Talk:Organ (music)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"pipe" organ

Even though this was recently refactored, I think this article needs a lot of work. Just to give a few examples, Bach's name is never mentioned and frequency divider organs get as much coverage as "pipe" organs. Also, many organists find calling an organ a "pipe organ" to be redundant, as usually an organ is considered to be an instrument with pipes (e.g. answers.com), and if it is otherwise, then the specific type of organ is mentioned. In general, a lot more material about the organ and its music should be provided - right now the page seems in limbo between a disambiguation page and having actual content. Yes, redundancy is tedious, but it's easily avoided with summarizing instead of copying. -Sesquialtera II 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this conversation, and I have no real standing since I've never played any type of organ myself. But my Dad is/was/has been both an organist and an organ builder, rabidly enthusiastic as long as I've known him, and I've always heard him refer to a "pipe organ" specifically as such. An "organ" could refer to a hand-pumped four-rank tracker, a 150-rank, pneumatically-actuated, multiple-blower church instrument, an electronic theater instrument or a jazz band's two-manual Hammond (with Leslie speakers of course!). He loves all these types of instruments equally and calls them all "organs", using the phrase "pipe organ" when that's what he means. My dad has been classically trained since age 9 (he'll be 76 in August 2007) and he's very happy to acknowledge that the majority of "organs" today are electronic.

Am I missing something? Is maybe the word "pipe" assumed only in certain circles? Middlenamefrank 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If it 'aint got pipes, it 'aint an organ. It's a computer pretending.

external links (and references)

The "External links" section of this page presents a somewhat thorny problem. While the rest of the article is basically an information-rich disambiguation page, it settles into that role just fine; but external links tend to treat just one type of organ, whether it be pipe, theatre, or electronic. So, perhaps the optimal solution will be to select two or three of the best links for each topic (rather difficult and prone to argument) and include only those (instead of trying to find sites that cover all the kinds of organs that this page does). I suspect the same will hold true for references. -Sesquialtera II 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have to say a quick glance after my last added external link made me notice that the whole section does not even fit my screen anymore (ahm, my fault too. Sorry.). Seems too much to me. Right, to me, there's three ways of dealing with it: Choosing the best links of them all (difficult!), leave it as it is (somewhat unaesthetic) or pull together the most important information we link to. Now, I'm new, so - someone tell me what to do or think, please? Misuro (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Keyboard or Wind Instrument?

Grove's Dictionary of Music defines an organ as a wind instrument, as do most other dictionaries, including Wiktionary.

The problem lies in that this article also encompasses the Electronic Organ.

How to reconcile this? Dsinden 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would think the short solution to this is to author a general article on keyboard instruments, in which could be added brief entries on pipe organ, electronic organ, reed organ, synthesizer, harpsichord, etc. What is your opinion? Erzahler 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

These definitional issues are only sticky if a purist approach is taken. While strictly speaking, the organ might be thought to be a wind instrument, just as the piano is thought to be a percussion instrument, they are in reality both better understood as keyboard instruments. No composer or musician is going to think of the organ in the context of wind instruments, since it doesn't have the possibilities for expressive control available with these instruments. I believe that the organ as a wind instrument is worth a passing mention at some point but should not be given prominence.

We do have an article keyboard instrument which is in need of a careful rewrite. The list of keyboard instruments is unhelpful in its present form since many of them are either novelties or historical curiosities. Yet, the rather richer and more relevant story of the development of the keyboard historically, and the relative importance of various instruments and their repertoire over time, is not told.

• I see what you mean. I just looked at that article, and I agree it is in desperate need of attention! Erzahler 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What to do about all this?

Regarding the articles at organ (music) and pipe organ, etc.: I propose that all the information from organ (music) be moved to respective articles on church organs, theater organs, electronic organs, etc. Seeing that this page is currently a glorified disambiguation page, the organ disambiguation page would be updated with links to all these articles. Then pipe organ would be moved to organ (music). It could still contain smaller links to the church organ, etc. Thoughts on implementing some or all of this, anyone? —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 13:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting idea. The general pipe organ article is quite massive and might be intimidating to someone who wants to read it. Perhaps it would be better to move the appropriate sections to their respective articles. Maybe we should consider a general article on pipe organs with specific issues (church organs, theatre organs, etc.) written as sub articles with their own pages. Erzahler 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• (sorry to be so late in commenting on this.) I think the organ (music) article is more than a disambiguation page. Although I shudder at the thought of calling a Hammond B3 an organ, I realize that most people think of it that way, as a member of the organ family. I think the article is a nice way of presenting the basic types of organs and their historical and current uses. Considering that some people (including musicians) don't even know that there is a difference between the Schantz they hear at church and the Hammond they hear at a jazz concert are fundamentally different, I think it's important to put the two in clear distinction like this. The juxtaposition is simply something we cannot achieve through the use of separate articles, and this amount of detail is something that does not normally fit on a disambiguation page. I realize there is quite a bit of duplication of information, but I feel it is warranted to help get a sense of context. --W0lfie 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I recently posted merge notices on Church organ, and Organ (music) without checking previous discussions. My suggestion would be to move the small artices, such as Church organ into Organ (music), unless they are substantial articles (like Pipe organ which should be outlined and linked to from Organ (music). Mdcollins1984 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Separated articles for each kind of subjects about organ ? My opinion :

