I wanted to answer some of the issues that have been raised regarding the
capabilities of pipe organs versus synthesizers.  Rather than quote a bunch
of messages and reply to them, I'll summarize (and paraphrase) the issues.

"A synthesizer can only play a limited number of patches at one time."

This is becoming less true as time goes by.  Almost all new synths can do at
least 8 simultaneous timbres; high-end ones can do up to 32.  And many are
cheap enough that you can affordably stack several of them to get more
voices.

"A synthesizer lacks the controls for making frequent and varied on-the-fly
patch changes, especially subtle ones."

Sad but true.  However, most synths, especially modules, are not designed
for this purpose, nor should they be.  One of the reasons that synth modules
are so affordable is that they aren't loaded with expensive manual control
devices.  And I would argue that the place for performance-time controls is
not on the front panel of a module, but on the "console".  More on consoles
later.

"Synth players don't adequately exploit the tonal capabilities of their
instruments."

Organs have the advantage of several hundred years of evolution, over which
time there has developed a lot of standardization.  Anyone who has played
a half a dozen varied organs can find their way around any other organ
without much trouble.  The same is NOT true of synths.  The tonal capabilities
of synths are VASTLY wider than that of an organ, and thus take considerably
more time to learn and explore.  How easy would pipe-organ registration be if
you had controls to vary the scale, cut-up, mouth width, wind pressure, toe
opening, etc. of each rank?

"Synth players seldom get exposed to organ literature."

Well, what would they do with it if they did?  How many synths have pedals?
Right now you have to spend REAL money to get an electronic organ with MIDI
and a full pedalboard.
A lamentable hole in the current market offerings.  If only someone would
put an add-on MIDI pedalboard on the market...

"If you want a velocity sensitive keyboard, get a piano."

I think this was offered with tongue at least partially in cheek, but I
have to point out that 99.999% of pianos don't have pedalboards, and even
those that do don't have much in the way of organ-like tone.  Furthermore,
velocity applied to a non-decaying tone is a whole 'nother ball of wax
than velocity applied to a decaying tone.  Try playing a fugue on a highly
velocity-sensitive flute patch -- not only are the expressive capabilities
fascinating, but it demands a whole lot more from manual technique, not
to mention pedal technique!

I believe that a new instrument is struggling to be born, which I call the
"pedal synthesizer", for lack of a better name.  Its parents are the organ
and the synthesizer.  From its organ ancestry it takes its basic user
interface: one or more manual keyboards, a pedalboard, a powerful and
easily programmable system for changing tones (the combination action with
its pistons and toe studs), and expression pedals.  From its synthesizer
ancestry it takes even more programming power, velocity and aftertouch on the
manuals and pedalboard, modularity and expandability, affordability, and
a wider tonal palette than would have been imaginable a century ago.

Enough raving for now.


=============================================================================
Edward L. Stauff, Nashua NH; [log in to unmask] *or* uunet!mv.com!gozer!stauff!ed
        "Specialization is for insects." -- Lazarus Long