Pipes versus digital

[docmattc]

am being converted to the idea that, if you can only have a basic pipe organ, surely it would be better to have a digital instrument with swell pedal, couplers and a good variety of stops..............
Wonder if anyone agrees with me...........
Angela

Angela,

Be careful about going digital - my predecessor put in a two manual digital with pedals and 28 stops. This is far bigger than we could ever fit in our church as a real pipe organ and is in many ways a real boon, allowing most of the organ repertory to be played. If only I could cope as well as the organ...

However, if you do go that way, beware. The built in speakers are adequate for home use, but you do need something much beefier in a space the size of a church, and it does need to have a wide frequency response. In other words, you are talking high powered hi-fi, and that means several thousand pounds. We could not afford it, and in the end my son and I cobbled together a reasonable but not as good as we really need speaker system and amplifiers from a mixture of second hand and home made parts. We are both engineers, but most parishes would not have the do it yourself option available.

The other objection to electronic organs is that they are rather characterless. I do get the oportunity to play a 3 manual H&H every few weeks, and the difference is very exciting. Stick with real pipes if you can.

By the "Little Organ Book" do you mean the one in memory of Hubert Parry? In my mind that is a lovely book and not nearly well enough known.
nazard

Looking at the issue of Pipe vs electronic instruments and, for that matter, other varieties of keyboard such as the piano, I think the key point to realise is that you are dealing with different instruments. A digital instrument produces sound in a different way from a Pipe organ; both are different from a piano and then of course there are all the permutations brought about by sustaining pedals, touch sensitive keyboards, swell pedals, different types of stops etc. It is unrealistic, for instance, to expect a digital organ to produce exactly the same sort of sound as a pipe organ, or, for that matter, an electronic piano to produce exactly the same sorts of sound as a 'real' piano.

Once this point is grasped the following deductions seem pretty obvious to me:

(1) If you transfer a piece designed for one instrument onto another without any changes you are unlikely to get the result you (perhaps subconsciously) expect. Whether it is 'inferior' or 'superior' is then largely a matter of taste; although the natural human tendency is to assume that if you do not get what you expect then it somehow is 'not as good'.

(2) Having said this, it is also right to point out that a transfer of music without any changes is likely to mean that the music will not - from a technical performing point of view - 'fit' the new instrument quite as well. For example music that requires a sustaining pedal cannot work so well in this respect as on a pipe organ - but it might work effectively on an electronic keyboard with the same facility and, in addition, the electronic keyboard will give you a wider range of available sounds through its variety of stops than a piano can.

The key, then, when you make such a transfer, is to 'rewrite' the music so that, from a technical standpoint, it properly exploits the properties of the instrument you are playing it on. Often, such changes need be no more than minimal - indeed they can be so small that you do not even have to write them down; but they can make a difference out of all proportion to even the most minimal amount of effort you put in.

(3) It seems clear that a lot of new music should be written specifically for the new keyboard instruments that have become available. In this way one really can allow instruments such as digital organs to 'prove their worth'. An interesting exercise, then, would be to take such a piece and place it on a pipe organ. Would you then get complaints that the pipe organ cannot do the sort of thing a digital one can do? When people claim that electronic organs are not as suitable for the performance of incidental music are they not really saying that composers have failed to give any real thought to the new possibilities they open up?

On the matter of speakers. Yes, it is true that care in the choice and positioning of speakers plays an important part in one's efforts to maximise the aesthetic potential of electronic keyboards. Nonetheless, leaving aside the question of cost (and we can, through lack of clear thinking from first principles and merely following fashion, be stupidly extravagent about this), speakers do offer possibilities that do not exist, or exist in a much more limited fashion, with Pipe Organs or Pianos:

