Organ matters - Organs matter!

I haven't much time to reply to this at the moment, due to an impending 50th Jubilee Mass for an ageing priest on Monday, which needs quite a lot of work if a disaster is to be avoided; the organisation lamentable thus far.

However, playing the role of God's advocate, (rather then the Devil's), and as a gay man, permit me to DEFEND the stance of the churches on this matter to a certain extent.

People need certainties in life and certain constraints on behaviour. Not only is marriage exalted, (because it brings order and meaning to the chaos of human sexuality), it is also an institution which brings benefits to society at large; certainly in terms of childcare and the nature of society. I believe it to be that fundamental, and I would wholeheartedly support the reverence for heterosexual marriage as one of the corner-stones of civilisation.

On that basis, if one reads the Gospels and especially the writings of St Paul, we come across passages which seem cruel, restrictive and, nowadays, very out of touch with reality.

But was St Paul just a bigot or an authoritarian?

I would state emphatically that this was not the case, because without healthcare, virology and specific medical knowledge, uninhibited sexual behaviour would have been, (and often still is), a major threat to the well-being of society. We had a lucky escape with the AIDS virus, which threatened to become a pandemic back in 1980 or so. I'm therefore quite sure that, in the absence of specific medical and viral knowledge, St Paul's writing were an act of real love; an attempt to protect people from the worst excesses and consequences of unrestrained promiscuity.

The fact that we now know the how and why of infection and prevention, eanbles us to take a very different stance on a whole raft of issues concerned with the private and public good, but one should hardly BLAME those who think of "normal" marriage as somehow a sanctified institution, considering the history and the success of it, as well as the benefits it has brought to society at large.

As David rightly points out, many religious people see everything in terms of a divine rulebook, and thinking outside the box requires good reason to do so. I think it is therefore a mistake to consider the question of gay marriage as somehow confrontational; even though it may be a battleground for those of a warring disposition and an easy source of conflict for those who like to play the power game and holier-than-thou card.

In the past ten years, I have seen a lot of civil partnerships disintegrate, simply because they were prompted by fashion or political posturing....two people who wanted to make a statement about themselves, rather than make a commitment to each other. On the other hand, I know a lesbian couple who have been together for 20 years, (one of whom was a single mother originally), and who have brought up a delightful young gay man, (which came as a pleasant surprise to them). Young David was a happy baby, a happy kid and now a happy adult....there is no greater tribute to the excellent upbringing by his "two mothers."

In the Netherlands, no-one seems to blink at this sort of thing, and indeed, there's a rather lovely song about it on Youtube, as follows:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM

Another fact of life, concerns the nature of churchgoers, who tend to be either very young or increasingly elderly. The older people cannot be expected to change their ways or their beliefs overnight, and as I pointed out to an elderly lady who talked about "the sexualisation of children" at an early age, (not about exploitation), and they being introduced to the facts of life too early, she didn't like it when I pointed out that in the Netherlands, sex education starts at primary school, and as a norm, the children of the Netherlands start sexual activity at a much later stage in life than their UK and American counterparts. They also have the lowest incidence of STD's in the world, where AIDS was only ever a short-lived problem.

Changing people's perceptions and prejudices is never easy, but the key is long-term dialogue. So perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the "traditionalists" who were brought up in a very different world. The only thing I would question, is why people brought up in the 1950's & 60's, and now getting on a bit, have forgotten all about free-love, flower-power and the sexual revolution. Perhaps they all went to strict schools where the teachers were nuns and monks!

So is "gay marriage" a good idea?

I'm not sure that it matters all that much, but I wlecome anything which is genuinely committed, positive and healthy, so perhaps I support it deep down, even though I still tend to think of it as a political statement; possibly quite wrongly.

We are all creatures of prejudice!

I wish I lived in the Netherlands. People wouldn't frown at my prejudices; they simply wouldn't understand them. In time, I would therefore become a better, more understanding and tolerant person.


MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on May 27, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
Dear MM

We have both described events which score positively on "unlikely" and "constructive intervention" scales.

By the standards of those who require God to be an Intelligent _Being_ _"who"_ art in heaven, I am an atheist by regarding God to be a manifestation of a ?mechanical? force inherent in the universe which does some pretty peculiar and amazing things from which we are able to learn and which we are here in order to learn how to handle. This force is a God _"which"_ art in heaven.

We have two viewpoints, perhaps, which perhaps lead to the same thing.

Perhaps the events which I describe and others which I observe on a frequent basis, I might interpret as being the act of God which works in my life, whereas the events you describe you might interpret as being random and to which you apply the response of God in your life. The reality therefore is that whilst I might start with the predisposition to the idea of God leading to life created by God, you might start with a predisposition to coping with events randomly irrespective of God, but responding with the Love of God, you produce the idea of God leading to life created by God.

