Talk:Pipe organ/Archive 1

message: Hi, I enjoyed the article, and think it's quite interesting and all, but there seems to be something missing. I have no idea what a stop is or how it works. The article seems to assume everyone already knows this. Did I miss something? GBMorris 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_stop Barnabypage 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentioned above is linked to at the first mention of the word 'stop' in the article, and several times afterwards. However, if you feel it isn't so clear in one place, feel free to make a link to Organ stop at that point. Madder 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So What Exactly Is a Stop?

message: There seems to be quite a lot to do on the articles concerning pipe organs, and I have made a start. But one thing is the multiple and in some cases misleading articles asking for attention - cleanup, merge, attention - that currently "decorate" the articles.
I considered setting up a Wikiproject:Pipe organ, but I'm not prepared to give it any sort of longterm commitment so I've decided not to (anyone else can and welcome), and it didn't solve the problem of, for example, the inappropriate merge notices. So instead I've set up a special talk page at talk:pipe organ/refactor. This is intended to last only until the job is done; That is, until the articles are put into some reasonable shape. They will never be perfect (that's a basic Wikipedia article of faith!) but there will come a time at which the refactor project will be over as such. See talk:pipe organ/refactor for more details. Andrewa 17:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Pipe organ has now been proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Pipe Organ Mdcollins1984 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor project

message: "The Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach wrote extensively for the pipe organ and other keyboard instruments."
Wouldn't it be better to have something like this? "Many notable composers, including Johann Sebastian Bach and César Franck, have written considerable amounts of music for the pipe organ." 
:I added a bit to the opening.  Good suggestion. Antandrus 04:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another excellent idea.  We could use an article on the organ literature, perhaps with a list of composers included (or separate).  I don't think we have one yet (anyway I've been writing lots of articles on the individual composers, Scheidemann, Sweelinck, Scheidt, Schlick, all those German guys). Antandrus 04:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organ composers 

message: I realise this article needs to avoid being too long, but the description of the different divisions of the organ is only common in the English-speaking world (UK/US etc).
I particularly blanch at this bald statement "Organ departments can include Choir, Great, Swell, Solo, Fanfare, Echo and Pedal."
J.S. Bach  never played upon a  Swell manual in his life. In a German organ, the common names for divisions include Hauptwerk (equivalent to Great), Brüstwerk, Oberwerk, Schwellwerk (in a swell box).  A French organ might have Grand Orgue, Positif, Récit, Bombarde.  There are numerous variations in other countries as well, but these three (English, French and German) are the major traditions of organ-building. Of course, by the late 20th century these lines have become seriously blurred (for example, the town hall organ in Christchurch NZ has Hauptwerk and Schwellwerk manuals - not surprising since the company that built it is Austrian - but it is well-suited to music from the French romantic era, eg Franck)
I've amended this statement to include the common German and French names. It would be nice to describe what some of these names mean (eg Rückpositiv is called that because it is sited at the organist's back, the Brüstwerk is directly in front of them, the Oberwerk is on top of (over) the Hauptwerk - all this traditionally anyway), but this is probably left to specialist or more extensive sites unless someone is willing to write a lot.
:Goog point, user:210.55.230.21, and a good start on correcting it. Ideally, we should have details of various styles of organ, both current and historic... although in organ building, there's a delightful sense in which all historic designs are current, you never know when someone will build a new one! Andrewa 16:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of organ divisions is English-centric 

message: The caption to Dolci's Saint Cecilia painting claims that she is playing a portative organ, but this appears to be incorrect. It looks far too big, and she plays it with both hands, indicating that the bellows are not hand-operated. This contradicts my idea of a portative organ, but I might be wrong. EldKatt 16:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolci painting caption 

message: It's way under standard. 
*Does anyone object if I post a clean-up notice at the top? 
*The lead needs to be longer, to give the reader a sense of the rich and long history, and the cultural and specifically musical significance of the organ. 
Tony 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs serious work 

message: I'd be interested.  I have created one or two articles in the pipe organ category (e.g. Peter Hurford, Gillian Weir (in dire need of expansion), Peter Collins (organ builder), Mander Organs, International Organ Festival, Henry Willis & Sons, Harrison & Harrison).  I've looked for existing content on these and not found it, but there may well be duplication.  It would be good to colelct together the things needing doing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a Wikiproject? 

