On 10-12-94  [log in to unmask] wrote to  PIPORG-L%ALBNYVM1.BITNET@:
 
 > Some did.  [omit the 8' Principal].  Note the following examples.
 
So what? The great majority provided 8' principals in smaller instruments when
possible.  The fact that some organs did not have them does not invalidate the
fact that the 8' principal was considered normal.  There are probably just as
many cases where smaller organs than these were based on 8' principals!
 
 > Note all these instruments have significant upperwork.
 
The absence of the 8' principal, and the "count" of the number of ranks of
upperwork, are not meaningful in themselves without reference to the concrete
situation the organbuilder faced -- space, cost, sound character, acoustics,
prevailing trends in voicing/scaling, etc.
 
Having said that, here are some further generalizations...
 
A significant difference, looking only at the specs, between the historic
organs you mention and the "Danish [Swedish] Modern" neo-classic instruments
quoted before is the provision of a fuller range of principal stops "under" the
mixtures.
 
No doubt scaling and general sound was more generous also (unless they were
"Neo-Baroque-ized" by neo-classicizers later).  A "Lieblich Posaune" -- how
wonderful.  How many Posaunes you know are truly "Lieblich"?  Most sound like
oversized buzzsaws farting, if I may be so crass.  Most are skinny, blatty
awful sounds.  Seeing that name, and the fact that it's wood, makes me suspect
it might be far better than your usual Phelpsavant, unless it's a pretty poor
example.
 
The caveat in these generalizations is that we are talking broad impressions,
not concretely firsthand about the sound, scaling, or voicing characteristics
of these particular instruments.
 
: John Seboldt  [log in to unmask] /   I am Bach of Borg...
: Amateur radio K0JD...             /     your style will be
: Church of the Annunciation,      /         assimilated.
: Minneapolis                     /
 
 -> Alice4Mac 2.3 E QWK Eval:05Mar94