(1) They are directional. In other words you can set them up so that sounds come from specific parts of the building. What is more they can be balanced in a variety of different ways according to one's requirements. The effect then, is fundamentally different - though not necessarily 'superior' or 'inferior' - from what you usually get with a large pipe organ, which has often been 'set up' by the organ builder to fill the whole building generally with sound.
(2) In terms of dynamics you can progress from absolute silence to fff.
(3) This means that the task of balancing the sound against that produced by other instruments is basically much easier. Contrast this with the problems one faces when one tries to balance a really large pipe organ with say, a solo violin or clarinet. Thus attempts to extend the repertoire of incidental music by incorporating chamber music settings are somewhat easier to carry out than with a Pipe organ. Note though, that with a little thought and the shedding of preconceived notions about registration, you can do this sort of thing fairly easily even here. Nonetheless, this does not eliminate the problems you have with tuning when you have a pipe organ. Remember that on a pipe organ you are talking about the tuning of every single rank of pipes activated by a given stop. On many electronic keyboards/organs you do not just have a transposing facility, but even the ability to autmomatically tweek the overrall pitch up or down by the smallest microtone.
(4) Furthermore, with speakers (and perhaps also a mixer), you can 'feed' in and balance sounds not only from other instruments (both electronic and 'live') but from voices.
T.E.Muir

Whether it is 'inferior' or 'superior' is then largely a matter of taste; although the natural human tendency is to assume that if you do not get what you expect then it somehow is 'not as good'.

I take your point, but I think you're overstating it when it comes to digital pianos and organs, which are, by and large, explicitly intended to reproduce exactly their acoustic predecessors, so I would argue that it is reasonable to make direct comparisons between digital and acoustic instruments and to regard the former as successful or otherwise largely on the extent to which they replicate the sound the latter per unit cost.

Ironically, earlier generations of electronic and digital organ designers did seem to be thinking about the technology without preconceptions, and including features, such as non-pipe-organ voices, that might be said to have been sui generis and which might have developed as an independent species with its own repertoire as did the Harmonium, the Hammond and the Cinema Organ. My impression however is that more recent (and certainly more recent high-end) models tend to stick very closely to the pipe organs they are modelled on - I suspect due to the conservatism of those who play them - with features such as multiple temperaments and soft-substitutable specifications very much hidden away, and recognisable pipe organ specifications in the German, French and British traditional schools.

contrabordun

The last parish I played in had an Allen digital organ which "spoke" through 4 speakers the size of fridges. These were placed behind the altar screen. It was a truly fabulous instrument that was happy at the usual Bach and Widor and superb at accompanying. Proper draw-stops etc. The parish bought it secondhand from Allen for under £3000.
Alan

An amusing historical footnote:

On 5 December 1938 the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked if it would give its approval to the instrument known as a Hammond Organ. The Congregation's preliminary reply was negative, and was definitively confirmed on 4 September 1939. It appears that neither the Congregation nor the Second Vatican Council ever revoked this decision.

[docmattc]

I agree with Contrabordun that the difference between pipes and a modern digital is not so huge. A digital does however have to be properly voiced like pipes and have a sufficiently large (and sensitively placed) set of speakers. Most (all?) the digital companies will consult and advise on this. One can't buy a digital off the peg, dump it in a church and expect it to perform to the best of its ability. Nazard is right that built in speakers which deliver the sound to the organist's knees won't cut it in a church any bigger than your front room.

I play a 2 manual, 3 division Allen which has banks of big speakers (6 or 8, I forget) high up on the west walls of both trancepts so can't be seen by the congregation (the transcepts though are only about 6 foot deep). These speakers and bounce the sound off the opposite wall of the transcept, reflecting it down the nave, mixing it in the process. Many people have asked where the pipes are, only to be astonished when I pointed skywards to the speakers. It is designed to mimic a pipe organ and does an extremely good job of it.

In contrast however I played a (1980s?) Viscount at the local Crem last week and the sound quality left much to be desired. Tonally, it was like playing a box of bees.

A digital is characterless from the playing point of view. No eccentricities of stops not coming out, notes out of tune, not speaking, ciphers to deal with etc, which, in some ways I actually quite miss. Most obviously, a digital requires little effort to depress the keys and draw the stops which does lead to a somewhat sloppy technique. This came as a shock when I had to play the cathedral organ last year (3 manual tracker action) and discovered how hard I had to work to play it.