message: I added a couple photos of the organ at St. Raphael's Cathedral, Dubuque, Iowa that I had taken last year.  The organ at the church is fairly modern, having been installed in the early 1990's.  I think it was a smart move of them to use an open design because you can actually see the various parts of the organ instead of them being hidden behind a case.
JesseG 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: the pipe organ also enhances the mass in the catholic church with its rich gothic sound and deep pedal actions. the sound that the pipe gives off in the mass can make spiritually bankrupt catholic get a feeling like no other instrument can give. to play this instrument most people consider organist to be crazy due to the fact that the leg is playing the pedals the same time the fingers are playing the keyboard. -User:63.245.119.144
Quite right to remove this for its presentation, but I think most of the sentiments in it should be incorporated here... :)  I refer to the organ's role in churches (not just its presence), its majesty, and the perceived difficulty of playing it.-Sesquialtera II 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv of 63.245.119.144 

message: Does anybody else think that the Case/Chamber subsection seems more like a Facade subsection.  (also, is the preferred spelling façade?)
Should we maybe call the section Case and Facade or have two separate subsections?  What's the concensus?  Also the blower is mentioned as a main component of the organ, but I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere in the Construction section.  Maybe a Winding System subsection would be in order? --W0lfie 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I have a photo I took of a blower, but it's not very high quality.  There should be some PD photos from L'art du Facteur d'Orgues of manual bellows.  I might be able to even get some good pictures of reservoirs etc.  But it may take some time. --W0lfie 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed some of these concerns... I renamed the Case/Chamber section Enclosures, and would appreciate it if someone would fill it in. It really deserves a separate article; see the chapter in the Cambridge Companion to the Organ on the organ case. The section in this article could use more information on chambers and their use versus a freestanding case (and maybe a little bit on the "caseless" designs of the Neo-baroque era). And regarding the fac/çade question, I vote for "façade," since the word is derived from the French (to my knowledge). —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case versus Facade?  

message: It looks as though this page came from one of the Dutch Wikipedians to better mirror the Dutch Wikipedia.  Seeing as we have a separate article for theatre organ, I see no reason to merge church organ.  Instead, I'd like to see if we could flesh it out a little bit, emphasizing the things that make it different from other organs.  Also, how do we add one of those links that says "Main article:"?  We should do that with Theatre Organ and Church Organ.  Does anybody want to take a crack at a concert organ article, while we're at it? --W0lfie 19:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the merge Pipe organ/Church organ tags as there is no consensus to merge. --Ezeu 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Church organ]] merge 

message: I have completed a complete revision of the Construction section of this article; I will tackle other sections next. I would appreciate it if someone with more thorough knowledge of stop mechanisms and key actions would clean up the Stop mechanisms section and add a section on key actions. I have linked to articles on actions and wind systems which have yet to be written. These articles are necessary, as it would be impossible to delve into such areas as the Kastenbalg and the Pitman chest within this article, for example. Let's all work together to make this article one worthy of the King of Instruments. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 05:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, Cor! I will take a look at it this weekend and see if I can add anything.  I'm thinking I should be able to crank out decent stubs for those redlinks.  :-)  --W0lfie 15:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction revision

message: I was appreciating the recent changes by User:Melos Antropon when I noticed the bit about Twelfth vs. Nazard.  Is that a commonly accepted fact?  Does a source need to be cited?  I was under the impression that Nazard is always a flute stop, but Twelfth or Quint(e) is used if it is a Diapason rank.  Does anybody have a source agreeing with Melos?  Here are my sources:  and .  The encyclopedia uses words like "more properly" and "usually," so perhaps my conviction is unfounded. --W0lfie 15:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to have a source for that, as I don't believe I've run across a principal-scaled Nasard. I wouldn't put it past some well-meaning organ builder to name it improperly, though. I would trust what http://www.organstops.org says; i.e. most likely Nasard is meant to refer exclusively to flute pipes and Twelfth and Quint(e) to thinner-scale pipes. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 17:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed? 

message: I just moved the picture of the Bristol Cathedral organ from the bottom of the page to the top. I think that picture is a better representation of a "typical" organ (if one could say such a thing about the organ) than the Casavant picture. I'd like to get a really great picture of an ornate German Baroque organ to put at the top; I think that would look really spiffy. We could intersperse the other photos throughout the page, on both the left and the right sides. The organ from Taiwan looks really intriguing and is very unique, but does its picture belong on a general article about the organ? The majority of organs look nothing like it. Opinions, anyone? —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 05:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the Taiwan picture because it is not common. Should it be pointed out in the caption that it is unusual? or is that too POV? Maybe it could go down in the "Enclosure" article as an example of facades. (that would also help address your layout suggestion.) You asked for a German Baroque organ photo. I have just such a photo that my father-in-law took.  I will email him for permission to use it.  The Commons has a few photos that might do, too.  (how do you link to the Commons?)  --W0lfie 19:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Please see my entry under the same name at the Talk:organ (music) page regarding how to clean up the situation with all these organ-related articles floating around. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 13:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about all this? 