It is the capacity of the human to be conscious that enables the human to recognise the process of "God" being the process of "Creation" and "constructive results" and thereby distinguishes the human from the animals. There are humans not conscious of this who therefore behave like animals.

Perhaps in the succinctness of this summary, various rather longer perhaps more nebulous posts above might be better clarified.

This thread has particular validity, I beleive, in addressing fundamental issues:
mumbo-junbo of religion vs. "reason"
superstition vs. faith
and perhaps a good deal more relating to fundamental views of religious perspectives which are usefully questioned and rightfully discussed.

Perhaps what I am outlining in posts above is the way in which Christ invites us to have faith not merely in the response of God but in the events of God leading those who have Faith to have a certainty in their lives and in such way achieve an inner peace, an inner calmness, that is good for them and from which God-force can flow perhaps with greater fluidity. By attempting a description of the laying down of a mesh of interconnectedness moment by moment, micro-decision by micro-decision by each and every living and inanimate process driven by the "energy" of God - matter times circumstances squared, I have tried to apply a framework of rationality in which faith has reason living in a higher plane than superstition.

By reason of all people taking conscious decisions, those decisions result in circumstances that carry forward the consciousness of the decisions that created them.

Whilst the future may be obscure, because others have made decisions which involve you or your function in the future, if you are in the right place at the right time, those future circumstances will capture you in their butterfly net and within which you can fulfill the function required by the work of God, the work of the Creation Force.

It's in this way that the circumstances in which one finds oneself can be regarded as having been directed by the God-Force in one's life. Christianity thereby becomes for some a way of life. "When two or more meet together" . . . the power starts to be invoked.

QuoteIt's very easy to believe that God is there when everything is seen to be positive, constructive and well ordered, but the world and the people who inhabit it simply do not fit into these categories; the ever present possibilities of natural disaster, human error, destruction and negative outcomes at least as probable, and all amounting to a type of chaos for which we have no answers and for which we can never prepare.

That chaos and all such disasters were inherent in the old religion: Apollo was the Destroyer as well as the Creator and likewise, he was the bringer of plague whilst being the father of the god of medicine - Asclepius - and Yahweh himself had similar bivalent attributes. Likewise relating to both, it was Taboo to utter the name of God - in the name is the difference which cause peoples to argue, but there is in reality only one - that Force of Creation.

Inherent in the Force of Creation is the destruction that is necessary in rearrangement for better creation.

One can view the function of Judas as a negative acting person, akin to anti-matter, bringing purposed destruction within the story to achieve the fulfillment of the action to better creation.

The Janacek opera "The Cunning Little Vixen" brings these themes to life. The Vixen is the herione with whom one is led to sympathise and yet her demise by the gamekeeper's shot is seen to be purely natural with the music rolling on after only the expression of a moment's pathos, and later the Gamekeeper who returns later in his cycle meets with the Vixen's children and the frog's grandchildren. It's in this way that the Creation Force pays little regard to the individual, and as Eric pointed out in another thread, http://www.organmatters.com/index.php/topic,1374.msg6523.html#msg6523 that it's the species which is immortal rather than the individual.

However, the point of the above is that Christ's second commandment, of love, is both comprehensible and comprehensive and effective in its consequences but his first is altogether more celebral and difficult to come to terms with.

It is likewise difficult to see a bicycle and contemplate that one can ride it supported in two dimensions but unstable and unsupported in the third. The bicycle is supported in the up and down dimension, and the forward backward dimension, but not left and right in directions that we can fall.

Without circumstances, or the thoughts that lead to them, the mind is as unstable as the bicycle at rest.

It requires a degree of faith in the power of an unseen momentum to be able to ride the bicycle and not fall off but when achieved it can carry one far.

The function of the positive consequences of unlikely events within a construct of faith is likewise. Recognising the spirit (idea) of God (life force, creation force) and its interaction with our lives in the product of matter with circumstances as a momentum, the product of mass with velocity, is that momentum that carries us far on the velocipede of faith which is both cause and effect of Christ's first commandment.

In walking on the water, Jesus is saying to us that by reason of his first commandment, the human consciousness can find a momentum even without the support of a seen dimension. Finding that faith is as difficult as learning to ride the bicycle, and those that don't try cannot understand how it is possible.

Am I an atheist by regarding "God" as the product of the mechanical forces of the universe?

Best wishes

David P

Dear David,


In some ways, I have a certain respect for those brave souls who toe the fundamentalist line; usually at odds with society and the vagaries of changing fashion. Theirs is an enviable world of certainty, where obstacles to faith are simply rubbished or eliminated altogether; any alternative viewpoint immediately branded heresy.

Therefore, to answer your last question first, expounding the idea of God being created as aconsequence of creation itself, would mean that you would be branded a heretic: possibly even burned at the stake had you lived 400 years ago.

