I appreciate Dave's comments and perspective on this issue.
 
My own interests center around mechanical action organs, especially
those with a particular stylistic identity.  Such organs in no way preclude
important connections to current technology and appropriate explorations
in contemporary composition and performance possibilities.
 
A contemporary composer whom I respect very much (Doug Leedy) is reluctant
to compose music for organs in equal temperament, preferring the
far more interesting variations in consonant and dissonant intervals
arising from historic temperaments.
 
Additionally, I am currently involved with a pipe organ project whose cost
is approaching $600,000, and each division will have MIDI capability.
Such things can be used badly; they can also be used wisely.
 
I believe the ultimate test of these issues is also the historic one, as
cited by so many eighteenth century composers and writers:  does it represent
good taste?
 
 
Lee Garrett
 
On Fri, 5 Feb 1993, David G. Schutt wrote:
 
> Hi OrganNet:
> In my narrow sphere of organ lore, if it doesn't have a pedalboard, it's
> a poor excuse for an organ. Or perhaps, if it doesn't have a pedalboard,
> it had better run on wind in order to be called an organ.
>
> There are some interesting things in rec.music.synth, but very few of them
> directly relate to the King of Instruments. I think our mailing list has
> far more interesting things to me than anything I have read on rec.music...
>
> I believe Ben Chi's comments about letting this mailing list settle for
> a while are very well stated. Many of us are enjoying this more than we
> ever thought we would--flame wars notwithstanding. It looks like there are
> ways to satisfy people who must subscribe via email as well as those who
> would enjoy the wider newsgroup correspondence.
>
> Dave
> [log in to unmask]
> --