message: The Pipe organ article refers more than once to 'see main article at...'. These articles do not exist. Have they ever? If not, then the links should be removed until such articles are created. Mdcollins1984 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main articles on Wind/Action etc 

message: Sorry if there's already been a discussion on the "Pipeless Organs" subsection, but I didn't see one.  It seems to me that this subsection shouldn't be included in an article about pipe organs.  If need be, we can move the info to the Electronic organ article.  It would be appropriate to mention pipeless organs, but only in the context of pipe organs.  Maybe something about how their invention assisted the adoption of pipeless/digital ranks into some pipe organs.  The Rodgers blended organ at Second Baptist, Houston, TX comes to mind, but there are others.  What do you guys think? --W0lfie 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the technical detail about amplification - a couple of sentences - I think the section is mostly germane to a pipe-organs article, as it's talking about pipeless instruments in the context of pipe organs (threat to/comparative quality of/merging of technologies in some instruments, etc.). Barnabypage 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree there should be "some" mention of "pipeless" organs (electronic, reed, etc.) here.  However, the section should be brief, as the main emphasis of the article IS pipe organs.  Any further amplification should be referred to their respective articles. Erzahler 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipeless organ subsection 

message: Metal flues are usually made of varying mixtures of lead and tin, depending on the requirements sought for that particular pipe: a predominance of lead tends to darken the tone, a predominance of tin tends to brighten it); the best weight to strength ratio is about 60% tin-40% lead); high amounts of tin can give a gleaming, long-lasting polish; tin is more expensive than lead so cost may be a factor; pure lead or tin are both too soft to be used.
This paragraph is somewhat awkward, throwing facts at you in random order and poor structure.
The usual exception to tin-lead alloys is in the very lowest pipes in a rank, which are sometimes made of rolled zinc. However pipes have been made of many metals, including gold, silver, aluminum, brass, copper, and iron, as well as glass, porcelain, and plastic. Wood flues usually have the foot, cap, block and mouthpiece made of hardwood, whereas the walls of the pipe may be made of hardwood or of coniferous woods.
''
I'm afraid I got to "Pitch and lengths of pipes", copyediting as I went - because there were rather a lot of rather awkward phrasings, if less than the one marked - and then saw I still had half the article left, and stopped. I think that the copyeditin g needs finished before this article can reach GA. I'll try to help, but I'm probably disqualifying myself as a GA reviewer. Adam Cuerden talk 10:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Still working on it. Have also copyedited the above, simplifying lots of the science. I'll keep going! Mdcollins1984 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Fail
:2. Factually accurate? Fail
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? OK
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
* lead section doesn't comply with the requirements. - rewritten.
* The organ, along with the harp, the drum, and the recorder, is one of the oldest instruments still in use. needs sourcing, for there are other instruments in the non-western world that were probably older and are still in use.
* Its repertoire is also the largest of any musical instrument. too needs a reference as it is not common knowledge to know such a fact.
* though there is no evidence that the European organ came by way of Spain. is brought into the article without explanation of the reasons for thinking such.
* When organ builders began building historically-inspired instruments, they returned to mechanical key action to regain the subtle, nuanced control it gives the performer. should be cited for readers who know very little about organs.
* This Due to the benefits of modern technology, modern mechanical actions are often much lighter and require less effort to play than do some historical mechanical actions. needs to be cited for it could be interpreted as pov, or preference.
* These digital organs are by far the most realistic imitation of the true pipe organ sound, though still merely an imitation. needs real accounts that state such facts thus inline citing.
* Make sure taht the inline citations come after punctuation.
* I think Despite the lower cost of electric and digital pipeless organs (as compared with the cost of a pipe organ), interest in pipe organs and mechanical actions for pipe organs has continued. Historic organs are still being rebuilt and refurbished, and new instruments with both mechanical and electric actions are being built. is trivial information and doesn't significantly add to the article.
* though these styles are much less common than knobs and tabs., says who, a citation would clear that up.
* The article needs more wikilinks.
* Many other instances of near-pov, near-OR material should be inline cited in order to comply with the GA status.
This article is a well-written article though it lacks, lead-wise and citation-wise and will remain on hold until such have been addressed. Good luck, Lincher 01:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed many of the above. Maybe somebody else should have a go at editing it, incase things are escaping my eye. Mdcollins1984 10:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lincher, you say "Well written? Fail", yet later on you say "This article is a well-written article". Which one do you believe? Personally I believe this a well-written article, I hope you do too. Cheers, Madder 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That criterion covers more than just the quality of the prose. An article could be well-written in one context but not follow all the conventions of Wikipedia writing. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: The article was partly rewritten taking into consideration the aforementioned comments, it now passes all of GA's requirements. 
As for the above comment about the failing the well-written criterion, it was pertaining to the lead section part (criterion 1b). Lincher 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: The user 66.169.22.233 made a lot of changes to this article today. They look OK to me, but given that it wasn't a registered user making so many changes to the article, I think it would be wise if someone who knows a bit more about organs than me had another look through the changes made just to check that they are OK, because some of them look quite drastic and significant. Cheers, Madder 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. There seems to be quite a lot of good material removed and some rather poor English introduced (along with some interesting points). I don't have time to go through it today but I'll try to lock the article and fix it during the first half of the week if no-one else has! Barnabypage 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started going through it now - a lot of the added text is POV anyway, and very unreferenced.  I am going through them edit by edit so as not to need complete rv which may be unfair and against good faith. Mdcollins1984 17:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Completed my check/re-edit/reversion of the article. Some of the added material was perfectly valid if a little poorly written, some of which I have therefore re-worded.  I have removed some material particularly from the Organ music passage that was in completely the wrong place or irrelavent.  Also I have reverted the POV rant on Fake organs, prefering the small paragraph detailing that pipeless organs do exist, but are detailed elsewhere.  I have tried to assume Good Faith and have therefore tried to incorporate some of the information I felt could belong here.
I couldn't see how much has been removed, perhaps Barnabypage might notice some of that...
Hope this sorts some of the issues out. 
Mdcollins1984 00:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work Mdcollins1984 - I'll have a look through your revisions, as I'm sure many others will, but thanks for getting into it in so much detail so quickly. Barnabypage 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks really good, thanks :-) Madder 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by 66.169.22.233 

