Pipes vs. electronics

[DellAnderson]

John pretty much summarized things pretty well. I don't recall having thrown my relatively pragmatic views into this discussion so here goes.

There really is nothing to discuss. Where money and space are no object, a pipe organ is really the only game worth playing. The uber-rich, large churches, and status-hungry concert halls MUST have a respectable pipe organ, the bigger the better. This is the law.

However, for the vast majority of venues still using multiple keyboards with a pedalboard, (smaller churches and private homes of people like you and I), the only sensible option is an electronic organ of some kind. And the primary criteria here seems to be how closely it emulates a large pipe-organ, both in sound and playability.

As a teenager, my practice instrument was a Baldwin and the church organ was a Hammond. Living in a small town, I did not know any better and thought these were just great (although I never cared much for the Hammond sound). The church mainly used the organ for Hymns and Gospel much to my organ teacher's dismay. Last two years of High School moved to a different school with what I recall to be an old Allen organ (I think it is still there). It was here that I was finally introduced to more Bach, Franck, Boellmann etc. I liked the Allen a lot more and this organ probably accounts for my current home organ. After many many years of absolutely no organ or organ playing, it is all I can do to keep from buying all the interesting Allen and Rodgers organs I find listed on Craig's list or Ebay. I seriously doubt I would consider equivalent size pipe organs for my home.

Personally, I am not really interested in churches or church music although I prefer the 'church' or concert style organ. Perhaps one reason churches are tight with money is the ongoing difficulty reconciling either the church/cathedral or the organ costs with the teachings of the church (this is not an invitation to move into religious discussion, it is simply an observation and personal opinion).

[Austin766]

I am all for OHS' agenda of "all pipes, all the time" but under the right coercion I might say a decent toaster, but having real pipes truly is worth the initial investment. Fine pianos are all well and good, but do nothing for congregational singing, not to mention the serious lack of variety in tone. I don't expect every country church to be as well equipped as Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, or St. Mustache, but a decent little Schantz, A-S or even (heaven help me,) a Wurlitzer (the piped kind) would still be much preferable to an electronic or no organ at all.

[Havoc]

Give me a bad pipe organ any day. It is much more interesting to play than an electronic. Maybe provocative, but the biggest problem is one of perception. In a small village church there is no possible use for a 50 rank organ, electronic or pipes. And a lot of organs sound "boring" not because they are small but because the organist has no idea of making music on them. (ok, some could use a bit of TLC by a good intonator)

I admit a small pipe organ is limited but that means that you have to fit your music to the organ because a small organ isn't flexible enough to fit itself to the music. And a lot of organists don't get that. It doesn't make sense to play the greatest works on them but there is more than enough music around than can be payed well on them. It is like trying to perform Bruckner with a quintet.

On the other hand I don't mind if those organs find a good home at someone who does care. I took one in because the new organist had to have an electronic organ. Never been as happy to kick out an electronic abomination and replace it by 5 ranks of pipes. The pedals hadn't been used for 30 years but after re-connecting a few things they just spoke as if nothing ever happened. Try that with your electronic one in 30 years time.

This is something that is never taken into account: if you spend a bit each year on your pipe organ it will still work in 100 years time just as good a now. Your electronic one will have to be replaced every 10 years or so. The problem is that the organ only get some attention when it breaks down completely and then the cost is high. But nobody put away all the money that should have been spend on maintenance and wasn't (or spend on some frills).

[nullogik]

This is something that is never taken into account: if you spend a bit each year on your pipe organ it will still work in 100 years time just as good a now. Your electronic one will have to be replaced every 10 years or so.

Granted, I agree that electronic organs aren't going to last anywhere near 100 years. But a new electronic organ every ten years or so is rather exaggerated, Havoc!

Our Allen TC-3S was replaced after 35 years of excellent service. People like Jbird and Arie will be able to tell you of many electronic organs that are still going strong 20, 30+ years later.

[Philip the organist]

Our Allen TC-3S was replaced after 35 years of excellent service. People like Jbird and Arie will be able to tell you of many electronic organs that are still going strong 20, 30+ years later.

