Pipes versus digital

[contrabordun]

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. Not "can a digital organ faithfully reproduce the sound of a pipe organ" but "is the sound made by a digital organ acceptable for liturgical use?".
Of course ...

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

So I think mcb's neck-out statement is possibly a bit OTT. But there is a third option - of acquiring a smaller redundant organ for next to nothing and paying to have it cleaned up and installed - which is often comparable in price to the digital option.

Over the last 3 years I've deputised in about 30 churches, on instruments of both types in a variety of sizes and the thing I always notice about digital is how over spec'ed they seem to be in relation to the musical needs and ambitions of the parish. As a rule of thumb, people seem to buy digital organs with 1 more manual and about 80% more stops than you would expect to find on a pipe organ suitable for the building. I find this strange, because almost all the organists I know would (for church use) take a IIP/20 pipe organ in decent condition over a IIIP/40 digital, and you can get a nice freestanding Victorian IIP/20 tracker job in for £15-20k.

So it seems that people are either not considering, or are rejecting, an option that would result in a perfectly adequate pipe organ that would fit the budget in favour of a digital option that is overlarge for the building, and I find that sad.

[dmu3tem]

Responding to the claim that a digital Organ is not suitable for liturgical use, it is worth observing that their technology organs has (presumably) developed considerably over the 40 years since Vatican II. So would the same people today necessarily take the same line?


Thomas Muir

[contrabordun]

NB, Tom's comment may be related to the first version of my above post that I edited while he was posting his reply., and which originally contained the whole quote from SSC120 stating that other instruments are acceptable provided they are suitable for liturgical use.

Just to state my own position, I think digital instruments are fine liturgically, but I prefer pipes 'cos I like the sound they make, hence my comments about organ transplants.

[nazard]

... "is the sound made by a digital organ acceptable for liturgical use?".
Of course ...

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem...

I think that the council delegates were debating at least one and probably two decades earlier than digital organs debut and they probably put the word pipe in because they weren't all that keen on the sound of analogue electronics. Current digitals are good enough to fool a lot of people a lot of the time. I was fooled by the one in the Sheldonian, so red a face are in order...

On the subject of small organs, does anyone make a respectable electronic keyboard with a few organ stops on it suitable for continuo use? The Viscount one I hear unhappy noises about.

[contrabordun]

they probably put the word pipe in because they weren't all that keen on the sound of analogue electronics

Was probably worrying about reed organs, unless "organum" without the "tubulatum" is a much more general term in Latin than in English.

[musicus]

Given the pace of change in all things technological, I think this is one area in which 40-50 year old Church documents have little of relevance to say.

[Southern Comfort]

and never goes out of tune.

Beware: this was conclusively disproved a long time ago. Changes in humidity especially can affect the performance of the circuitry. Allen instruments, for example, are notorious for having different manuals out of tune with each other in very damp churches.

[Southern Comfort]

Regarding whether a digital instrument is acceptable for liturgical use or not, there's a quote from me in the very first post of this thread, reminding us that the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked to approve electronic instruments for liturgical use as far back as 1938 and refused to do so. (The judgement was never rescinded.....). Musicus says that church documents 40-50 years old are no longer as relevant as they once were, but one wonders whether the SCR's response was based on technological reasoning or questions of principle.

I'm sure if anyone asked SCDW today, it would be much more difficult for them to respond, especially as the churches of Rome are stuffed with electric toasters masquerading as instruments of beauty...... (why does the name Farfisa spring to mind?!)

I'm not in disagreement with mcb that a digital instrument may often be a sensible answer, but I certainly wouldn't agree that there are no circumstances in which the purchase of a pipe organ is justified. In evoking the word "moral" to replace "aesthetic" he is setting off down a pathway which really demands a separate thread.

[asb]

and never goes out of tune.

Beware: this was conclusively disproved a long time ago. Changes in humidity especially can affect the performance of the circuitry. Allen instruments, for example, are notorious for having different manuals out of tune with each other in very damp churches.

On occasions I am asked to play an older 3-manual Johannus in a church in France. This needs "tuning" 2 or 3 times a month.

[asb]

... "is the sound made by a digital organ acceptable for liturgical use?".
Of course ...

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem...

I think that the council delegates were debating at least one and probably two decades earlier than digital organs debut and they probably put the word pipe in because they weren't all that keen on the sound of analogue electronics. Current digitals are good enough to fool a lot of people a lot of the time. I was fooled by the one in the Sheldonian, so red a face are in order...

On the subject of small organs, does anyone make a respectable electronic keyboard with a few organ stops on it suitable for continuo use? The Viscount one I hear unhappy noises about.

See another thread from a couple of years bach entitled "Aylesford Priory". There they have a 1-manual viscount, which I understand to be basically the "keyboard" version but in a console. I was very impressed with the sound, and it was quite capable of accompanying a fairly full chapel. Without wishing to appear partisan in any way, as I have no commercial interest, but my church is a VERY satisfied customer of Viscount having recently bought a (customized spec) Prestige 40, may I enter a plea to look seriously at Viscount if you have not done so recently. Anyone in the south east is welcome to PM me and arrange to play it. Our previous instrument was a Viscount, bought "out of the box" 15 years ago, and while it had done a good job, it was a dissapointment from the moment it arrived. Not so the new one. I understand that one of the country's most eminent organists/choir directors/orchestral conductors has recently bought one for home use and is on record as having said he could "find no fault with this organ".