message: I removed this from one of User:66.169.22.233 long edits as it was unreferenced, and in the wrong place in the article. A quick google search produced this article arguing that the story was fictional anyway. *
:: The Western Religious use in earnest of the Organ for religious purposes began around 900 AD when the Sultan of Turkey sent an Organ as a diplomatic gift to Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne. Charlemagne's Court was thrilled with this pipe organ. However, it eventually broke down and there was no one to repair it. Charlemagne sent a letter to the Sultan requesting that he send an Organ builder to repair the instrument. One was sent who stayed on at the Court. Charlemagne then proclaimed by Law that all Christian Churches in his kingdom should have pipe organs and thus the tradition and religious association of the Organ with Churches---in modern times to the detriment of the instrument.
Mdcollins1984 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Charlemagne story - fictional 

message: For some reason two members of the Auditorium Organ authors keep deleting a reference to the other 64' stop in Sydney town hall, which has been restored more than once. There has been no explanation for this, hence the reverts.
Also the Auditorium Organ is a relatively new article, which is fine, it is quite good although unreferenced, but I don't think that it should be under that title. Does anyone else feel that it seems like a type of organ (like Theatre organ, Church organ) rather than a specific one. I have proposed on that talk page that it is moved to Boardwalk Hall Organ or even Atlantic City organ, as, for as far as I can tell, the only reason that it is called Auditorium organ is that it is in the Main Auditorium of the centre. It seems daft!
Any views?
Mdcollins1984 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All issues now addressed and resolved. Mdcollins1984 09:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  64' stop reversions and [[Auditorium Organ]] 