I think we all share a particular problem, in that the Bible, (as a collection of writings), was spliced together in such a way as to create a time-line sequence of events, commencing with the God who created heaven & earth, a Messiah who brought  promise of salvation and the fulfilment of prophecy, the subsequent struggles to establish the church and the speculative ventures into theological clairvoyance and the last day of judgement.

I don't find any of that surprising, just as I don't find it difficult to understand the limited perspectives of a flat earth, a total lack of knowledge about undiscovered continents and a sense of awe at what lies above, beyond and in a mythical heaven.

That sort of belief, (based on very restricted knowledge and a lack of reliable and replicable evidence), has caused major fault-lines to develop across the ensuing centuries, and the person who states that the earth revolves around the sun, that the earth is round, that the universe commenced with an inconceivable "big bang" or that 95% of matter is "dark matter," will immediately find themselves at odds with those who choose to believe in the cosy certainties of the Bible; no matter how dubious the evidence and no matter how great the gulf between science and religion.

Unfortunately, if science has delivered one essential truth, it is the fact that instead of believing a couple of dozen impossible things before breakfast, we now have to believe hundreds. Just as the Biblical scribes were great story-tellers, so too are cosmologists to-day. Unfortunately, the handbook to the cosmos is still in the writing, and the task of completing it may never end. It is for this reason that I simply do not accept the "Alpha & Omega" of a beginning and end "to all things", and as a consequence, I will probably steadfastly refuse to recite the words of the creeds to my dying day. I can only comment personally, for what I may believe is vastly outweighed by the things I cannot believe, and I'm sure I am not alone. I think that makes me a heretic too, even though I would be the first to acknowledge that something fairly exotic carries the responsibility for creation.


The Bible is far more than a religious discourse, for within the pages, you will find everything: law, politics, vivid accounts of epic struggles, tribal lineage, the proclaimed faith and destiny of specific people as well as a lot of common sense. I would actually question whether we, as modern individuals, can ever hope to understand the writing style and much of the implied relevance to life to-day.


I feel that even the attempt to rationalise or explain the creation and/or the creator, is either  doomed to certain failure or tantamount  to blasphemy; limiting even the idea of God to our own, miserable perceptions.

Joined up thinking will always  confound and confuse, because even the best science struggles to accurately gather information, so there can never be a "rational" approach to religion. The danger we face in trying to piece together "the idea" of God as a piece of scriptural and Biblical continuity which is compatible with science, is that the individual pieces of the jig-saw will only fit together with the aid of a large hammer, and even if we could create a broadly acceptable melange , it would be no better, (and possibly  no worse), than that  achieved by those who first cobbled the Bible together into a single tome.

Isaac Newton or William Blake?

The conflicts between belief and faith are nothing new, and it is all part of the working chaos with which we are surrounded at all times .

Best,

MM

It really is unbelievable that "they" seem to want to discard organs for the sheer sake of it, as if they represent something old and useless.

If the "pop" brigade want to call something "old and useless," perhaps they may like to listen to a podcast repeat of the Jubilee Concert, which showed just how pop-stars age disgracefully in just a single generation.

I am curently listening to the Jubilee service from St Paul's. How refreshing to hear excellent young voices, properly trained; showing the "celebrities" how it should be done.

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on May 17, 2012, 12:16:15 AM
:-)

I can see that this is causing some fun.

"Love knows no laws" - neither did the waves of the Japanese Tsunami. Yahweh and Apollo were both known as the Creator, Destroyer, and represent both ends of the taking to pieces to put back together again in another form. This is expressed in Hindu deities also, a common theme. To say that God is Love turns people who have suffered disaster into atheists because it is apparent that He does not love them. Parents who have lost sons. Wives who have lost husbands.

But God as the Creative Force is much more profound.

Maxwell's equations . . . :-)

Whilst bicycling against the wind today I was thinking of another simile. Above, I have given three examples apparently demonstrating conscious circumstances and cause for faith. They can be criticised for being mere cherries on the cake of random events that simply coincide with a preconceived pattern of happenings. However, the circumstances were each of such low probability, I had dismissed that possibility, even though perhaps such low probabilities can fall within a spectrum of randomness. Effectively though, people with faith have identified a series or sequence of events that they have experienced that significantly exceed the threshold of background noise of randomness of events.

The simile that came to mind arose from Hartley and Shannon's work on information theory. This, being examination of pulses down a line is a sort of single dimension statistical mechanics leading to concepts of entropy as in a three dimensional gas. We inject noise into a line and see what the minimum size signal we can reliably recover. If we dismiss all voltages lower than a certain voltage, below which is the average voltage of the noise, then we can identify an intelligent signal of pulses coming through. That intelligent signal has an energy. . . .

That analogy of energy is that which surfers use to ride the wave, having had to predict successfully the pattern of positive suitability for poisitive out of the randomness of those arriving at the shore. Or the currents of wind that will carry a glider up to enormous heights, the pilot having to recognise the patterns of updraught.