Congrats nullogik! What did you end up getting?

[arie v]

Nullogik,

This idea of electronic organs having to be replaced in 10 years, usually comes from someone who despises electronic organs.

In my experience, electronic organs last at least 25 years, and many that I service are 30 or more years old. There is no reason why a decently built electronic instrument can't last even longer.

The reason these days why many older instruments are being replaced (that is IF they are being replaced at all) is two fold a) the new ones sound better, b) the new ones have MIDI.

I have come across the odd new install, where the previous 20 to 25 year old sounded better than the one that replaced it.

Regarding the new instruments, I doubt that they will last any longer than the older ones. I won't go into all the details why I think that here, as they have already been posted on the forum.

I will say that very few electronic or digital instruments will make it to 50 years of age, perhaps none will last 100 years. But then most things these days are not made to last that long.

AV

[jbird604]

I think Arie is spot-on about the life expectancies of digitals today. (I hope I'm using the "spot-on" Anglicism correctly...) The latest ones often sound better (when properly installed) and have many more features than the old ones, but are still subject to the effects of aging and wear and are not likely to last much longer than the tyical 30 - 40 years that we've come to expect from an electronic.

In my service area we see the occasional electronic organ that's well over 40 years old and still quite functional, but those are rare. That may be due to the fact that very few electronic organs were being sold around here before then, as most churches had Hammonds. There are a few tube-type Conn organs from the 50's still working, and a number of Allen and Rodgers analogs from the 60's. But all of those are really showing their age and I expect most of them to be retired pretty soon. Many of them are in churches that don't actually use them very much.

I'd say that in the 60's and 70's the major American makers (Allen and Rodgers at least) were building solid organs that they thought would serve a church for a generation. Consoles were generally sturdy, keyboards and pedalboards well-made, stop systems were similar to what pipe builders were using, and the electronic components were good quality. And many of those organs endure to this day, sounding about as good now as they did then. Which is to say "acceptable" if not wonderful. In a good acoustic setting with a competent installation and artistic voicing, many organs of that age are doing a grand job and still making people happy. But they are getting old, service calls are needed more frequently, consoles are showing their age, and the time will come when it will only make sense to replace them.

Serviced two organs today in adjoining cities. One a Rodgers from about 1970, the other a Rodgers from about 2000. Almost 30 years apart in age, but both still doing the job. The older one suffers more from the inevitable ravages of time -- corroding cable plugs, noisy and intermittent pots, deteriorating solder joints. The newer one seems to have a less hefty audio system and speakers that are probably more acoustically accurate but certainly more likely to fail as the foam-surrounds rot in the next few years. But both organs gave a pleasing sound and both are making a congregation happy.

Many of the "features" one finds in a modern organ such as MIDI and hugely expanded capture actions, built-in sequencers, etc., are useful in certain ways, but actually superfluous in playing "real" organ music. Often such trinkets can be something of a distraction rather than a benefit. IMHO, once you have at least two capture memories you have enough in the way of modern features unless you want to play non-standard organ sounds or orchestral sounds that require MIDI.

That's not to say that today's digitals are no better than the analogs of the 60's in simulating pipe sound, for indeed they are. Anyone can hear that difference even without a side-by-side comparison. Almost any digital sounds more like the real thing than almost any analog. But that doesn't mean a modern digital "does the job" any better. It's one thing for an organ to make you say "gee whiz" because the sound of a single note sounds so much like a pipe that you can't tell the difference. But it's quite another thing for that organ to fill a room with glorious sound that makes people want to sing. That will only happen if the installation is done right!

I love the Allen Renaissance (2003) that I get to play every Sunday, and I think it sounds better than the older Allen, Rodgers, Baldwin, and other organs we've had in the church. I find myself thinking "gee whiz" frequently when I hear something that sounds so much like pipes that it just catches me by surprise. But I thought the old analog organs we had in the past "did the job" when it came to filling the room and helping people sing, because all were installed with plentiful amplification and speakers in a fairly decent acoustical setting.

