I find it personally frustrating that people don't understand about organs and I can't figure out how to help them understand. There is no instrument like it, so it's hard to offer comparisons (piano is probably most similar, but doesn't even come close). Part of the reason why Langley needs to do some of this work is because some people decided to cut corners at the start in an attempt to reduce costs. What they saved in the short-term they're now paying for in the long-term.
Pretty much everything I guess.
- Why most churches use them.
- Why some churches don't use them.
- Why some churches use other instruments.
- Why most churches don't use other instruments.
- What makes the organ "better" than other instruments.
- Why organs are so expensive, both initially and recurringly.
- Pipe organs versus digital organs.
- How pipe organs work and how each component has an effect on the whole scheme of things.
- The roles of instruments in the church and how to determine when the line has been crossed into performance.
- Why and whether instruments in the church should be improved versus spending the money on something else.
We could probably come up with an even longer list of people's viewpoints on each of these items. Some like organ, some don't. Some like piano, some don't. Some prefer one over the other, some don't care either way. Some want other instruments entirely, some are opposed. Some can tell the difference between different types of pianos, some can't. Some can tell the difference between pipe organs and digital organs, some can't.
There was a really good article in Reformed Music Journal a few years ago that addressed many of the above points. Not sure if I still have it though.
Well, I found one article from that journal. I somehow suspect that it's not the one that you're looking for though, although it deals with a fairly similar topic.
Not the article I was thinking of, but an interesting history lesson surrounded by a lot of extraneous fluff. The article I'm thinking of was very much to-the-point and applicable to modern day.
As for writing an essay, I wouldn't want to without the article, and if I can find the article I won't really need to.
I had a bit of a hard time following from the author's introductory statements to the conclusion. It seemed like there was a lot of anti-organ stuff, and then all of a sudden magically organs are good again.
From what I gathered, people were opposed to organs for some reason, until something changed and then everybody changed their minds. I couldn't figure out what the issue was or what exactly changed.
Not everyone... just the CanRC and those around it (aren't there some churches - from Scotland I think - that the CanRC considers sister churches that sing without accompaniment?). I personally would prefer singing without accompaniment over with organ alongside.
Yes, singing a cappella is always better than singing with a poor organist who plays too slow or with no vigour. Most of the Genevan tunes were meant to be played much faster than they are in many of our churches. Then we wonder why people hate them.
Comments
Scott
Sun, 2006-04-09 15:00
Permalink
I find it personally
I find it personally frustrating that people don't understand about organs and I can't figure out how to help them understand. There is no instrument like it, so it's hard to offer comparisons (piano is probably most similar, but doesn't even come close). Part of the reason why Langley needs to do some of this work is because some people decided to cut corners at the start in an attempt to reduce costs. What they saved in the short-term they're now paying for in the long-term.
David
Sun, 2006-04-09 15:34
Permalink
Dont understand what about
Dont understand what about organs?
Scott
Mon, 2006-04-10 16:16
Permalink
Pretty much everything I
Pretty much everything I guess.
- Why most churches use them.
- Why some churches don't use them.
- Why some churches use other instruments.
- Why most churches don't use other instruments.
- What makes the organ "better" than other instruments.
- Why organs are so expensive, both initially and recurringly.
- Pipe organs versus digital organs.
- How pipe organs work and how each component has an effect on the whole scheme of things.
- The roles of instruments in the church and how to determine when the line has been crossed into performance.
- Why and whether instruments in the church should be improved versus spending the money on something else.
We could probably come up with an even longer list of people's viewpoints on each of these items. Some like organ, some don't. Some like piano, some don't. Some prefer one over the other, some don't care either way. Some want other instruments entirely, some are opposed. Some can tell the difference between different types of pianos, some can't. Some can tell the difference between pipe organs and digital organs, some can't.
There was a really good article in Reformed Music Journal a few years ago that addressed many of the above points. Not sure if I still have it though.
David
Mon, 2006-04-10 17:22
Permalink
Would be interesting to
Would be interesting to share that article if you can find it. Alternately, I nominate you to write an essay on this.
David
Mon, 2006-04-10 21:10
Permalink
Well, I found one article
Well, I found one article from that journal. I somehow suspect that it's not the one that you're looking for though, although it deals with a fairly similar topic.
Scott
Tue, 2006-04-11 14:14
Permalink
Not the article I was
Not the article I was thinking of, but an interesting history lesson surrounded by a lot of extraneous fluff. The article I'm thinking of was very much to-the-point and applicable to modern day.
As for writing an essay, I wouldn't want to without the article, and if I can find the article I won't really need to.
David
Tue, 2006-04-11 17:31
Permalink
What did you think was
What did you think was fluffy?
Scott
Wed, 2006-04-12 14:09
Permalink
The whole thing pretty much.
The whole thing pretty much. Lots of words but not much is being said. Maybe I'm just biased against the author.
David
Wed, 2006-04-12 17:40
Permalink
I had a bit of a hard time
I had a bit of a hard time following from the author's introductory statements to the conclusion. It seemed like there was a lot of anti-organ stuff, and then all of a sudden magically organs are good again.
Scott
Wed, 2006-04-12 22:34
Permalink
From what I gathered, people
From what I gathered, people were opposed to organs for some reason, until something changed and then everybody changed their minds. I couldn't figure out what the issue was or what exactly changed.
David
Wed, 2006-04-12 23:43
Permalink
then everybody changed their
then everybody changed their minds
Not everyone... just the CanRC and those around it (aren't there some churches - from Scotland I think - that the CanRC considers sister churches that sing without accompaniment?). I personally would prefer singing without accompaniment over with organ alongside.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 2006-04-13 11:44
Permalink
A cappella
Yes, singing a cappella is always better than singing with a poor organist who plays too slow or with no vigour. Most of the Genevan tunes were meant to be played much faster than they are in many of our churches. Then we wonder why people hate them.
Scott
Thu, 2006-04-13 14:04
Permalink
Free Church of Scotland
Free Church of Scotland sings without accompaniment.
To each his own, but I hate singing without accompaniment because almost always the wrong starting note is picked.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 2006-04-13 14:30
Permalink
Free Church of Scotland
That's why in many Free Churches they have a precentor and/or a pitch pipe.
Sarennah
Tue, 2006-04-11 15:40
Permalink
You're right, it was very
You're right, it was very interesting reading! Thanks for sharing the links or I would probably never have seen it.