Angela, I played a Mander extension with no Swell box (gt and po I think) for a wedding in Essex last year and it wasn't a wonderful experience, not least as it was clearly in need of attention with a good number of pipes at the top end failing to speak and some notably out of tune.

If I were looking to replace/repair a very basic, non-historic pipe organ, with limited budget in a place unlikely to be used for virtuoso performances, I would certainly be considering getting a more versatile digital for the same price or less.


We also had a clavinova electric piano donated a few years ago which I will use for pieces that are perhaps more suited to piano than organ. Its slightly tinny and with only its internal speakers doesn't reproduce the bottom end wonderfully but it is good for the purpose and, unlike the upright piano we have, retains its tuning and doesn't have a really mushy tone. Crucially, unlike an upright, I can place the clavinova in front of the choir and still see them when I sit down to play. This enables me to conduct with nods and winks (and the odd hand movement) whilst playing which I can't do either from the organ or behind an uprght. Of course if anyone were to donate a concert grand...

[dunstan]

Point has been well made - the amplification is at least as important as the instrument itself. As for the instruments, the difference between a very good analogue electronic and the most basic sampled instruments is bigger than any other. I can understand the concerns about the original Hammonds, which are now valuable collectors pieces because of their distinctive (by which I mean "not like a pipe organ") sound. I've read that there are now "hybrid" instruments where the basic sounds (flutes, diapasons) are in pipes, but there is then a long tail of exotic strings and reeds which are sampled meaning that basic requirements (accompany congregation/choir) are met solely with pipes while the more symphonic repertoire can still be played.

There is a place for both. Me, I play a first generation sampled instrument for mass, but love having permission to play the 1869 Walker in the nearby CofE as well. Ultimately, of course, being able to play better would be of far more use to me than anything else ...

[nazard]

I would suggest that whether to go analogue or digital should be decided on the following basis:

1) Can you afford it? Digital is much cheaper. It depends a bit on what yo want, but you should be able to get a basic two manual + pedal organ, an electronic piano/keyboard and an amplifier/speaker system for about £10k. The maintenance costs, unless you are unlucky, will be almost nothing. Beware of second hand organs and keyboards, the older ones, particularly those with only 8 bit computers, sound distinctly different from real instruments. On the other hand, pipe organs are much more expensive. Even a basic one is likely to be £50k, and I would find it quite easy to spend £500k. (All donations gratefully received.) The resulting organ will then need regular tuning, action adjustment, cleaning, new felts and leathers, etc. Expect to spend a few thousand a year. Second hand pipe organs are often almost free these days on ebay, but beware: many are actually constructed as part of the building they stand in: they will cost a fortune to move. Free standing organs are easier, but unless they are very small, are not trivial to move. When an organ is moved, it really ought to be revoiced.

2) Do you have an organ already? Many catholic organs are so woefully specified or built that their loss is not going to upset anyone, but please do not throw a good instrument away.

3) A well specified organ, and a competent organist playing a selection of suitable organ music, is a great encourangement to the youth of the parish to take up the organ.

For an electronic keyboard, consider the Yamaha DGX620. It has the clavinova key action, which I find sufficiently close to a real piano to be very playable, far better than the very light action of most keyboards which make an even pianissimo very difficult. It has the piano sound of a clavinova, but also all the facilities of a keyboard. The downside is that its built in speakers are even more tinny than a clavinova, but you can connect it to the organ speakers.

Personally, I would go for pipes only in parishes which can really afford it. The object of a parish is to play its part in teaching all nations, and a good music programme can help to attract and retain people. On the other hand, a poor programme, which will not be helped by a poor organ, will repell people.

[Southern Comfort]

I can understand the concerns about the original Hammonds, which are now valuable collectors pieces because of their distinctive (by which I mean "not like a pipe organ") sound.

Lest anyone should misunderstand, what the Congregation for Rites was asked about in 1938 was whether it was OK to have an organ which did not use wind and pipes, but electric tone generators instead. They said No. At that time, it was Hammond organs that were being talked about, but mutatis mutandis this can be legitimately construed as a prohibition on electronic organs full stop. Because the Second World War intervened (the SCR confirmed their decision on 4 September 1939), people overlooked it....

