Modern Day "Organs" vs. the Analog Organs

[james]

I have heard a few digital organs and even small keyboards that have some great sounds. Then I have heard what looks like a spinet and/or console "organ" that sounds like a cheapest keyboard one could buy at any of the popular stores during the holiday season. Even organs from some of the major companies sound like a very poor excuse compared to many of the old analog organs. They lack that "alive" sound that so many of the earlier organs had in my honest opinion.

Oh yes, there were some very cheap organs on the market even before the automatic features, but it was easy back then to let your ear hear what we most pleasing among many of the brands. Some had nice clear tones with all the families of tone represented, and some sounded like just stopped and buzzy sounds made with a comb and thin paper or a kazoo.

Hammond tonewheel organs will always sound like Hammond regardless as someone mentioned on the forum here. I have grown tired of them, and knew when I was young it was a poor choice for the church where I played often. Yet, they have served in many capacities with their very percussive and mechanical sound. On the old console tonewheel organs the presents were all the same sound except four about four, and each one added just a few more notches on a few drawbars giving a louder sound. They had no more true organ sounds that many of the other true electronic organs, and in many cases very few nice organ sounds other than their clear smooth flute tones if played very smoothly.

Some of the earlier organ companies such as Wurlitzer, Conn, and a few of the larger Baldwin church organs had their tones formed to give the best an electronic could give although none sounded like the an actual pipe organ. Still they had that "alive" sound.

My favorites for great and true ensemble sounds were the Wurlitzer ES organs, and the early Conn tube models. They had provisions for a few solo stops as well as some could be made from combinations of the fractional stops.

Anyone have comments to share?

[jkrusel]

My favorites for great and true ensemble sounds were the Wurlitzer ES organs, and the early Conn tube models. There had provisions for a few solo stops as well as some could be made from combinations of the fractional stops.

Anyone have comments to share?

1960-1970s Gulbransens, especially their tibias. Unmatched, even today among electronic organs, IMHO.

[seamaster]

We've discussed this a few times over the years, and there was definitely something lost as well as gained when organs went digital.

Analogue organs from different manufacturers had distinct personalities, and the best organists of the analogue era were not just those who were the most proficient musicians, but those who were the most inventive creators of tone colour.

It's instructive, for example, to listen to Klaus Wunderlich LPs from the analogue era, and compare them to his later ones on digital instruments. On those earlier LPs, Wunderlich's aim was to trick the listener into hearing an orchestra, by the careful mixing of sounds as an artist might mix colours on a palette. When he could do it with the selection of instantly authentic sampled sounds, the Wunderlich magic, while not completely lost, was nevertheless diminished.

[RODDDIEHL]

The beauty of sounds is in the ear of the beholder. If you are older and LIKE pipe organ sounds you compare the sound of your modern organ to pipe organs you have heard in the past and judge pro or con depending on your expertice and/or experence.

The truth is modern electronic organs have a BETTER pipe organ sound than all but the best pipe organs. The 2 or 3 rank pipe organs that we heard in our churches growing up are very shallow by comparison.

Many people were brought up with a HAMMOND, and for them, there is no other sound.

The organs today have many sounds. Keyboards and Synths add even more "SOUNDS" that have become mainstream. Alot of them are pleasant and a pleasure to listen to.

Instead of trying to compare "sounds of the past" learn to enjoy what is current. Surely there is more available today than at anytime in history.

[Kurzweil]

Surely the digitals from Roland (Atelier), Yamaha (AR-80 & 100), and the Technics GA/FA-1&3, rival and exceed most any attempts to imitate both theater and classical pipe sounds? They do a respectable job on Hammond sounds too. And I find the orchestral sounds quite convincing for those of that bent. They lack some of the control and registration capabilities of the real thing. Roland, for instance uses mostly presets and none of them give you much individual control on non-tibia/diapason/flute sounds. Nevertheless, they'll fool most listeners and satisfy many organists. I was doing Hauptwerk when I discovered that the later organs had much of the desired sound with no where near the connecting, programming, sound system, and adjusting requirements. I went through at least one of each of those brands before landing on Atelier, mostly for the overall versatility. I felt that the compromises (presets, etc.) were an acceptable compromise when the primary constraint remains in my playing ability; not the instrument.

The analogs did well in that individual stops were always their way with minimal presets, if any. But pistons are our own presets. Sometimes it's a matter of who makes the decisions. Anyway, I have found it workable and all Ateliers, Yamahas, and Technics from the 90's forward give you a minimum of 8 pistons with the capability of storing 20 to 100 sets of them. I never dreamed of having this kind of sound quality and versatility in such small packages. If I was not interested in the orchestral/band/keyboard/drum machine sounds too, I suppose the digitals would be a disappointment what with their tendency to group all "organ" type sounds into presets, something ESPECIALLY true with Roland. So I fully acknowledge the reasoning behind someone preferring the older analogs with those large stop rails. But sound quality? The only ones that do consistently well, IMO, is Hammond, which absolutely nails the sound of a Hammond.