For the purposes of exploration, imagine there is no intelligent signal: we will lower the voltage down till the peaks of random noise break through, and we will detect points of energy in the signal. If we mistake the positive peaks of that random signal for something intelligent, and amplify them, and attempt to predict any anti-randomness in the signal and harness their positivity in preference to the noise and the negative, it is still an energy of positive use, because the ordinary and the noise oscillations are thrown away. I accept that observation of events can be subject to such self deception, but if they are understood to be positive, then the resulting positivism can be self-producing and leading to the very thing we're trying to prove doesn't exist. If the positivism is amplified and multiplied by a significant proportion of population, the creative force happens.

Perhaps its in this way that systems choose a mechanism by which a creative force arises out of randomness, from the level of fundamental particles right the way through to deluded humans . . . who, because the force exists, even if it is only thought into being, :o aren't deluded at all.   ;D  8) because the thought has become real.

This is the energy, and magic, of God.

However another analogy comes from AM radio. The airwaves are full of electrical signals of which we are entirely unaware. Whilst Maxwell predicted them, none thought them visible until Hertz's famous experiments with a tuned spark gap. With Amplitude Modulated radio, a carrier wave is sent out, of which we are entirely unaware. It is an energy, to which a tuned circuit can be synchronised. If we vary the intensity of the electromagnetic vibrations according to an intelligent signal, pick up the vibrations with a tuned circuit and feed it to headphones, we won't hear anything because the negative values of the carrier signal cancel the positive.

It's only when we pluck out a whisker from a cat's cheek ;D and touch it upon a sensitive crystal, such as tellurium, that we can eliminate the negative and detect the positive. Better still, turn the negative to positive! It's in this way that the intelligent signal shines through upon a formerly invisible carrier. People without the cat's whisker can't beleive that this signal exists, whilst to those to whom the cat makes one available available, hear the radios station loud and clear.

(MM - sorry I'm being most cheeky :D in reference to cats . . . for younger readers a piece of bent wire was used in reality in a crystal set)

The point is that however one does not want to believe it's really happening, there is a creative force in nature which creates by processes of construction and destruction in which overall successive constructive forces have added together so as to allow us and all that we know to exist  . . . and which through consciousness of circumstances people with faith have found can make a positive contribution to our lives. The fact that the force can be thought into existence, and exist in reality even if only because we think it in the abstract, is shocking but, however, demonstrates the power of prayer together with patterns of positive behaviour set by knowledge of "God".

The fact that we have all had contact with organs and share a common interest would not have occurred without systems of reverence and instruction relating to that force causing buildings to be erected housing objects of common interest. The energy of creative force is at work . . .

Best wishes

David P

Dear David,

I should have medals....lots of medals, coming to think about it.  By the age of 13 I'd saved the lives of six people, (or at least postponed a few deaths);  two of which required considerable bravery and quite a lot of personal risk. Of the risky ones, the first involved paddling out into Morecambe Bay with two planks of driftwood tied to my feet by shoe-laces, and hoisting another boy out of quicksand, for which the bay is notorious. The second involved rescuing another who mistakenly believed that he had the skill and courage of a Sherpa, but then went into panic. I climbed 120ft or so without ropes and talked him down step-by-step.

By the age of 50, I'd saved a further four lives; the first having being involved in a road accident, the next two from drowning in a flood at Shrewsbury at 3am, (don't ask), and finally, a 14 year old Kosovan boy who had collapsed by the side of the road  in Norfolk, in the middle of the night, after trekking across most of Europe  suffering a knife wound and with a bullet lodged in his leg.

Now should I believe that I was sent by God in these situations, or that I was somehow responding to the sea of circumstances?

I think I prefer to believe that I just chanced upon some difficult situations and knew what to do and how to react. I'd also like to think that anyone else would have done the same things, or at least made an effort.

Other people do this sort of thing for a living, and I'm not aware that there was ever a spiritual dimension to any of it; though I think I may be forgiven just a little pride in the fact that (a) I didn't die, and (b), neither did anyone else.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is different. It's about crossing divides as much as it is about crossing roads; reaching out  and caring for those who are strangely foreign or in some way untouchable.

Only once have I ever found myself in a situation which, at the time, was very difficult to fathom; as if it were meant to be and over which I had no control. Actually, it goes way beyond that, because not only did I shrink away and actually try to avoid the situation, something made me go back.

To cut a long story shorter, Joe was a 15 year-old boy heading for disaster; surviving by his wits and laying his head wherever it landed; his single-father apparently unwilling or incapable of looking after him. Instead, he was very much the target of drug-dealers, pimps, users and peers who were quite happy to draw him into a seedy, criminal world; a not uncommon aspect of society to-day. When his father died quite suddenly, Joe went into care, and it wasn't long before we were enjoying the most innocent, rewarding, funny and creative of times; going to car rallies, go-karting, walking in the countryside, visiting cathedrals and a hundred other things. Not only that, my whole family eventually "adopted" him, and never batted an eyelid when he started to call me "Dad."

Four weeks after his 16th birthday, Joe tried to contact me, but I was 300 miles away. Unable to do so, he ran away from the care home after a spot of bother, went straight to the same people I had warned him about. He collapsed and died as a result of a very suspicious drugs overdose while I was listening to him on the telephone and trying to make sense of his call at 2.30am the following morning.

Perhaps this is a good place to quote your own words, David.

To say that God is Love turns people who have suffered disaster into atheists because it is apparent that He does not love them. Parents who have lost sons. (etc)

If we accept that people have free-will, make mistakes and often follow the wrong path, and if we accept that plate tectonics are a part of "just the way it is," then we must accept there to be chaos even within the boundaries of order and creation.

Indeed, if there was a God who stopped all mistakes, protected everyone from bad things or stopped the tsunami in its tracks, there would be no need for conscience, awareness, morality or even a sense of danger or the unexpected. The highly dubious alternative is to blame all disasters, mistakes and human tragedies as being the consequence of sin; original or otherwise.

Briefly going back to the tale of young Joe, and his untimely death, I vividly recall going around and telling everyone about it, with the usual comments. "Poor Joe"  "He didn't deserve it." "That's a tragedy" etc etc.

All of them were true, but nothing could prepare me for one reaction.

First there was a stunned silence, and then a pair of arms reached out to embrace me, and the words, "Oh no! I'm so sorry; you must be devastated."

If there is a God, he was right there at that moment, and the arms which embraced me may well have been his; caring, loving and healing the pain. At the time, it was tangible enough, and I didn't doubt the sincerity of it for one moment.

It's the same as the massive donation the people of the UK made to aid the victims of the Thailand Tsunami ; arms embracing people in their pain and grief, from half way around the world; the usual Thai smiles swept away for a short while.

It's very easy to believe that God is there when everything is seen to be positive, constructive and well ordered, but the world and the people who inhabit it simply do not fit into these categories; the ever present possibilities of natural disaster, human error, destruction and negative outcomes at least as probable, and all amounting to a type of chaos for which we have no answers and for which we can never prepare.


MM

Favourite organist?  Just for fun?

The thought occured to me that there was only ever one very funny organist, who happened to be one of my favourite jazz piano perfomers.

I refer of course to the late Dudley Moore, who was an organ-scholar at Oxford in his student days.

I stumbled across a documentary about him, which is serialised in full on Youtube, and interesting it is too.

However, in the second video, there is a wonderful clip of "Dud" playing the organ: the St Anne prelude to be precise, and with considerable panache.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGXIGhUTfKU&feature=channel&list=UL

There were so many facets to this extremely talented and fascinating celebrity, and even now, his loss leaves something of a void.

MM

Quote from: Barrie Davis on May 22, 2012, 02:46:22 PM
Good gracious, I wonder how heavy the action is !!!! Very ingenious, is that the longest tracker run??

============


I did once suggest to Piet Kee that they should have a detached, electric console at the Bavokerk.

He gave a few of those thoughtful Netherlands nods and then broke into a puzzled smile; possibly not quite sure whether he was talking to a philistine, a lunatic or a salesman.

MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on May 21, 2012, 12:29:39 AM
Hi!

I'm sure that there are some rather expert and experienced members of this forum who might know of detached tracker consoles. I seem to recall example(s) where long horizontal trackers were used, it being an artform of engineering to arrange significantly low mass and responsivity . . .

Best wishes

David P

Try this David:-


http://www.jwwalker.co.uk/reference/Grand%20Rapids%20Excerpt.pdf

MM

Quote from: Janner on May 20, 2012, 05:21:42 PM
[

It was this sort of thing which I had in mind regarding Hall-effect switches. MM mentions problems with them in motor vehicles, which is interesting, but is that perhaps associated more with that particular application? It sounds like it may be a rather harsher environment than the average organ console.
Best wishes

===================


This is, of course, a very valid point. ABS sensors, for instance, work in a hot/cold/dry/wet/salty environment, and ignition system hall sensors work in a hot enviroment....average life maybe 8-12 years at most.

However, having lived with and repaired the alternative ignition systems, with their mechanical cams and contacts, I know that they are easy and cheap top replace when they go wrong. The last time I priced up an engine ignition sensor, it came complete with an ECU....total cost about £600  :o

In organ terms, that's my worry, because it could seal the fate of an organ in due course.

MM

Although I'm quoting David's response, I'll first of all refer to Janner's post, because the instrument which "spiked" at the opening was that at Blackburn Cathedral, with Carlo Curley at the console. The organ was soon pout right, but possibly only because the consultant, David Hird, (from my home town), was there who installed the electronic control system.