[Psalm Project]

I have already posted re the virtues of Phoenix.
The bottom line is whatever works for you. Some are better than others, but that is for an individual to ascertain from themselves.
Concerning Viscount... I also invested in a Viscount Cantorum VI. As a keyboard it is quite excellent. I use it in combination with a Behringer keyboard amplifier (when the need arises).
Can I strongly recommend a German company if you are interested in this keyboard - http://www.thomann.de
When you open the homepage you are given the option of choosing your own country. They stock the Cantorum VI and a few other viscount organs. I have found this company extraordinarily efficient and competitive. In my four years buying from them I have NEVER had occasion to complain. The backup and delivery in remarkable. To cite my case... I was quoted EUR1,900 by a Viscount retailer in Ireland (that was a discounted price!!!) I got it from Thomann for EUR1,350. My choice was a no-brainer!

If you look now, it is about EUR1,255. Do the math yourselves for the UK Sterling equivalent - or, logon and see for yourself!

[dmu3tem]

Here is something rather basic that I only recently worked out for myself. No doubt others have thought of it; but it does not seem to have been mentioned here so far.

With a Pipe Organ you have no 'echo' control. All you can do is adjust your choice of registration and music to suit the acoustic of your building. However, most digital organs do have some sort of echo control. In a building with a big echo this will probably have few implications, because you probably will not want to increase the echo still further and turning off the control will have no more effect than with a Pipe Organ. However, in a building with a 'dead' acoustic the digital organ equipped with this control is likely to have a definite edge. Switched off, you are in the same position as with a pipe organ; however, if you turn it up you can add an artificial echo should you want one.

Many of you will have noticed that more modern churches often have a dead acoustic. Moreover, even in older buildings, the acoustic is often 'deadened' by the insertion of carpets and even curtains. Such modern preferences for 'dead' acoustics will often mean then that, in this respect, other things being equal, the digital organ is likely to have an advantage over the Pipe Organ.

Notice that 'echo' overlaps with, but is not quite the same thing as 'delay' (i.e. the time taken between the production of a given sound and it reaching the listener). Echo is really about the way sounds rebound off surrounding surfaces; so 'delay' is part of issues concerning 'echo', but you can have minimal 'delay' and a considerable 'echo'. 'Delay' as such, will not be affected very much by any artificial control, but 'echo' will. Nonetheless, even here the Digital Organ may have a partial edge. If speakers are placed near the listeners as well as near the console then both they and the organist will hear the sounds simultaneously. With a Pipe Organ the only equivalent solution, often used, is to place the console near the listeners even if it means the organist is a long way away from his instrument. This option, of course, is also available with a digital organ (I recently saw an example in Quarr Abbey).

Thomas (Muir)

[Psalm Project]

This is a very interesting comment. This is topical for me as I have a colleague for whom who 'reverb' has taken on epic proportions. My church is very lively acoustically with our Johannus - I do not use the reverb control at all. My colleague will insist on using the reverb at a very advanced setting when in my church... I can hardly make out what is being played. He maintains it make the organ sound like that of being in a big cathedral - C'mon... most churches don't fall into that category. There is something un-genuine (there's a new word for you!) about trying to create that atmosphere. It's all a bit fake surely? What's wrong with being more musical and developing a technique that is sympathetic to the acoustic?
In his own church, he has a similarly specified Johannus. The acoustic there is pretty dead - small building. He turns the reverb up to almost full (Hope he is not reading this!!!). It is awful! That is my opinion, and he knows it! We agree to differ on this issue.
In relation to whether the digital has the edge... In the right hands, possibly. Some of the reverb modules in these instruments vary from Alesis to lexicon to 'own brand' variants. Some are better than others. But, to anyone who uses this facility - PLEASE USE IT SPARINGLY!

[docmattc]

the acoustic is often 'deadened' by the insertion of carpets and even curtains.

Or even people! Our church has a great acoustic when only the choir are in it for rehearsal, but its dead once a congregation fills it.

Our digital has a reverb on/off switch which I realise reading this that I have never switched on in 8 years of playing the instrument. Not even in private just to see what it sounds like. Next time I'm down at church I'll have to have a play.

[Southern Comfort]

I have already posted re the virtues of Phoenix.
The bottom line is whatever works for you.

Yes, you have. And I already posted that the wonderful sounds on the demo CD are simply not reproduced in real life when testing Phoenix's installations. Once again, the question of direct feed versus recording what actually comes out of the speakers in a church is out there for debate. I have been singularly disappointed in Phoenix's live installations compared with what you get on websites/CDs. And this has been with Phoenix's own guy taking me to churches that he thinks are good.

We have had a long discussion about digital v. demo. It's about time we stopped debating this and admitted that pipes are always better, if you're talking about a decent instrument.

We need to start a new thread and discuss what the best electronics are (yes, they exist - Phoenix isn't one of them) if pipes are not an option.

Yours provocatively.....