Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
Anyone here ever get to play this one when it was still analog?
I recall reading that in the last few years it has since been converted to digital.
As I understand it after it did it's stint being Virgil Fox's touring organ in the 70's it was sold to a church in Japan..which recently sent it back to Rodgers in Oregon to be converted to digital.,
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
What a shame. A genuine tragedy it is. The instant it reentered the Rodgers factory and Roland got their hands on it, Virgil Fox's unique taste and tonal authenticity were lost forever, and it instead became an organ that smears into one homogeneous pile of schmutz and sounds just like every other. Just like all digitals do. All those racks of analog generators, speakers and amps gone. All that remains is a shell stuffed with computer boards that can (and in Rodgers case) will crash and drop polyphony. Hardly worthy of Virgil's name. At least have the decency to respect a legend. (Both the organ and the player).
</p>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
Jon,</p>
I'm puzzled by your post here.</p>
This Royal V was only used by V. Fox for maybe a year, when Rodgers decided to pull the travelling road show. I don't know what happened to it right after that, but around 1980 it was Crystal Cathedral and used for Virgil Fox's funeral. After the pipe organ went in at Crystal Cathedral, the Royal V, went back to the Rodger's factory for complete refurbishing. My guess is that at least some of Virgil's ideas were changed. Why an organ like that needs refurbishing after being less than 10 years old, I don't know. The organ then went to a Buddhist temple in Japan. The organ was probably in need of some work by 2003. By then the organ would have been nigh near 30 years old.</p>
The reasons for a complete re-build I don't know, but I would venture to say the new electronics and audio will sound noticeably better than the old analog stuff. Even the analog tone generation from the late 80s that Rodgers was putting out sounded better on a stop for stop basis than the early to mid 70s stuff in the Royal V. I'm also sure that Rodgers would have put in sufficient hardware and processing power to prevent crashes.</p>
I'm not sure where you get the idea that every digital sounds like every other one. They don't. Each company has it's own tonal palette. Each company has strengths and weaknesses, both on a per stop level as well as ensemble buildup. I'm sure you wouldn't say that your upcoming Allen project sounds like every other digital out there including Rodgers.</p>
About respecting a legend, what about Virgil and Riverside. The Riverside organ has been so fussed over, that it is now substantially different from the way Virgil signed off on it in the 50s. I don't think at this point, the curators of that organ really care about how Virgil wanted that organ. They, for the last 35 years have only wanted to make it a better organ. And I believe it is overall a better organ now. I think Virgil might even approve of the changes if he were around.</p>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
I thought too that Roland should have left the Royal V analog. I never heard this organ in person, but if the Bach Gamut vol. 1&2 recordings are any indication of what this instrument could do, its a shame it was changed. I wonder if Royal V's sister was also moved to digital? Last I heard she was installed in some auditorium in Oregon.</p>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
Hi Rob,
</p>
I suspect you have some kind of romantic notion about the quality of sound of these instruments, Virgil Fox etc. It was 1970-74 technology. It is old stuff. Why is it so important to keep this instrument as it was built? Is it because you want to go and play it some day?
</p>
The truth of the matter is that most likely, it was time to either re-work the console or chuck the whole instrument. The console was the only redeeming feature of the instrument. And obviously Roland / Rodgers had no interest in the old analog part of the organ.</p>
Your notion is similar to that of pipe organ afficionados, who decry the fact that an instrument of questionable value is being tossed for whatever reason, but won't help save that instrument themselves. It is much easier to try and direct someone else's money to have or keep what is not our own.</p>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
[quote user="Vercus"]
All that remains is a shell stuffed with computer boards that can (and in Rodgers case) will crash and drop polyphony.
</P>
-Jon</P>
[/quote]</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
Several monoths I set off the firestorm about dropped notes, apparently spilling over into the owner's forum, so let me respond.</P>
The dropped note phenomenon occurred on a TM 908 preparing a large piece for a concert. Just about any organ will contain compromises; I wouldn't necessarily disqualify this model for consideration due to this particularshortcoming.</P>
In November I will play a recital on a T967. On Thursday I begin my first practice session. The repertoire includes a Reger Fantasy, which will necessarily include extensive use of the crescendo pedal, resulting in large ensembles with softer voices included. This will be a test for this instrument. Several years ago I practiced a different Reger Fantasy on a large, end-of-the series PDI organ and never experienced any dropouts. I've played a wedding on a T967 rental (it may be the same organ but that is another story) and substituted on a T927. (I have to keep looking these up on the Rodgers website.)</P>
None of these instruments crashed. I can't imagine any of the recent models would have such a problem.</P>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
Would it have been possible to sample the sounds in this organ (probably could have been done directly without microphones) and have successfully created a very, very close tonal replica digitally?</P>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
[quote user="arie v"]About respecting a legend, what about Virgil and Riverside. The Riverside organ has been so fussed over, that it is now substantially different from the way Virgil signed off on it in the 50s. I don't think at this point, the curators of that organ really care about how Virgil wanted that organ. They, for the last 35 years have only wanted to make it a better organ. And I believe it is overall a better organ now. I think Virgil might even approve of the changes if he were around.[/quote]</P>
The Riverside organ had to evolve, as the room is so acoustically different from when Virgil was there. It was not a question of complying with the whims of an organist or curator, but simply one ofachieving proper balance after miles of Guastavino tile was sealed.</P>
I understand Jon's point completely. If an instrument is closely allied to one of the most gifted performers of our Art, then it is a loss to modify that instrument after the artist is deceased. This is especially true with a unique or rare instrument.</P>