This is the danger we will increasingly face: not just that of an organ falling silent, but one which requires a "Guru" to attend in order to make it work again. This is a far cry from an organ-recital I gave, when half way through, we had a couple of ciphers and I crawled inside the organ to silence them. While I was there, I also adjusted a leather button on the Great to Pedal coupler.

I would even question the need for all those "registration aids" we see to-day. I've never used a "sequencer" in my life, and that's the way I want it to stay. I don't feel the need for 30 channels of registration, and when it comes to thumb-pistons, I can't help but think that one of the most elegant solutions to "adjustable pistons" (or "composition pedals" as they used to be), was the astonishingly clever Binns Patent, using a pneumatic motor and mechanical toggling.

I've played recitals on some BIG consoles; most notably at St Bride's, Fleet Street; (140 or so stops), Hull City Hall (180 stops?) and even the Wurlitzer which was briefly at the Granada Studios in Manchester. (300 or so tabs?). The latter was the trickiest, because theatre organ thumb-pistons tend to be set up for specific sounds, rather than any build-up of pp to ff, but writing them down on a piece of paper in shorthand is not rocket-science.

I just cannot believe how lazy some organists can be, and I relish the days when I would watch Francis Jackson, like an intelligent spider on a very big web, crawl around the console almost imperceptibly .

Full Swell to Swell Oboe solo?

Not a problem.....piston 1, then wipe in the remaining stops with the back of the hand and draw the Oboe in one elegant, sweeping movement.

Simon Gledhill, the very accomplished theatre organist, once said to me, "I use a lot of hand registration," when he was referring to some of the American "monsters" with 400 + stop-keys.

I can't help but feel that technology has replaced the "art" of good registration and console control; at the same time, socially isolating the organist. I love it when I go to the Netherlands, and Haarlem in particular, to hear a real "team effort" involved in the playing of Reger, Widor and music by a lot of other composers which really shouldn't work on a baroque style of instrument. It's amazing to hear the swell box open; especially since there isn't one!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVJ-1YnhcOY


There's an old saying in the business world, "keep it simple stupid." (KISS for short)

Elegant simplicity is the preserve of the most sophisticated and often complex mind.

MM

Quote from: Andrew Dewar on May 17, 2012, 09:58:02 PM
Here are some French reeds  :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwUpPOXmqXI

=====================


Here are some more; though I'm not sure who made the ones heard in the Schrammel.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBeBehBLOE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXlBigi62Q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPGDiA3fidA&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwQZttmkko  (This is magnificent playing!)


Well, they're better than the Vuvazela.

In the next edition:-   "How to imitate a French Vox Humana with a comb & paper"    :D


MM

Quote from: David Pinnegar on May 17, 2012, 12:16:15 AM
:-)

I can see that this is causing some fun.

"Love knows no laws" - neither did the waves of the Japanese Tsunami.


However another analogy comes from AM radio.

It's only when we pluck out a whisker from a cat's cheek ;D and touch it upon a sensitive crystal, such as tellurium, that we can eliminate the negative and detect the positive. Better still, turn the negative to positive! It's in this way that the intelligent signal shines through upon a formerly invisible carrier. People without the cat's whisker can't beleive that this signal exists, whilst to those to whom the cat makes one available available, hear the radios station loud and clear.

(MM - sorry I'm being most cheeky :D in reference to cats . . . for younger readers a piece of bent wire was used in reality in a crystal set)

==========================


Dear David,

I am distraught; not just because I don't really understand a word of what you wrote, but because I now have two traumatised cats, (sans whiskers), who probably think that their God has forsaken them. The AM radio refuses to work.

The only bit I think I understood, was the part about the waves from a Tsunami. They may not have understood law, but they would certainly be subject to the laws of waves.

Something intrigues me about the tsunami which hit Thailand (etc).  We talk about prayer and even telepathy, but the people were stupid enough to stay put. The elephants meanwhile, moved to high ground long before the waves struck.

Best wishes,

MM

Quote from: Contrabombarde on May 16, 2012, 08:45:02 PM
David, you're surely forgetting that in order to create light God had to first put in place Maxwell's laws of thermodynamics. For the benefit of his audience the scribe of Genesis wisely summarised them as

"And God said, 'Let there be light!' and there was light" (Genesis 1:3)

when he really meant to say,

"And God said, Let:



and there was light."

=====================



Love knows no laws!


MM

Quote from: pcnd5584 on May 16, 2012, 04:52:23 PM

Quote from: MusingMuso on May 15, 2012, 05:57:31 PM
Wow!

Now if only the Parisian organists could have had organs like that!   8) ...

The playing is indeed excellent.

Welcome to Andrew Dewar, incidentally.

However, I am not sure that I would agree with MM's comment above. The Derby organ just does not sound at ease with this repertoire - it is too thick and bass-heavy (at least on these clips). The chorus reeds lack the characteristic (almost percussive) attack and éclat of good French reeds.

