On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:34:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> Look closer: I think the sound *preceeds* the keys, rather than lagging 
>>> it. Which, obviously, is physically impossible...
>> 
>> Not with a quantum organ ;)
>
>Don't be stupid. If it was a *quantum* organ, it would be completely 
>silent until somebody goes into the room to listen to it - otherwise it 
>would just be a superposition of all possible notes...

Not if you have the Reverse Causality stop pulled out.

And that raises the point, does a recording device count as an observer?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:38:42 +0100 schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> Depends which stops. The bass pipes in particular tend to be slow to
> speak, as do low diapasons. But reed pipes tend to speak very promptly.
> 
Never thought about that, interesting! So does that mean you have to take 
into account when to press the lower keys, that it takes longer and 
therefore you have to play them earlier than the higher notes and have to 
play quite "irregular" to get a "regular" sound"? That sounds very 
difficult to get right! And in fact, that could be a reason, why it 
sounds so awful in church sometimes ;).

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA
> 
>   Bach's Toccata&Fugue is so often used that it has become basically a
> cliche, but it still manages to be majestic and impressive, especially
> when played by a professional on a real, high-quality church organ.

It appears to me that there's even more potential in that piece than the 
classic church organ cliche - just listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8Fa_EUQqY

It actually makes me wonder what bands like Jethro Tull might have made 
out of it.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA
> >
> >   Bach's Toccata&Fugue is so often used that it has become basically a
> > cliche, but it still manages to be majestic and impressive, especially
> > when played by a professional on a real, high-quality church organ.
>
> It appears to me that there's even more potential in that piece than the
> classic church organ cliche - just listen to this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8Fa_EUQqY

coming full cycle then.  It is thought by scholars that this Toccata is an
adaptation to organ by Bach of a previous song, by its structure possibly for
violin or some early relative indeed.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> It appears to me that there's even more potential in that piece than the
> classic church organ cliche - just listen to this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8Fa_EUQqY

Wow.  I thought I was a heretic for getting into the whole Bach-on-a-piano
thing.  I can't say I really enjoyed that interpretation, but at the same time
I don't see the whole point of strict interpretations.  I was reading about
Sviatoslov Richter the other day.  Among other things, he insisted on putting
an apology with a CD of the Italian Concerto for a single note he had missed
unnoticed for forty years.  I mean those composers were pretty incredible, but
it seems wrong to elevate their works to that of unerring perfection.  If you
have something to add, then why not?

That said, it is possible to go too far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpALlP_7lE

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> That said, it is possible to go too far:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpALlP_7lE

That's quite impressive.  I mean, anyone can do the handcuffs, but the 
sack really is the coup de grace :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> Depends which stops. The bass pipes in particular tend to be slow to
>> speak, as do low diapasons. But reed pipes tend to speak very promptly.
>>
> Never thought about that, interesting! So does that mean you have to take 
> into account when to press the lower keys, that it takes longer and 
> therefore you have to play them earlier than the higher notes and have to 
> play quite "irregular" to get a "regular" sound"? That sounds very 
> difficult to get right! And in fact, that could be a reason, why it 
> sounds so awful in church sometimes ;).

In a well-maintained organ, all but the huge pedal pipes speak quite 
promptly. I'm told you have to play the pedal notes fractionally early 
(but only fractionally). Most of the other pipes have a delay short 
enough for it not to matter too much. (It just means that, e.g., if you 
play *really* fast notes, they don't come out very loud.)

Of course, a typical village church organ is another matter entirely... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Don't be stupid. If it was a *quantum* organ, it would be completely 
> silent until somebody goes into the room to listen to it - otherwise it 
> would just be a superposition of all possible notes...

  That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
is true, which is not an accepted fact.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Don't be stupid. If it was a *quantum* organ, it would be completely 
>> silent until somebody goes into the room to listen to it - otherwise it 
>> would just be a superposition of all possible notes...
> 
>   That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
> is true, which is not an accepted fact.
> 
Isn't that a bit like saying that its not an accepted fact that the sky 
is green due to large amounts of trees floating in the clouds? Its not 
even "not accepted", its flat out wrong.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott schrieb:
>>   That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum 
>> mechanics
>> is true, which is not an accepted fact.
>>
> Isn't that a bit like saying that its not an accepted fact that the sky 
> is green due to large amounts of trees floating in the clouds? Its not 
> even "not accepted", its flat out wrong.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the 
Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific 
interpretation of quantum mechanics"

So leaving aside that it /is/ apparently quite accepted (if only as a 
theory instead of a fact), what makes you so sure that it is "flat out 
wrong"?

Post a reply to this message