One wonders how they would cope with today's hybrid instruments that have both pipes and electronics. An amusing example would be Southwell Minster, which is all pipes apart from two 32' (I think) digital pedal registers by Copeman Hart.

[nazard]

I have seen recent sermons and speeches by Francis Cardinal Arinze where he says that a good quality digital substitute for a pipe organ is acceptable, and he ought to know. On the other hand, I have not seen a formal statement of this. For myself, I would prefer a real organ, if anyone wants to organise a whip round...

[docmattc]

it was OK to have an organ which did not use wind and pipes, but electric tone generators instead.

Sorry to sound Jesuitical in this (slightly tongue in cheek) discussion. But a digital doesn't use electric tone generators, neither of course does it use wind and pipes!

Nazard's right, given an unlimited budget, its pipes al the way, but in the real world...

[dunstan]

... in the real world, using any musical instrument to lead a body of people singing praise to God is a great gift and we are all blessed. And providing that the music and instrument are liturgically and aesthetically appropriate, the actual instrument used is a secondary consideration. But all the pipes and blowers and wind chests and levers make the King of Instruments an amazing piece of machinery as well as musical instrument.

[alan29]

I have seen recent sermons and speeches by Francis Cardinal Arinze where he says that a good quality digital substitute for a pipe organ is acceptable, and he ought to know. On the other hand, I have not seen a formal statement of this. For myself, I would prefer a real organ, if anyone wants to organise a whip round...

Just out of interest, why ought he to know?
Alan

[RobH]

I have seen recent sermons and speeches by Francis Cardinal Arinze where he says that a good quality digital substitute for a pipe organ is acceptable, and he ought to know. On the other hand, I have not seen a formal statement of this. For myself, I would prefer a real organ, if anyone wants to organise a whip round...

As someone who builds, tunes and restores pipe organs for a living ( so I'm slightly biased) I have to say that although the best digital organs are amazingly good, they are still an imitation of the real thing. Whilst it is a fact that pipe organs require regular tuning and maintenance - the average decent one costs approx. £200 per annum (not a lot really) with a major cleaning and overhaul every 25 years or so ( probably between £10,000 - 20,000 depending on size condition etc), they represent quite a good deal. It is all very well saying that you can buy a decent digital for around £10,000, but you'll probably want or need to replace it completely within 20 years, so it is not that much cheaper than an existing pipe organ. A brand new pipe organ is, obviously, quite another thing. However, a quality instrument well maintained will last for a very long time indeed The oldest organ I maintain was built in 1754 and is still going strong and sounds better than any digital organ available. The majority of organs in my care were built over a century ago and are very reliable and an asset to the church.

My advice to churches which already have a pipe organ is consult an expert before getting rid of it for an electronic substitute and have more than one opinion. It may be possible to instal a decent secondhand instrument of good quality and it could cost less than you imagine depending on the condition and suitability of the replacement organ. I have seen many churches conned into chucking out their pipe organ and ending up with a totally unsatisfactory replacement. This is often at the whim of an indivdual organist or priest who becomes "keen' on the idea of a new organ which will take up far less space and be "more versatile" than an old pipe organ.

[alan29]

Totally agree with two provisos.
the first is that pipe organs take up a great deal of space which is often not there in post-victorian buildings. The second is that there are very few parishes willing to spend any money at all on music, so even a £500 digi piano is a wish too far.
Alan

[nazard]

I have seen recent sermons and speeches by Francis Cardinal Arinze where he says that a good quality digital substitute for a pipe organ is acceptable, and he ought to know. On the other hand, I have not seen a formal statement of this. For myself, I would prefer a real organ, if anyone wants to organise a whip round...

Just out of interest, why ought he to know?
Alan

Because he is the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. In British government type names he would be called the "minister of liturgy". He is the Pope's assistant responsible for issueing the rules for liturgy (with the boss's approval, of course).

[alan29]

I have seen recent sermons and speeches by Francis Cardinal Arinze where he says that a good quality digital substitute for a pipe organ is acceptable, and he ought to know. On the other hand, I have not seen a formal statement of this. For myself, I would prefer a real organ, if anyone wants to organise a whip round...