BTW, I'm on the side of "better a good digital than bad pipes" for thoroughly pragmatic reasons. I don't enjoy hearing or singing with a pipe organ that is out of tune, poorly regulated, unified to the hilt, or otherwise crippled as so many small ones are. So, in the ideal world I'd love to play a pipe organ on Sunday, but I'll stick with my nice digital for now because it's always in tune, is thoroughly reliable, has more tonal variety than any pipe organ in this county, and it does the job for us!

John

[indianajo]

My church, while biblically very correct in my opinion, is filled with people who detest anything classical, popular, or fast. I listen to "Pipe Dreams" radio program every Sunday morning for culture before going off to hear the same old 6 hymns sung again. Talk about beating a dead horse. I tell them when they ask me to sing in the choir, bad art is not a sin, it is just a disappointment. Needless to say, the church has a Rogers electronic organ plus a Roland keyboard. I love to hear properly maintained pipe organ, but I don't have the income to even think of refurbishing a local reject pipe organ.(they occur even in Kentuckiana). Nor am I willing to put up with the modern ideas about leadership of the denomination that really cherishes the pipe organ. So, I will have to make do with electronic organ. I just purchased my first and second electronic organs in November, 2009 and May, 2010. Both were forty years old, still operating, but were thin and lifeless due to bad capacitors. Having spent $200 on one, I fully expect this Hammond H182 to last until 2068 anyway. I used flim and ceramic capacitors, that have a lifetime that exceeds the time since they were invented. The bearings on the tonewheel generator are certainly good for 100 years. With a new motor at some point (forty years and still spinning) and maybe an occasional rectifier or power tube (still in production), a Hammond H should go to 2068 anyway, if anybody still cares to play one.

[theorganloft]

I read these answers and see that the debate about Pipes and Electronics carry on as they did back in the old days.

My opinion is that I like them all for what they do. My bend is toward Baptist Gospel Music in the African American church. The Hammond B3 with a dual set of Leslies rules here in my opinion. However, we have many Baptist churches that have Allens, Baldwins, Rodgers, Conns, and various Pipe Organs that also have a big place in the African American Baptist experience. These organs can also bring a congregation to it's feet.

I played organ in Catholic and other dominations too and enjoyed the experience of the different instruments.
I feel that some organists get caught in a certain niche and don't want to try new things. They seem to become an island on to themselves and other people get tired of listening to their same old routine.

At a Catholic Christmas midnight mass more than 20 years ago, I played an Allen Church Digital MOS like a theater organ and added my Gospel touch. I played melodies of all different Christmas standards. The congregation and the Priest loved it. I just let myself go and the Lord did not send a lightning bolt to stop me. So what if you add sequenced midi drums to the Toccata and Fugue in D minor during the communion. Did you enjoy yourself as you did it? If yes, and the people liked it, then you are an accomplished organist. The congregation likes change too. Jump from the pipes to the Hammond of the Midi Piano or set up a dual accompaniment. This is music to me.

All of these organs are great. Even the new sound and Midi modules. All of this just adds extra gravy to the organ experience.
Don't be a Fuddy-Duddy, Change step sometimes!

[whayes]

I'll interject my comments at the risk of beating the horse to death...

I grew up in a relatively small town and attended the largest church in town. We were fortunate to have a small 10-rank Kilgen unit pipe organ from around 1950 or so. My mother was Organist at my church from the mid-60's until recently retiring from her post there earlier this year. I remember growing up how much mom hated to play electronic instruments at other churches when asked to play somewhere else for someone's wedding or funeral or what not. But, during the 60's, 70's and even 80's electronics were not that good, in both her, and my opinion. I would have gladly taken that 10-rank Kilgen over an electronic from that era ANY DAY!

I studied organ while at the U of Alabama. My teachers and professors were avid proponents of the pipe organ, so I grew up being schooled in the old tradition that electronics were never good, and I, myself, was even a "pipe-organ" snob and would regularly snub the electronic instruments (and yes, to be perfectly honest, even the organists who played them).