message: The article speaks of electric (Early Hammond Instruments) and electronic instruments (Rodgers, et al) as "fakes."  I believe this term is somewhat prejudicial.  It is certainly correct that these instruments are not pipe organs.  However, they never claimed to be so the term "fake" seems to suggest that some sort of false promise was presented to the buyer/listener.  Webster defines "fake" as "Having a false or misleading purpose...a thing that is not genuine or authentic; a sham; a counterfeit."
To me the use of that term suggests that the makers of these instruments are somehow trying to provide second-rate goods as if they were the real thing, just as a "fake" Rolex attempts to fool the buyer into beleiving it is the "real thing."
I believe a better term, at least for the majority of electronic instruments, might be "imitative."  In most cases, they do attempt to imitate the sounds of organ pipes.  There might also be considered a classification along the lines of "Home Entertainment Instruments" which are more likely to imitate band instruments rather than pipes.
On a second issue, the article does not discuss (perhaps intentionally) the creation of hybrid instruments which include both air-blown pipes and electronically created sounds, most often to supplement the pipes by providing pitches requiring larger pipes that might not fit in the space available or alternatively to lower the cost of an instrument.  While these are not truly "common" they are not uncommon either and do represent a continuation of the evolution of the original instruments.  If someone is interested, I would be happy to provide some appropriate verbiage as a starting point for further discussion and debate.
If anyone should be interested, my background includes both pipe and electronic design and several years working with Virgil Fox during the height of his fame.
Wood Artist 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that comment. I agree that they should not be referred as 'fakes' - all the references were added by a 'vandal' a couple of weeks back and I thought I removed them all.  I think that they are all contained in the Popular Music section, so I have removed it to this page awaiting some cleanup.  I actually thought that electronic stops were mentioned somewhere under the 20th century section but I haven't checked. Feel free to add something in somewhere.
Mdcollins1984 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reverted this paragraph to Nov 4th, to remove references to 'fakes'. If anyone want so expanded further it can now be done. Also 'hybrid instruments' are mentioned in Pipe organ#Pipeless organs in the history and development section. Mdcollins1984 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more proper term for electronic/electric instruments and consideration of hybrid instruments 

message: The pipe organ is a musical (keyboard) instrument that produces sound by admitting air under pressure through a fipple mechanism of a whistle and/or through one or more reeds incorporated into pipes.
"through a fipple mechanism of a whistle"? "reeds incorporated into pipes"?
Would it better to simply say "by admitting [pressurized] air through pipes" with a link to organ pipes, and later explaining the difference between flues and reeds and how the sound itself is produced?
-- Matthew (SuperOctave) - 22 November, 2006
:I agree. I have thought for a while that the opening part of the article is a bit too complicated.  The fipple can then be mentioned under 'construction'. Mdcollins1984 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: More to come as I have time...
I suggest that the following is changed:
The pumps and water regulator of the hydraulic powered instrument was being replaced by bellows in the 2nd Century AD.[8]
to
The pumps and water regulators of the hydraulis were replaced by bellows in the 2nd Century AD. [8]
---
This is one of the greatest developments to playing aids available to an organist, because it allows him to set piston combinations or a sequencer for each individual piece or occasion, purely by the computer 'memorising' combinations drawn at the console. 
to
This is one of the greatest modern developments to the organ, as it allows the organist to set piston combinations or a sequencer for each individual piece or occasion, simply by the computer storing combinations drawn at the console.
---
Midi recording systems can also be installed that can replay what an organist has played, or allow files of these recordings to be downloaded onto a computer to be converted into sheet music.
to
Another development to the organ is a/the Midi (link to MIDI) recording system, which can record and replay what an organist has played, and even download files of these recordings onto a computer [to be converted into sheet music].
---
Although they cannot yet completely recreate the full sound of a pipe organ, and they are not being marketed as pipe organ replacements, they serve a major purpose of being viable options to many churches due to the lower costs involved, the lack of maintenance required and the considerable space necessary for a substantial pipe organ.
to
Although the full sound of a pipe organ cannot yet be completely recreated, they are a viable option to many churches and other organizations, due to the lower costs involved, the lack of maintenance required, and the considerable space necessary for a substantial pipe organ.
-----
Developments in the computer industry began to be incorporated into pipe organs using the techniques developed for pipeless organs (see below), incorporating them as "digital" components into real pipe organs. This had many advantages including a large reduction in the amount of wires and cabling involved in an electronic action and the allowance of better combination capture systems.
Although the reduction of wires and cabling in an electronic action IS indeed an advantage to modern action systems, is that specific advantage worth mentioning? Would it be better to say that modern actions are much more simple in concept than older systems, and not mention the specifics, such as the amount of wires required?
In the mid-20th century, churches and other institutions began increasingly substituting electronic organs without pipes (such as the Hammond organ) for pipe organs due to the electronic substitutes' cheaper initial cost.
Is the Hammond organ a good example for this? I believe a better example would be an Allen or Rodgers, as Hammonds are not really pipe organ substitutes.
Most organ builders and pipe organ players agree, however, that digital 32' ranks are less acceptable than digital upper work.
"Upper work" is a term common in the "organ world," but would it be understandable by someone who does not play the organ?
---
- Matthew (SuperOctave) 24 November 2006
:Thanks for running this via the talk page. I see no problem with it. Feel free to go ahead. Mdcollins1984 11:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Suggestions