If you read French and if you go to the French wikipedia, you'll see that each article about organ are separated. Since I began to contribute to these articles (I entirely wrote the article about digital organs), I considered that the good way was to separate each theme. Not only to avoid confusion or too huge article (you have very long articles about important theme), but over all to have a more "natural" classification between each theme.

Even the "pipe organ" article and the "organ (music)" article should (would) be divided in more sub-theme. The reason is simple : wikipedia is growing and getting richness. Today, articles are little, because they are beginning. What about this in the next five or ten years ?

I think that the better way to build an article for Wikipedia is to begin with a map of the article (note that some articles are only maps and it is a very good idea). Once you have the map, each wiki-contributor can fill the void cases and obviously enhance, improve, correct...

Anyway, we must keep the "pipe organ" entry because the word "organ" is very ambiguous (with "body organ"). In French, we have not this problem : pipe organ is said "orgue" and body organ is said "organe" so, we do not have homonyms.

Don’t forget that we have the very useful link assembler that is "category". And Category:organ already exists. I agree that the better way is to "explode" organ (music) page and after…

we have choice to :

• create a new disambiguation page only for separate each kind of organ…
• or include each kind in the "organ" disambiguation page

another problem

As you can see, the "The Casavant pipe organ at Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica, Montreal." photography is empty. I do not know if it is a copyright problem, but the empty frame appears on more than one page. I think it is better to exchange this image with another pipe organ photography. In Wikipedia commons we have a huge number of kind organ photos. Sonusfaber 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

on the term "organ builder"

Google returns nearly 100,000 results for the phrase "organ builder." It seems to be the article's contention that organ builder is the correct term for someone who builds organ and -- as the article notes -- maintains them. This is not the case for some who, for example, builds chairs. One would not expect a "chair builder" to necessarily be involved in chair maintenance.

Organ builders by and large do seem to be involved in organ maintenance, especially ongoing maintenance of the instruments they have built. Perhaps this is part of the building process? But, who is brave enough to start the organ builder article? And does this term really need to be mentioned in Organ (music)? Perhaps it should be moved to Pipe organ? Dsinden 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Organ Chording in Pop Music

Based upon Al Kooper's involvment with Bob Dylan's electrified sound (as the Scorsese documentary points out "it revolutionized rock and roll") perhaps a section about the organ's prominence in 60's music and, most importantly, a section with some music theory behind it (as it is much different than traditional piano or any other keyed instrument). I could help with this section, as most of the time, an organ uses an inverted chord rather than the one being played by the rest of the musicians. Just a thought. :-) Mumpsy 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

chamber organ

This term redirects here, but I don't see an explanation of it. What is it? Rigadoun (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A chamber organ is a small pipe organ, often with only one manual, and sometimes without separate pedal pipes, that is placed in a small room, one that this diminutive organ fills with sound. It is often confined to chamber organ repertoire, as often, the organs have too little voice capabilities to rival the grand pipe organs in the performance of the classics. The sound and touch are unique unto the instrument, sounding nothing like a large organ with few stops drawn out, and feeling much more intimate. They are usually tracker instruments, although the modern builders are often building electropneumatic chamber organs. I hope I am of service.24.161.53.152 (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a thoughtful answer, but there's an element of OR in deciding whether 'chamber organ repertoire' is music written for an organ constructed for a room or chamber music for organ: are the four instruments in the Salzburg Cathedral chamber organs or church organs? Installed instruments that are deliberately voiced softly are usually called practice or house organs (though Mander uses both "chamber" and "house"), while "continuo organ" is widely understood to mean a Positive organ that can be taken along on gigs. I looked at one of the pages that links to chamber organ, Stephen Bicknell. That instrument is described as "a one-manual chamber organ for the quire at Carlisle Cathedral" which makes it hard to guess whether a positive organ or a choir organ/orgue de choeur is meant. It doesnt seem particularly useful to discuss a barely definable type in its own section of this article, and probably positive organ is a better redirect than here in most cases. Sparafucil (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article quality

I came to this article knowing very little about organs (I edit mostly law articles, being a barrister). I do not think the article, as it stands, really meets wikipedia quality standards. Some of the writing style is rather unfortunate or confusing. Two specific points:

• Reference is made to a 'sonic foot' but the definition that follows (if that is what it is) is wholly inadequate and confused. I have no idea what is being referred to. If there is a separate unit of measurement (the sonic foot) it really deserves its own article and a cross-reference with brief explanation here. Perhaps some musician could help.
• The explanation of 'unification' is similarly hard to follow and the word 'diapason' is used without explanation. Again work is needed here. Francis Davey (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A diapason is a type of pipe, also known as a principal. They come in two types: open and stopped. The stopped diapason is really a soft flute, while the open diapason is a proper principal. They're sometimes referred to as "principle flutes"

sample video libre

There needs to be some sample videos libre showing an organist playing at the console. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Early organs

An unregistered account editor replaced part of the the lead:
All organs are descended from the pipe organ
with:
"Early organs have preceded into the formation of a “pipe organ”. However, in this article, these early history had been unnaturally split up into other articles. For details of the early history of organs, please check the list below." etc...
which seems backwards to me; the listed instruments of course use pipes, and are all defined as types of pipe organ. Or has a eurocentric bias been introduced into that article by defining it as a keyed (as opposed to levered/slidered) instrument? The easter egg link to Banū Mūsā is a type of Barrel organ, which draws attention to another parallel article that may call for merging. Sparafucil (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The same person (I think) has answered (inside a fact tag):

At first, you should introduce the definition of organ. Without it, your description has some ambiguousness. BTW: Your implicit definition seems to be such like a "organs (described in this article) must be limited to keyed instruments derived from European pipe organ". But, such a definition is a kind of circular definition or dogma.

The fact tag (is this really useful, Jaksmata?) suggests that the problem is with "pipe organ" (not defined as European) when there may be an objection to "keyboard" in the first sentence instead. Grove gets around this by referring to the early lever systems as "keys" not necessarily played with the fingers. One could regard the slider system as just another variation. So what instruments are left out now? Sparafucil (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For information on fact tags, look here. The fact tag is meant to solicit external sources to collaborate what has been said. It is not meant to critique the structure or progression of the article prose, which is why I deleted the commentary on that subject, which belongs here on the talk page.

The fact that is disputed is "All organs are descended from the pipe organ" - frankly, a ridiculous proposition. I do not believe that all organs are descended from the pipe organ, and I think the whole statement should be deleted unless someone provides a reliable source saying that they do.

The reason I believe that not all organs descend from the pipe organ is this: If that were true, than the Pipe organ would be the first organ ever invented, but there's a section on "Early organs" which predate the pipe organ. – jaksmata 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the late response.

I agree with jaksmata. --114.145.139.209 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the reasoning behind the claim that all organs descended from the pipe organ: even the early organs that predate the pipe organ contained pipes; hence, they could be understood as "pipe" organs, but not perhaps "pipe organs." In these instruments the wind supply was created via other means (water pressure in the hydraulis), and in some cases there were no playable keyboards as we would understand them (only sliders, as polyphonic and even monophonic music was not part of its "repertoire;" the instrument's purpose was not to play music but to emit a specific sound for a specific amount of time to signal a specific thing). Yet, all these "ancestors" of the pipe organ as it emerged by the 13th/14th century created sound by causing a column of air contained in a pipe to vibrate, instigated by a flow of pressurized air. —Cor anglais 16 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only point to Hydraulis defined as "a type of automatic pipe organ " and to the paragraph on Non-pipe organs, which explicitly names 19c free reed instruments and electronic imitations. What are these narrower definitions of 'pipe organ' based on? Sparafucil (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulophone

Section Hydraulophone lacks references, and may contains unverified claims. For example:

1. “the hydraulophone, is a pipe organ that uses incompressible fluid (water) ”
2. “In this way the hydraulophone combines the expressiveness of the tin flute”
3. “Because these organs run on water, they are, in a sense, self-cleaning, and are thus useful as outdoor pipe organs.”

According to the references of Hydraulophone, in the proceedings of 14th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia Multimedia Conference of ACM, Hydraulophone was referred as a “velocity-sensitive music keyboard” rather than a pipe organ or a flute, so above claims are possibly incorrect. --123.224.215.88 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)   [correct] --123.224.175.105 (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

King of Instruments

Pipe organ gives the original source for this epithet as Guillaume de Machaut, not Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. (Mozart may well have said it too, of course.) Any objections to changing it here? Barnabypage (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mozart most definitely did say that (although in German language the pipe organ is a feminine noun, so what he actually said was "Queen of instruments"... I think), and it's a rather well-known fact. Maybe mention both (e.g. "a description similar to Mozart's remark several centuries later.." or something like that)? --Jashiin (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)