However, in the mid-90's I began to change my thinking considerably. Having been able to travel and play some of the great pipe organs of the world, I am thrilled at the sheer variety and color of sound that a large pipe organ can make. I am fortunate now to be a member at Broadway Baptist Church in Ft Worth, Texas and get to hear the largest Casavant in the world (191 ranks, all pipe) in the world every Sunday. However, I realize that organs of those calibers aren't in the realm of possibility for most churches. As electronics have improved, I began to realize their potential.

One thing that was responsible for changing my way of thought was my interest in classical organ repertoire, and the need to have an organ of vast resources to render most of it successfully. Going back to the 10-rank unit organ at my hometown church, there's just no way to play Back or Franck, or most of the work of the Masters on it and render it in a sufficient manner. After learning to play at the U of Alabama on the wonderful 80-something rank Holtkamp tracker, somehow it just didn't compare when I would go home and try to play a piece at my home church on the unit Kilgen! Everyone wanted me to play at church when I would come home from college on the weekends or during the summer, but I hated to. I just couldn't get the sound out of that Kilgen that I wanted. Over the years mom had grown very tired of hearing the "same old sounds" out of that Kilgen for decades. There's only so much variety you can get out of a few principal and flute ranks, a pair of strings for a celeste, and one 8' reed (trumpet)!!

After playing several electronics from the 90's and beyond, I realized that most quality digital instruments sounded fantastic, and even small churches could realize the beauty and variety of sounds, and the ability to play music from all periods. Small church can't afford a million-dollar Schantz or five-million dollar Casavant, but they can more readily afford a digital instrument that will yield a sufficient variety of colors and the versatility of three or more manuals.

Today, I would take a three-manual, at least 50-or so rank digital instrument (which is what I have in my home) over a small pipe organ any day. I had considered purchasing a pipe instrument for my home a while back, and went back and forth with it for quite some time. But I kept going back to one thing, I knew I would grow tired of the lack of variety very, very quickly, just as I had with the Kilgen. So, here I am, with a digital instrument! And to think, I started out as probably one of THE most avid critizers of electronic instruments in my younger years.

As a side note, my home church, where my mom recently retired, recently decided to purchase a large, three-manual Quantum instrument from Allen and replace the aging 60-year old Kilgen organ. I couldn't be more thrilled for them. The Kilgen has been updated over the years, with the addition of a few ranks of pipes, new windchests, releathering, etc., but it's still showing it's age, and still has the same lack of variety and versatility as before. They explored many options, such as augmenting the pipes with some digital, or trying to add more pipes. The committee they put together was all in agreement that a pipe organ would be preferred, but the kind of organ they wanted was cost prohibitive at this point in time with the economy the way it is. I'm sure, in all churches (even in my large church here in Fort Worth) contributions are way down, and embarking on a several-hundred thousand dollar pipe organ project just wasn't feasible, but they desperately needed to do something about the organ. Even getting contributions for a $100,000 digital instrument was difficult, but they overcame the obstacles.

My point being, the new digital Allen will give them much more variety and should enhance the worship experience much more than anything else they would have been able to purchase. I can only wish that I can go back to my home church the day the new organ is first played. Many of those congregants will have never heard an instrument like that and I can only imagine the looks on their faces with a fiery hymn introduction played with a big trumpet and full principals and pedal sounds that will crack the plaster off the walls!

One other thing to consider is room acoustics. If the room is acoustically dead (as my home church is, and I mean, REALLY dead) and the church doesn't, for whatever reason, want to improve the acoustics (as my home church doesn't, they like all the carpet and thickly padded pew cushions), then the pipe organ will never sound it's best, no matter how many ranks it is, or how well it's voiced. However, with the advent of all the digital enhancements today and sampling of acoustical spaces and the like, the ambience of a grand space can be realized. So, again, in some cases, a digital intrument might actually be preferred because of the ability to "virtually" improve the acoustics.