Just out of interest, why ought he to know?
Alan

Because he is the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. In British government type names he would be called the "minister of liturgy". He is the Pope's assistant responsible for issueing the rules for liturgy (with the boss's approval, of course).

I know about Vatican departments etc. I thought you meant he had some musical training that would qualify him to comment on the matter in hand.
Alan

[mcb]

Although the best digital organs are amazingly good, they are still an imitation of the real thing.

This line of argument always leaves me nonplussed. What follows from the idea that a digital organ recreates the sound of a pipe organ? That it produces music that is less effective as prayer or less pleasing to God? How does that argument run differently with electric light - should we feel that only churches lit solely by candlelight are offering authentic liturgy?

you can buy a decent digital for around £10,000, but you'll probably want or need to replace it completely within 20 years, so it is not that much cheaper than an existing pipe organ.

I don't know that we really have evidence on that one - it's less than twenty years since the quality of digital organs has been good enough to match that of all but the best pipe organs. A new digital organ every twenty years would be a significant recurrent expense, but I don't think we know yet what the lifespan of a high-quality digital instrument of recent manufacture really is; nor how much its life can be extended by a restoration or rebuild once every generation, of the kind you'd give a good pipe organ.

A brand new pipe organ is, obviously, quite another thing.

Yep, it seems to me that a parish rich enough to afford a new pipe organ would have to search its soul long and hard before concluding that was the right thing to spend the money on.

However, a quality instrument well maintained will last for a very long time indeed.

Agree with you thoroughly. A good instrument is part of a parish's heritage and deserving of protection and conservation; to say nothing of the value of the investment down the years. But there are poor instruments too, and poorly cared for, and with those it's something to do with the proverb about not throwing good money after bad.

I have seen many churches conned into chucking out their pipe organ and ending up with a totally unsatisfactory replacement.

Hmm... "Conned" is a loaded word. If a parish is persuaded to invest in a pipe organ, with all the attendant expense, have they been conned? It strikes me as a more expensive scam than mistakenly buying a digital organ, if so.

...and be "more versatile" than an old pipe organ.

No need for the quote marks, I think. A good digital organ, custom built for the building it will inhabit, gives opportunities that owners of even the most lavish pipe organs can only drool about. Ours has four manuals, an east division, a free-standing choir division, 32' pedal reeds... I wouldn't swap it for pipes.

M.

[RobH]

My argument is not that a digital organ is less pleasing to God or less effective as prayer (who can judge that one?), but that churches should not be persuaded to get rid of a decent pipe organ in favour of a digital. mcb appears to agree with me on this point. I never argued that any old pipe organ was worth keeping. A Parish which is advised to invest in their existing decent pipe organ or who buys a quality new or second hand one is definitely not throwing away its money. If this is the case I have conned many parishes into restoring their organs. It seems strange that so many of them are delighted with what they have and would never, ever want a digital.

The organ I play each week is a small 2 manual with only a few stops and I wouldn't swap it even for a large digital instrument. Interestingly, I notice that just 'up the road' from mcb at Lancaster (Catholic) Cathedral they are in the process of restoring their 3 manual pipe organ. Also in the same town (Priory Church) they intend to instal a pipe organ in the west gallery as they mistakenly scrapped a superb Harrison in favour of a Makin electronic twenty six years ago. St Annes Cathedral, Leeds is also about to restore their pipe organ and using a digital until the work is completed. Are these fine churches about to waste a huge amount of money and have they been victims of a scam mcb? I very much doubt it.

Surely, we should strive to obtain the very best we can and try not to settle for less. I would give the same advice as Nazard earlier in this topic; stick to pipes wherever possible. I know the merits and pitfalls of pipe organs after a lifetime of working with them. Today, I have spent ten hours tuning a large and well-known three manual and am absolutely convinced that nothing can beat even a reasonable pipe organ for beauty and quality of tone. Its the sound that counts in the end, not the number of controls, manuals and gadgets. I'm rather surprised that mcb would not exchange his digital for a pipe organ. It must sound pretty fantastic.