Its no different with the Cavaillé-Coll at Sainte-Clotilde, where Franck was organist. Now modified three times (by each successive titulaire), wewill never know what the various balances/timbres would have been liketo Franckhimself - an immeasurable loss for pedagogy.</P>
It sounds however as if this particular Rodgers and Virgil Fox were not together for very long...</P>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
[quote user="soubasse32"]
[quote user="arie v"][/quote]</p>
The Riverside organ had to evolve, as the room is so acoustically different from when Virgil was there. It was not a question of complying with the whims of an organist or curator, but simply one ofachieving proper balance after miles of Guastavino tile was sealed.</p>
I understand Jon's point completely. If an instrument is closely allied to one of the most gifted performers of our Art, then it is a loss to modify that instrument after the artist is deceased. This is especially true with a unique or rare instrument.</p>
Its no different with the Cavaillé-Coll at Sainte-Clotilde, where Franck was organist. Now modified three times (by each successive titulaire), wewill never know what the various balances/timbres would have been liketo Franckhimself - an immeasurable loss for pedagogy.</p>
It sounds however as if this particular Rodgers and Virgil Fox were not together for very long...</p>
[/quote]</p>
Soubasse,</p>
What you say is only partly true. Bufano started changing things as early as the mid 60s. The acoustics were changed as you say in the mid 90s. In fact Virgil when he played the Riverside organ in the late 70s, knew the organ was changed, said it was different. </p>
I don't think Virgil Fox was all that identified with Royal V. In fact he basically got dumped by Rodgers, only a year or so after Royal V was built. In a fit of anger he went and "bought" a 4 manual Allen. My guess he is as much identified with that one as the 5 manual Rodgers. When I think of Virgil and Rodgers I think "Black Beauty".</p>
I'm not sure where this idea comes from that we should or have to preserve an organ exactly because some famous person is identified with it. My guess is that this is a very recent phenomenon. Many old organs in Europe have evolved over time, some enlarged, some changed to meet tastes of the day, others basically absorbed into a new instrument. Just think of St. Bavo in Holland. Handel played it. Mozart played. Most every organist of importance has played it. It has undergone numerous rebuilds, changes, enlargements. The rebuild in the late 50s by Marcussen, not only brightened the tone, it also added a lot of Mixture ranks. How does one want to leave the instrument? I think it sounds really nice the way it is now, probably better than it has at any time before. But the debate rages on.</p>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
[quote user="arie v"]I'm not sure where this idea comes from that we should or have to preserve an organ exactly because some famous person is identified with it.[/quote]</P>
Not necessarily a new idea. In France you do find some installations that have hardly been changed. St-Sulpice comes to mind (yes it has been changed, but considering the small extent of changes over a large span of time, it is quite remarkable).</P>
When discussing pipe organs, it seems change is inevetable. When discussing electronic instruments, I'm just not sure. Theoretically, couldn't an electronic go on with the same sounds forever, as long asfailed components are replaced with similar ones?</P>
Isn't it important to preserve at least ONE example of the more important electronic organs of each era? </P>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
[quote user="arie v"]
Hi Rob,
</P>
I suspect you have some kind of romantic notion about the quality of sound of these instruments, Virgil Fox etc. It was 1970-74 technology. It is old stuff. Why is it so important to keep this instrument as it was built? Is it because you want to go and play it some day?
</P>
The truth of the matter is that most likely, it was time to either re-work the console or chuck the whole instrument. The console was the only redeeming feature of the instrument. And obviously Roland / Rodgers had no interest in the old analog part of the organ.</P>
Your notion is similar to that of pipe organ afficionados, who decry the fact that an instrument of questionable value is being tossed for whatever reason, but won't help save that instrument themselves. It is much easier to try and direct someone else's money to have or keep what is not our own.</P>
AV</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
[/quote]</P>
I understand what Jon and Rob are trying to say. This instrument has, in some people's minds, historical importance and should be left alone. It would be like Allen taking their very first digital, which is in the Smithsonian, and updating it with current technology. Perhaps, if the owner of the V wants a digital, then a brand new instrument is in order. After all, it won't be that cheap to change all the innards of the V.</P>
<P mce_keep="true">Rodgers DOES have a standard 5 manual Trillium Masterpiece model.</P>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
[quote user="arie v"]
I don't think Virgil Fox was all that identified with Royal V. In fact he basically got dumped by Rodgers, only a year or so after Royal V was built. In a fit of anger he went and "bought" a 4 manual Allen. My guess he is as much identified with that one as the 5 manual Rodgers. When I think of Virgil and Rodgers I think "Black Beauty".</P>
AV</P>
[/quote]</P>
Arie,</P>
Why did you put bought in quotes? All reports I have read say that Allen never gave discounts to famous people and I even read that Virgil was a little miffed that Jerome wouldn't give him a discount.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)
my 2 cents: I'd have liked to have seen the Royal V preserved as built, or as closely to as built as possible.
Having a 3 manual Rodgers analog I know the sound they are capable is amazing given the limits of the technology.
Taking this organ and digitizing it while understandable for the owner, is a loss to future generations as today its basically just been "hauptwerked" and MAYBE might sound as good maybe as a home computer somewhere. Which is fine, great but a loss for those of us who would have liked to have heard what it sounded like orginally.
What CD's are available of Virgil Fox that were recorded (if any?) on this instrument before it was "rebuilt"?
Looks like you’re enjoying the discussion, but you haven’t signed up for an account yet.
Tired of scrolling through the same posts? When you create an account you’ll always come back to where you left off. With an account you can also post messages, be notified of new replies, join groups, send private messages to other members, and use likes to thank others. We can all work together to make this community great. ♥️
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment