses that these days are worth more than the cost of a new pipe organ, so the expense factor is not a problem. On paper, you will get a lot for your money with a digital organ - much bigger spec. than a pipe instrument, but in the long run it is better to have fewer stops and accessories, but a real instrument which will last for a long long time and give lasting satisfaction. Surely, nothing is too good for God's glory. If this is not true,then sel of the valuable church silver and worship in a miserable box-like building. A real pipe organ can inspire, uplift and encourage singing in a way not possible with even the largest digital subsitute,
Obviously, if there were no difference in the tonal quality between digital and pipe organs the only argument would be over cost. It is the tonal quality that I am banging on about. How anyone can describe it as 'marginal' I really don't know. I realise that working on pipe organs for 38 years may have caused bias in my case and that acute hearing may influence my opinion, but, I'm actually not alone in this view. Going back to my 'esoteric' analogy about the use of expensive real gold leaf on (say) restoring an altar reredos; It is so obvious that the real thing is so much more beautiful (in looks) than an imitation gold paint and will last for many many years. It is very similar with pipes v digital
As soon as one begins to argue about demands on Parish funds (nothing to do with the qualities of pipes or digital!) then the discussion begins to take a different turn and 'worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness' tends to be forgotten about. Lowest common denominator springs to mind - where do we stop? Surely, nothing but the best should be aimed for. I am never impressed by people who argue that it is not worth spending xxx amount on a pipe organ or its restoration when they happily buy expensive 4x4s and the like, just for private use. I know there is no end to these arguments, but again, I reiterate go for the best you can afford. Most people seem to own houses that these days are worth more than the cost of a new pipe organ, so the expense factor is not a problem. On paper, you will get a lot for your money with a digital organ - much bigger spec. than a pipe instrument, but in the long run it is better to have fewer stops and accessories, but a real instrument which will last for a long long time and give lasting satisfaction. Surely, nothing is too good for God's glory. If this is not true,then sel of the valuable church silver and worship in a miserable box-like building. A real pipe organ can inspire, uplift and encourage singing in a way not possible with even the largest digital subsitute,
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Re: Pipes versus digital
RobH wrote:As soon as one begins to argue about demands on Parish funds (nothing to do with the qualities of pipes or digital!) then the discussion begins to take a different turn and 'worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness' tends to be forgotten about. Lowest common denominator springs to mind - where do we stop? Surely, nothing but the best should be aimed for.
This is true, but doesn't change the fact that parish funds are finite and there are demands on them. Without a limit on funding, its definitely pipes all the way because, as an organist, there is nothing quite like them. The sound of a (well maintained) pipe organ is that bit better than a digital even if the congregation can't tell one way or the other. but whether that margin actually makes 'worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness' better I'm not sure. You commented earlier in the thread:
but this seems to be exactly your argument here. Lowest common denominator would be "Let's not bother". What we're saying here is, what is the best we can manage for a finite sum. Sometimes this will be pipe, sometimes it will be digital.RobH wrote:My argument is not that a digital organ is less pleasing to God or less effective as prayer (who can judge that one?)
RobH wrote: I am never impressed by people who argue that it is not worth spending xxx amount on a pipe organ or its restoration when they happily buy expensive 4x4s and the like, just for private use.
Well I've argued exactly that in the past, can you be impressed by the argument if I drive an X reg Rover and give people lifts?
RobH wrote: Surely, nothing is too good for God's glory.
Absolutely true, but we don't just glorify God in our worship in the church. How much do we really worship God if we build a towering edifice to His name, but ignore those who might then be found sleeping in its porch? I'm not saying our churches, instruments etc shouldn't be beautiful and worthy, but there is a balance to be found. If we can't afford to buy the 'Big Issue' or support the Darfur appeal becasue all our money has been spent regilding the reredos then there's a problem.