Andrew, no offence is intended - I do not think that anyone here likes my 'own' church organ, either....

=========================


They always sound extremely coarse and vulgar to my ears.  Take away the acoustics and they'd only be good for fair organs! ;)

MM

Wow!

Now if only the Parisian organists could have had organs like that!   8)

Apart from anything else, what magnificent organ-playing, and finally, someone who understands the Guilmant Sonata no.1, which is a very fine piece of music in the right hands.

The instrument is impressive, to say the least, and 'pcnd' will note that even the Tuba blends nicely, because like me, he doesn't usually like the things.

I think we need a Compton revival as well as a Guilmant revival.

MM

Dear David,

I don't like maritime analogies. I've always regarded myself as the victim of the sea of circumstances, and like all choppy waters, it has had more than its fair share of highs and lows, with ever present perils and the risk of capsize. When I chose to work in corporate finance, it was a good job I had music and an HGV licence as both life-jacket and rubber-ring; such were the risks, the company collapses and even Robert Maxwell, (the most indebted man in the world at the time), falling  off his yacht in the middle of the night.

I still have a problem with the concept of "order out of chaos," because it is rather like the linear thinking of time-line "progress"....God working HIS purpose out, as year succeeds to year.

Is there such a thing as creative chaos?
 
The atheist would certainly agree with this concept, because they would regard creation as a series of random events: even the creation of the stars, planets and the whole of life on earth.

David refers frequently to the process of entropy, which in scientific terms is broadly concerned with invisible energy which appears to serve no immediate function. Curiously and perhaps perversely, the word is also used to describe the way that any "system" tends to move towards randomness and chaos.

Even the powerful, molecular and biological organisation of DNA can be overwhelmed by the cellular chaos of cancer.

Searching for some "invisible life force" is akin to photographing a burning candle against the background of the mid-day sun. If someone shows you a photograph of the same, it would be impossible to prove or disprove the "image of a burning candle" from a scientific, linear view of the world. However, it would be a brave and foolish person who called the photographer a liar, and a wise man would first assess the character of the photographer and then choose to either believe or disbelieve the evidence as it is presented.

My point is relatively simple; the ordered and chaotic elements are symbiotic, with whatever "systems" we care to choose moving regularly and relatively freely from one state to the other. Thus, there is order out of chaos certainly, but there must also be chaos out of order if entropy is to mean anything at all.

However, it has to be acknowledged that science furnishes us with few credible answers as to the origin of the universe and life on earth, but that is no excuse for believing what is written in Genesis.

Was Genesis ever anything more than old men sitting in a circle, with nothing better to do but scratch at the ground with pointed sticks?
It isn't science and it isn't philosophy, and all it does is point towards the absolutely bloody obvious.

"Something," (call it God if you will), made the earth, life and all that we are. (Not even the most die-hard atheist would disagree with that). Had the Garden of Eden been in the middle of the Atacama Desert, it would have been impressive , but in truth, it was a mythical place like Shangri-La. The imagery is not far away from "heaven on earth" or the great palace of Xanadu, and it would have had a special appeal to those tending their sheep and cattle in a red-hot climate.

The expression, "I could kill for an ice-cream," takes on a special meaning when you're strolling along the shores of the Dead Sea, as does,"walking in the garden in the cool of the day."

No, the fact that Genesis makes the case for the obvious is not my concern, but in the wider context, it is first and foremost a Jewish statement of monotheism, which identifies the Jews as a people and set them apart from ancient Babylon; their traditional enemy. I don't, for one moment see it as a satisfactory explanation of anything other than material creation BY WHATEVER MEANS, of which the scribes knew little and we only a fraction more.

I really can't subscribe to "the God of the gaps" anymore than I can subscribe to "order out of chaos," because there are so many inconsistencies, conflicting sciences and theoretical assumptions.

"It's just the way it is," is not a statement of despair; more a statement of belief, based on the FACT that something fairly awesome created us and all that is, but whether that is a "force of order," "big daddy" or the mind-boggling mathematics of random chance, I cannot even begin to say.

What I do know, is that the mathematics involved in "all that is," are immense beyond belief.

90 billion light years across a still expanding universe?

For anyone who cares to do the mathematics, that's  186,282.397 miles (per second) X 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 90,000,000,000.

How about our near neighbour, the Galaxy Andromeda, which contains an estimated One Trillion stars?

I we want to know how far it is to travel there, we would have to multiply 6 trillion miles, (the distance light travels in a year) and multiply it by 2.5 million. It works out at a staggering 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away, and we've barely reached the front door-step. (Is that 15 squillion?)

If we want to find the meaning and origins of life, the answer is still definitely 42, unless someone, (anyone?), can come up with an improved offer.

I'm big enough and small enough to accept that, "It's just the way it is."

Best wishes,

MM

I still have difficulty with the concept of "order out of chaos."  I see it as a totally natural phenomenon that chaos, (or merely that which is disorganised), exists perfectly happily in the presence of "order," without need for elaboration or the implied, pre-requisite acceptance of some vague spirituality.

As the song says, "It's just the way it is."

Order, such as it is in humanly conscious terms, (rather than the geneological and evolutionary order over which we have no say), is really about "civilisation" and all that goes with it.

I haven't time to expound on the Trinity, but it may well be the most important aspect of faith, followed by the Ascension and, (in a miserable third place), the Ressurection.

I shall expound later, but I would just point out that a magician appeared to walk across the Thames quite recently, and I have yet to see the (logical) explanation of it.

MM

Quote from: flared_ophicleide on May 14, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
This may be a bit off-the-wall, but I was watching the Beatles' HELP! movie, and early on, we see Paul McCartney playing a 3-manual electronic theatre, Art-Deco-style.  My first guess was that it was a Compton, possibly an Electrone.
By chance, has anybody seen this movie?

===========================


I like the organ-console in this film:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Nf1ahgmyk


That's got to be a Compton, surely?



MM

Actually Simon, I think someone did go to the trouble of working out the derivations at Derby Cathedral, so whatever may or may not have happened to the Mixtures is probably reversible, unless they've got rid of some of the donor registers, which I suspect is the case.

However, I don't think a digital control system is likely to result in an organ being scrapped, but of course, it is building-in a certain obsolescence, which was never part of the Compton philosophy. I know that Dr Pykett claims that Compton electro-mechanical relays are not as good as those of Hope-Jones/Wurlitzer, but the fact that some are still operating after 80 years, as at the Bournemouth Pavilion, does tend to suggest that the quality was "good enough" to do the job over a considerable period of time. Of course, with obsolete technology such as the Compton electro-mechanical units now are, the task of restoring them would probably exceed the cost of computer-control as a commercial eneterprise, so it's probably something of a "no brainer", to quote a phrase.

I suspect that the bigger problem is the fact that computer equipment generally, is less reliable by half than the rest of an organ, (assuming that it is not built of cardboard and tin-tacs), so the eventual replacement of the electronics every 20-30 years is going to hugely increase the cost of maintenance over the life of the rest of the instrument.


It's this which, for me, tends to tip the balance towards digital instruments from a financial point of view, and I can't help but think that this sort of "planned obsolescence, (perhaps more "predictable obsolescence"), in pipe-organ building may not come back to haunt the trade in due course.

Of course, the ultimate irony is that by replacing a pipe-organ with  a new digital organ and speaker set-up, actually introduces a whole lot more gubbins and obsolescence in the medium term.

There's a lot to be said for mechnical action....the "old faithful" of organ actions, which seldom go wrong and can at least be repaired easily.

MM

You may well be right David, but the amount of readily available information about organs, organists and organ-builders in South Africa is quite limited.

Beyond the fact that another Brindley & Foster organ was radically altered and re-voiced by Willis, at Durban town-hall, I know very little; though I gather that in organ-building terms, there is quite a strong Hill, Norman & Beard legacy in evidence.

Best,

MM

I'm just over 60 years of age, and in that time, I have seen organ-actions change dramatically; first away from the electro-mechanical systems using telephone-exchange technology, to the early electronic, transistorised systems and now to the computerised systems of to-day. In effect, not only has the technology changed every 20 years or so, it means that there is now the same sort of planned obsolence we see in motor-vehicles, where spares become increasingly scarce as time marches on. Although I have no reason for suggesting this, I also wonder how reliable the hall sensors of some modern key-actions will be, knowing only too well that a motor-vehicle ABS and engine-speed sensors have a distinctly limited life.

Of course, the same arguments apply exactly to electronic instruments; many of the earlier ones now almost irrepairable; especially where they use dedicated IC's.

Compare this, if you will, to certain tracker instruments, which clatter and clank away throughout Europe, making every piece of music sound like a stage presentation of "River Dance." At the very least, they still work, albeit with a few problems and the occasional bit of maintenance.

Even the worst pneumatic actions usually lasted 30+ years, and the best of them three times longer, but with one massively important difference. With both mechanical and pneumatic actions, even a skilled mechanic, engineer or DIY enthusiast could make sense of them and effect the very minimum of a temporary repair or even something more permanent. Glue, bits of leather, iron wire and screw drivers are still remarkably common-place in hardware stores and elsewhere.

At the re-opening of a certain cathedral organ in the UK, a "spike" in the electrical system caused a considerable delay in proceedings, and it wasn't until the second-half of the programme that the full organ could be used.

I just wonder of there isn't a certain attractiveness in transmission-systems which require little more than a few multi-plugs and a minimum of wiring, but at what cost long-term?

MM