Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!teddy!rdp From: rdp@teddy.UUCP Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Random stuff... Message-ID: <1256@teddy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 14:53:04 EDT Article-I.D.: teddy.1256 Posted: Wed Sep 4 14:53:04 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 04:22:57 EDT References: <253@decwrl.UUCP> <1238@teddy.UUCP> <1343@hound.UUCP> Reply-To: rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass. Lines: 164 Summary: In article <1343@hound.UUCP> rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) writes: >[] >Re: quiet organs (If they are loud, the organist is using the wrong registration > >Tell us about the SPL of the state trumpet at St. John the Devine. Measured on >the floor of the Nave at the rear. > Fine, it is REAL damned loud, but it is very much the exception rather than the rule. >Funny. I thought many composers wrote passages (now and then) for full organ >or thereabouts. I guess they just didn't know their registrations either. >Last time I saw John Bach I took him to task for the registration of his >Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. It lets all the wind out. He said he intended it >to do just that. If an organ had "good lungs" it wouldn't run out of breath. > Well, let's look at some of the organs that Bach knew (I have played several of them myself, thank you) Yes, he did require that the instrument have good lungs, (an admonition, I believe, about the organ at Mulhausen, which was not very large by the extant standards). When played altogether, the actual SPL is still not very loud. As to composers recommendations for "full organ" (known in the baroque era as organo pleno) there exists some very specific registrations by those composers. They never include every singlee stop. Remember that they achieved dynamics with tone color as much as with actual acoustic pressure. I would suggest you read such texts as (I believe the title is correct) "The Organ in the French Classical Tradition", by Fenner Douglass, as well as several texts regarding registration techniques in Northern Europe during the Late Baroque. All of these texts quoate specific composers and organ builders (including the likes of J. S. Bach and Arp Schnitger) on registration techniques. All of them admonish the user from using thick, heavy "full" registrations. Even still, I have played many of these instruments (including the Schnitger organ at St. Laurenskerk in Alkmaar, Holland, which is a very BIG instrument, 4 manuals, 60 some-odd ranks, bunches of mixtures and reeds, etc) and they are not loud as you describe them. >It is certainly true that many organ pipes are not terribly loud. But >pipe organs are like cars. They come in all sizes, colors and horsepower. >It is certainly possible for someone to consider anything but a VW >Beatle as too large, overpowered and vulgar. But to represent that as >a universal opinion is somewhat mistaken. > I am representing observations of many (100's) of instruments I have personal experience with. Some big, some small, some in between. >Many pipes are individually quite loud - especially those designed for >high wind (air) pressure. Then, when they are played together, you are >going to get power law addition. Many classical organs contain groups >of pipes designed to speak (play) together as one note. These are called >"mixtures" and "mutations." For your information, a "mutation" stop is almost always a single rank, that is not either a unison or an octave of the fundamental pitch. For example, 2 2/3', 1 3/5', etc., are mutations, whereas 8', 4', 2', etc. stops are not. Mixtures can be composed of both octave-sounding and mutation stops. The purpose of well thought out mixtures is not to make the instrument louder. They exist to compensate for several effects such as the loss of sensitivity of the ear to very high and very low notes, absorbtion, and so forth. The formula for the conposition of these mixtures was developed empirically over nearly 500 years. Until the very late romantic period (1900 on) they were used primarily for adding tone color, fullness, etc. >It is easily possible to play dozens of pipes >simultaneously, whether some people like it or not. Many people >like it and that's why the organ was built that way. Large organs are >capable of generating, are intended to generate, and generate when >played by competent organists very large quantities of sound, much of >which comes at high sound pressure levels (spl). I have heard organs >so loud that the inner ear mechanism would "decouple" in an effort >at self preservation. I have heard bass notes so loud that you could hear >the non-linear distortion generated in your own ears. The loudest such >I recall hearing was a demo of an electronic organ at school many >years ago. It may not have sounded good, but it was certainly loud. > The advent of these gargantuan instruments did not occur until the late 19th, early 20th century. The bulk of organ literature was composed before then (Please don't flame me on this, I have the catalogs to prove it) Many of these organs have little to do with the correct performance of organ music. During this period, organs were more important as orchestral substitutes than as vehicles for the interpretation of the literature. These behemoths (including the likes of Riverside) began appearing every- where, such as international expositions (to show off the technological, not musical, prowess of a country). They sprang up in convention halls and even department stores (what is an organ doingin a department store?) Organists and their instruments could claim the ability to do anything. I belive it was Lynwood Farnham who could boast of the ability to make the organ at Trinity Church in Boston sound like a train pulling out of a station. Wurlitzer advertized theater and church organs that could sound at once like the raging of a thunderstorm or the whisper of a breeze. The organ in the Auditorium at Atlantic City had a Stentorphone that was blown with 100 inches of wind. Skinner was reputed to have a French horn that was indistinguishable from the orchestral real thing. So what? Yes, there do exist instruments that are capable of almost dissasociating air molecules. But they are very much in the minority. The trend in the latter half of the 20th century has been to understand the literature, the build the organ to suit. The result has been organs that run on all of 2 1/2 to 3 inches of wind, that have NO loud solo stops, that have chorus ensembles that generate their effects through the availability of varying tone colors and are far less concerned about blowing the windows out. I will gladly acknowledge the existance of organs of the type you describe, but I will disagree with you on several points. First, they are not the norm, nor are they even the penultimate media of musical expression. Secondly, they are not suitable for the proper interpretation of the vast bulk of classical organ literature. The days of the likes of Virgil Fox driving home the final Tocatta of the D minor Tocatta and fuge on the entire organ led by the Trumpet Magna are coming to an end, thankfully. To admit that this style is the way such pieces should be performed is to simultaneously admit that Bach himself could not perform it properly. >Now the information in this note will not be news to the gentleman who >said that organs were really quiet. I never said "organs are really quiet". I said that they are not as loud as people assume. >I don't know why he chose his extreme position. I did not choose an extreme position. I spent 3 years researching pipe organs, 5 years studying classical organs 1 year recording, repairing and playing organs in Belgium, Holland, Germany and France, and most of my adult life going to organ concerts. >I don't carry spl meters in my pockets, especially to >church services. Neither did I. I asked for permission to spend considerable time with more sophisticated tools than a simple SPL meter measuring the instruments. >But when I used to attend Riverside church just to >hear Virgil Fox play the organ, I know it was beautifully loud. When >the chord sort of picks you up and moves you gently back and forth on >the floor, there are spl's at work that would cause the man from osha(sp) >to get all sweated up, and it takes more than 85 db to do that. > For peoples general information, 85 dB SPL at the ear is quite loud. I have yet to come across a pipe organ of any description (including sitting inside the case) that produces anything even remotely approaching a small night-club amatuer rock group. Dick Pierce Note. I actually find this discussion quite invigorating. I have (I don't mean to brag) quite a lot of experience with organs and I find them quite fascinating, and I enjoy talking about them quite a bit. If the Mr. Grantges feels up to it, so do I. By the way, if anyone is interested, 200 lbs of TNT set of 200 feet away produces a peak acoustic level of 200 dB. So there!