I'm not sure that this is true, because, as I've said above, a surprising number of people in the pews can't actually tell the difference.RobH wrote: A real pipe organ can inspire, uplift and encourage singing in a way not possible with even the largest digital subsitute
Let me give a couple of examples:
1. a parish on an inner city estate, one in fact that comes very high up in the league tables of poorest in Europe. It has a huge church (mostly empty) and a small extension pipe organ with fundamentally 3 ranks of pipes for its 20-odd stops (and even these borrow in the top and bottom registers) which was all that could be afforded when the church was built at the same time as the estate. The organ is in need of some drastic overhaul, mostly as its electric action is 40 years old and needs replacing which will cost easily 20 grand to restore it to proper working order when it will still be too small for the building. Does the church effectively throw good money after bad to restore the instrument, does it investigate going digital for the same price, or less (a sum which will still be a struggle to raise) to get an instrument which will be adequte for the building, or does it try and buy a better pipe organ for who knows how much? Probably less than the price of an average house yes, but most parishioners actually rent from the council because they don't earn enough for a mortgage. Here I would say digital should probably be considered if the parish decides to do anything - the roof leaks and that needs to be fixed first, even though the parish is still in debt from the last time the roof needed fixing.
2. A parish in a very mixed area of town who's congregation spans the whole social spectrum. It is full every Sunday and has a large organ which is over 100 years old and of some (but not huge) historic significance. Its needs work doing on it because its beginning to cipher rather a lot and the leather is drying out. Replacing with a digital is a possibilty, but the cost of a comparable instrument (in terms of stops and suitable amplification) would be comparable to the work needed to maintain the pipe organ which has real character and which the parish can afford to restore. here I would say the best option would be to maintain the pipes.
Re: Pipes versus digital
In example 1, is there an organist to play either sort of instrument? Should that be a consideration. In a declining parish in a deprived area, where should over all priorities lie, given that we also worship God in the way we live our lives.
Alan
Alan
Re: Pipes versus digital
Picking up on the following quote:
'dmus3tem seems to be more concerned about the actual use of the instrument rather than the tonal qualities produced'
All sounds, in themselves, are neutral. Once this proposition is recognised then various things follow:
(1) Whether, in spite of this truism, we end up considering one sound in itself superior to another we are making an essentially subjective judgement. If, however, the truism is accepted it follows that the sound produced by a particular stop on a Pipe Organ is, in itself, neither superior nor inferior to one on a digital organ.
(2) The actual use to which those sounds are put will affect our subjective judgement about them in that particular context as well as more generally. For instance there is a place for 'harsh' sounds in music, just as there is for 'beautiful' ones. It depends on what one wants to achieve - or hear - at the time. This also applies for particular sounds. For example I may choose to use an Oboe Pipe Organ stop at one point, and a Flute 8 on the same instrument at another. That does not mean I think either sound is intrinsically superior to the other; but it does mean I am making a subjective decision or judgement about what I think is appropriate (or inappropriate) at that time.
(3) However, the actual skill/technique/resource I use to achieve a particular effect I am looking for at a given time is something that can be looked at objectively. So, if I want a sustained smooth sound I could say, objectively, that a Pipe or Digital organ is a more effective instrument for achieving this effect than say, a Piano. If I want percussive sounds I would tend say the reverse.
This means that, when we think objectively, Pipe Organs are not in themselves superior or inferior to Digital Organs. What matters is how we use them. Objectively speaking, you cannot separate how you use an instrument from its appropriateness - or otherwise - for a given task. To separate the two and assert that one is superior to the other 'in itself' does not get one very far. All it results in are subjective cries of 'my chosen instrument is better than yours'.
With Digital Organs the challenge is to think of how they can best be put to use to achieve certain effects. It is understandable that our thinking about this is likely to be less developed than our ideas about how to use Pipe Organs, if only because the latter have been in existence for so much longer. Moreover, if our thinking about how to use Digital Organs is less developed than that for Pipe Organs then it stands to reason that we are more likely to be dissatisfied with the results. However, that does not mean that the instrument in question is inferior. All it shows is that we have not realised its full potential. Think how long it has taken to realise the potential of the piano. It must have seemed a very crude instrument compared with the harpsichord in J.S. Bach's day. It is also fair to say that even now there is always more to discover about what an instrument can achieve, no matter how venerable, especially if it is undergoing technical developments. Comparison of the Pipe Organ between mid C18th and late C19th, for example, shows this very clearly. Digital Organs, being 'young' instruments, are subject to developments of this sort at a very rapid rate - much more rapid, I would contend, than Pipe Organs.
What is clear though, is that if we (performers and manufacturers) consider Digital Organs as imitations of Pipe Organs, then it is likely that such positive developments are likely to be curtailed, if only because we will end up using them in same way as Pipe Organs. This does not mean we should not make use of imitative sounds, but we need to think more loosely about them. For example, noone in his right mind would compose a passage for a Pipe Organ Oboe stop in the same way as for a 'real' Oboe. The uses to which these two resources have been put have radically diverged and with them, the very nature of the sound. This is the sort of thing we should do with the imitative sounds on a Digital Organ. You should not necessarily use what is called a Diapason 8 on one in the same way as with a Diapason 8 on a Pipe Organ.
'dmus3tem seems to be more concerned about the actual use of the instrument rather than the tonal qualities produced'
All sounds, in themselves, are neutral. Once this proposition is recognised then various things follow:
(1) Whether, in spite of this truism, we end up considering one sound in itself superior to another we are making an essentially subjective judgement. If, however, the truism is accepted it follows that the sound produced by a particular stop on a Pipe Organ is, in itself, neither superior nor inferior to one on a digital organ.
(2) The actual use to which those sounds are put will affect our subjective judgement about them in that particular context as well as more generally. For instance there is a place for 'harsh' sounds in music, just as there is for 'beautiful' ones. It depends on what one wants to achieve - or hear - at the time. This also applies for particular sounds. For example I may choose to use an Oboe Pipe Organ stop at one point, and a Flute 8 on the same instrument at another. That does not mean I think either sound is intrinsically superior to the other; but it does mean I am making a subjective decision or judgement about what I think is appropriate (or inappropriate) at that time.
(3) However, the actual skill/technique/resource I use to achieve a particular effect I am looking for at a given time is something that can be looked at objectively. So, if I want a sustained smooth sound I could say, objectively, that a Pipe or Digital organ is a more effective instrument for achieving this effect than say, a Piano. If I want percussive sounds I would tend say the reverse.
This means that, when we think objectively, Pipe Organs are not in themselves superior or inferior to Digital Organs. What matters is how we use them. Objectively speaking, you cannot separate how you use an instrument from its appropriateness - or otherwise - for a given task. To separate the two and assert that one is superior to the other 'in itself' does not get one very far. All it results in are subjective cries of 'my chosen instrument is better than yours'.
With Digital Organs the challenge is to think of how they can best be put to use to achieve certain effects. It is understandable that our thinking about this is likely to be less developed than our ideas about how to use Pipe Organs, if only because the latter have been in existence for so much longer. Moreover, if our thinking about how to use Digital Organs is less developed than that for Pipe Organs then it stands to reason that we are more likely to be dissatisfied with the results. However, that does not mean that the instrument in question is inferior. All it shows is that we have not realised its full potential. Think how long it has taken to realise the potential of the piano. It must have seemed a very crude instrument compared with the harpsichord in J.S. Bach's day. It is also fair to say that even now there is always more to discover about what an instrument can achieve, no matter how venerable, especially if it is undergoing technical developments. Comparison of the Pipe Organ between mid C18th and late C19th, for example, shows this very clearly. Digital Organs, being 'young' instruments, are subject to developments of this sort at a very rapid rate - much more rapid, I would contend, than Pipe Organs.
What is clear though, is that if we (performers and manufacturers) consider Digital Organs as imitations of Pipe Organs, then it is likely that such positive developments are likely to be curtailed, if only because we will end up using them in same way as Pipe Organs. This does not mean we should not make use of imitative sounds, but we need to think more loosely about them. For example, noone in his right mind would compose a passage for a Pipe Organ Oboe stop in the same way as for a 'real' Oboe. The uses to which these two resources have been put have radically diverged and with them, the very nature of the sound. This is the sort of thing we should do with the imitative sounds on a Digital Organ. You should not necessarily use what is called a Diapason 8 on one in the same way as with a Diapason 8 on a Pipe Organ.
T.E.Muir