Talk:Organ stop

message: I tried to describe the mechanics of organ stops the best way I could think of, without making the description excessively long and detailed.  If anyone can think of a better way to describe what happens when a stop is opened or closed, please feel free to change what I added.
: JesseG 03:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second section 

message: Hi.
I don't think that this page says anything that isn't documented in Pipe organ. I am proposing that it is merged into Pipe organ which has reached WP:GA status, unless this page is updated and expanded.  Personally I don't feel that it is worth saving this article as most of the information is now duplicate or redundant.
Mdcollins1984 13:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a better idea, although if we can get stops and voicing combined into a single article that would be good. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Pipe organ? 

message: The information in this section (stop name, pipe length, sounding interval, translated interval) is curiously organized… it is information that should be contained in a table, but it is squished into a list format instead. Maybe at some point this information should be reorganized and put into wiki-table format? —Cor anglais 16 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutations 

message: Two observations:
First, I wonder if it would be as well to note here that among the pipes used for the first three classifications are all of the same basic design (i.e., flue). This is covered adequately in other articles, but it might be useful to mention here as well. It's not just the physical construction but the sound: with few exceptions, a flute stop sounds more like a diapason or even a string than it does any reed.
Second, I'm wondering about the blanket designation of the flute, string, and reed stops as imitative. It's true that diapason stops are never imitative, but the others aren't necessarily imitative either, despite the names of some of them. In many cases, I think it might be more accurate to say they're suggestive rather than strictly imitative. Rivertorch 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely *love* those suggestions! I was on the fence, when writing that section, as to whether or not I should designate the diapason/flute/string/hybrid stops as flues, to differentiate them from reeds. I thought the same thing you did -- since they're mentioned in other articles (flue pipe, reed pipe), I decided not to go into detail about them. But seeing what you wrote here, I think it may be a good idea to add links to those two articles as headings under which could be the subheadings for different classes of pipes. I think I'm going to go do that right now, as a matter of fact. Your second suggestion, about imitative quality, is something which -- while it has merit -- falls outside the scope of this article (in my opinion). That is something which belongs in the article about organ pipes in general (again, in my opinion). Now having said that, there definitely are string, flute, and reed stops which are more imitative than others -- case in point being that the "Orchestral Oboe" or "Viol d'Orchestre" are far more realistic than a standard "Hautbois" or "Viole" -- however, the degree to which any given stop is imitative is a matter of opinion...it's in the ear of the beholder, so to speak, and so is inherently a POV subject. As far as I can tell, all mainstream sources about the stop classes (Irwin, Audsley, etc.) make the distinction that diapason-class stops are "organ sound" (the one sound that is entirely unique to the pipe organ), while the other stop classes (flute, string, reed) are imitative of other instruments, to one degree or another. And again, that degree is in the ear of the beholder, so POV. So, I based my usage of the terms "imitative" and "non-imitative" strictly on the common, mainstream, long-standing and widely-accepted general definitions. Just my $0.02. Any thoughts? Piercetheorganist 03:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes you've made are worthwhile, I'd say. I've pored over Irwin (don't have a copy handy now) but didn't remember his description. "Imitative" is subjective, I guess, and you're right—it is in the ear of the beholder—although I'm not sure when I draw chimney flute whether I'm imitating a flute or a chimney. . . . Rivertorch 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications of stops 

message: Don't Worcester cathedral in the UK and the Spreckels organ in SD have true 64 foot stops. References: http://www.nazard.co.uk/organ.html#pitch and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreckels_Organ respectivly.
129.67.121.34 (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravissima is usually equivalent to Resultant: not a true 64' stop. Rivertorch (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 foot stops 

message: This section includes a typical organ stop list. Who are we trying to kid?. Find me your average (to slightly larger) 2-manual parish church organ with 5 Great reeds (including one en chamade), two pedal 32' including a Contra Bombarde, a Great 2' "Night Horn" and a VI, a Swell 1' Sifflet...
It looks like it has been taken out of a larger 4/5 manualled beast. Yes it is hypothetical, and shows examples of flues, reeds and mixtures, but "typical". Nada.
Perhaps we could list a real specification?—MDCollins 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Organ stop#Nomenclature]] 

message: belongs here 69.201.150.69 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you write a sentence or two and put it in? Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pull out all the stops 

message: Is this a shorthand for what are actually three stops one a four rank mixture, one a five rank mixture and one a six rank mixture?
Or is this one mixture stop, which uses, at different octaves say, either four, or five, or six ranks?
Contact Basemetal here 14:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the second; one mixture starting out at 4 ranks in the bass then progressing to 6 ranks further up. --Danmuz (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are we to understand IV-VI Mixture?