Jump to content
Mander Organs

What Keyboard Action Is Best?


Vox Humana

Recommended Posts

Outside the organ world, too, musical tone was becoming smoother and heavier.  Think of Brahms's and Bruckner's orchestral sonorities as opposed to Beethoven's, or the pianoforte as opposed to the harpsichord, not to mention such ninenteenth century introductions into orchestral tone as the bass clarinet or the Wagner tuba.

 

I would agree with this point. There are a number of instances in the piano music of Mozart and even Beethoven (to take but two composers) in which the occasional, apparently thick scoring in the lower octaves of the instrument sounds muddy and grotesque to our ears on a modern piano. However, on the lighter tones of a forte-piano (without thick, copper-bound bass strings, or actually being over-strung), the effect is quite acceptable.

 

No builders seem to have tried ever brighter, splashier reeds and ever more ranks of mixtures as a means of coping with the east end organ chamber.  Would that have been a possible option?  If so, it was presumably not explored because British musical taste wanted to move in the opposite direction.

 

It depends on when you mean. Walker's were certainly adopting this method in some of their instruments by the 1960s. Ironically, in one or two examples of this type, the need for a stronger foundation-tone is felt quite keenly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
... Clearly there is a diversity of opinion with, it seems, a general tendency towards the feeling that tracker is OK for small instruments, but less desirable for large ones. ...

...

I really wanted to know specifically about modern tracker actions, so maybe I should rephrase my original question. Given a clean slate on which to design a new organ, what would be the action of your choice? ...

 

I don't think "size" and "number of stops" mean the same thing here. Tere are organs of 60 or more stops with light tracker actions, and there are those of 40 to 50 stops that have quite heavy actions. The difference is that the former ones were built for churches, and the latter ones for concert halls. In reverberant acoustics, moderate scaling and lighter pressures do the job; in dry rooms, they don't.

 

I know of a recent concert hall organ (the hall being not very large) by a prominent builder that has a completely reasonable layout. Three manuals (15/14/13 stops, none with more than one 16-foot and 3 full-scale 8-foot flues), pedal (14 stops); manuals 2 and 3 in swell boxes, sitting in the middle above each other, the Great chest divided C/C# on either side, pedal distributed in two chambers left and right (not divided diatonically), short suspended actions, electric pulldowns for the couplers.

 

But there is a little drawer in the attached keydesk, in which you find a switch. With this device, you can switch from mechanical to electric action. The default setting is electric.

 

When looking at the specification, you can easily guess the reason: heavy wind pressures (100/95/90/115-130). The scaling is generous in order to overcome the dryness of the room; the soundboards need to be short but deep due to narrow concrete chambers. Officially, though, the organ goes as a tracker. There still seems to be quite some ideological thinking when it comes to tracker vs. electric action.

 

In the Frauenkirche, Dresden, I found the action of the Kern organ being admirably light and responsive -- in a four-manual, 70+ stops instrument with a pressure of 90 mm throughout. I even spoke with one organist who thought that the Récit action was a bit too crisp -- a deeper and smoother touch, he said, would have been better for playing the romantic repertoire.

 

When planning a new organ, tracker would always be my point of departure. It depends on the individual circumstances if, from there, electric action should be taken into consideration.

 

Best,

Friedrich

Link to post
Share on other sites
"I find I can control the starting transients of some stops in slower music - and tracker just feels more direct and "in control" somehow!"

 

(Quote)

With open toe voicing and no nicking, maybe.

Pierre

 

Hi

 

Not necessarily - mainly late 18th/early 19th century ENglish organs.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Frauenkirche, Dresden, I found the action of the Kern organ being admirably light and responsive -- in a four-manual, 70+ stops instrument with a pressure of 90 mm throughout. I even spoke with one organist who thought that the Récit action was a bit too crisp -- a deeper and smoother touch, he said, would have been better for playing the romantic repertoire.

 

Best,

Friedrich

 

Most interesting.

 

I think I'm right in saying the new organ has a largely vertical layout and optional electric assistance for the couplers. Is this device much used, or is the touch with, say, 3 coupled manuals, manageable without it?

 

I hope to hear the organ in this beautifully re-constructed, awe-inspiring church later this year.

 

JS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with electrical assistance is that no-one has yet managed to overcome problems of synchronisation between the claviers.

 

I have played several instruments with optional electrical assistance (by a variety of builders) and in each case, when it was used, one department always sounded slightly later than the other - often the Swell Organ in a three-clavier organ. Whilst the measured time is small in such cases, I have found that it is sufficient to be distinctly irritating - particularly when playing faster music.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most interesting.

 

I think I'm right in saying the new organ has a largely vertical layout and optional electric assistance for the couplers.  Is this device much used, or is the touch with, say, 3 coupled manuals, manageable without it?

 

JS

 

I am afraid I can't say how much the electrical assist is used. What I can say is that coupling manuals II, III, and IV to I would not make much sense since the Brustwerk (IV) sounds so delicate that it would not have any effect. (Except you would want to create some special effect by applying the "Transpositeur" -- minus one tone -- while coupling the BW to another manual, of course.)

 

Two manuals together, however, are perfectly manageable, be it for a large Bach chorus with I+II or for a "full Swell to Great" effect with I+III. How a French GPR feels on the long run I can't say.

 

I would be most interested in what you might have to tell about the organ. It certainly is a one-of-a-kind instrument. The acoustics are very special: warm, but not very reverberant; the second dome, connected to the main space by a circular opening in the main dome, gives a remote and soft echo effect.

 

Best,

Friedrich

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have played several instruments with optional electrical assistance (by a variety of builders) and in each case, when it was used, one department always sounded slightly later than the other - often the Swell Organ in a three-clavier organ. Whilst the measured time is small in such cases, I have found that it is sufficient to be distinctly irritating - particularly when playing faster music.
Is that to say, then, that electric actions are inherently less prompt than tracker?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that to say, then, that electric actions are inherently less prompt than tracker?

 

No, but it is always hard to obtain exact regulation in mixed actions.

 

I vividly remember spending two days with a Schuke representative in a III/59 concert hall instrument. Two Pedal soundboards, tracker action, electrical coupling. At some point I lost count in how often I slowly pressed the pedals to each single note. Even this experienced organbuilder had to compromise in this instance.

 

With mixed actions, to my experience, the best you can do is a mild but noticeable difference in the attack, which, in big registrations, sounds somewhat woolly. Takes all the aggressiveness out of the music.

 

Best,

Friedrich

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that to say, then, that electric actions are inherently less prompt than tracker?

 

Absolutely not - my 'own' church instrument, with its forty-year-old electro-pneumatic action achieves absolute simultaniety of the couplers - regardless of haw many departments are coupled together, or whether or not octave couplers are also employed.

 

Certainly with solid-state it is extremely easy to guarantee synchronisation of each department.

 

As I have mentioned before, on my organ, I am able to play repeated chords (for example) faster than I am able on any mechanical-action instrument. That is to say, on many tracker instruments, I have found that I can play chords more quickly than the action (except that this is a cyclic problem - because the action apparently cannot keep-up, therefore I am not strictly able to play the chords more quickly....)

 

Did anyone understand that?

 

:):P

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was nearly the same in Europe!

 

Pneumatic actions did not really spread before about 1880-1890, while round 1910

the electropneumatic was already beginning to be common.

A short time also to get a technique ripened!

 

In Britain I know of Willis and Binns systems to be quite good, but

others here know better than me by far.

 

On the continent, here is a short list of builders that succeeded with reliable and durable T-P:

-Walcker

-Sauer

-Link

-Kerkhoff

-Friedrich Goll

 

All of which I have seen organs by them in good state with their original pneumatic

actions.

Of course there are certainly more!

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1889 William Hill & Sons organ in the Sydney Town Hall has always had tubular pneumatic key action, although the action to the Choir and Echo was different from that applying to the rest of the intrument. The stop and piston actions are pneumatic, while the coupling is basically mechanical but with pneumatic lever assistance for coupling to the Great.

 

I gather that the Pogson firm found the pneumatics in a dreadful state when they embarked upon the organ's restoration in the 1970s. However, there was apparently never any thought of "modernising" the actions (or indeed anything else).

 

The restoration work was carried out very well, and the only quibble that I have had was entirely unrelated to the actions. Although it's not on point with this thread, I may as well mention that the decision was made to swap the Trumpet 8' and Vox Humana 8' once again - to return the Trumpet from the Choir to the Swell, and the Vox Humana from the Swell to the Choir.

 

The Trumpet and Vox Humana had originally been interchanged in 1891 at the request of the then-Sydney City Organist, the Belgian Auguste Wiegand. This took place so early in the organ's history that, for all intents and purposes, it could be said that they had occupied their swapped positions ab initio. In fact, this took place some six years before the Swell Piccolo was re-made from 2' to 1'. Yet the latter change was retained.

 

To me, having the Trumpet on the Choir gave that division - which was otherwise without a chorus reed - a little more flexibility, while its absence from the Swell was effectively covered by the Cornopean and Horn, both of 8'. I don't believe returning the Trumpet to the Swell has noticeably changed the effect of that division (although I suspect some others may disagree with me). And the normal place of a Vox Humana is on the Swell (or sometimes the Solo), but seldom the Choir.

 

Rgds,

MJF

Link to post
Share on other sites
The restoration work was carried out very well, and the only quibble that I have had was entirely unrelated to the actions.  Although it's not on point with this thread, I may as well mention that the decision was made to swap the Trumpet 8' and Vox Humana 8' once again - to return the Trumpet from the Choir to the Swell, and the Vox Humana from the Swell to the Choir.

 

The Trumpet and Vox Humana had originally been interchanged in 1891 at the request of the then-Sydney City Organist, the Belgian Auguste Wiegand.  This took place so early in the organ's history that, for all intents and purposes, it could be said that they had occupied their swapped positions ab initio.  In fact, this took place some six years before the Swell Piccolo was re-made from 2' to 1'.  Yet the latter change was retained.

 

To me, having the Trumpet on the Choir gave that division - which was otherwise without a chorus reed - a little more flexibility, while its absence from the Swell was effectively covered by the Cornopean and Horn, both of 8'.  I don't believe returning the Trumpet to the Swell has noticeably changed the effect of that division (although I suspect some others may disagree with me).  And the normal place of a Vox Humana is on the Swell (or sometimes the Solo), but seldom the Choir.

 

Rgds,

MJF

 

I wonder if you would be able to answer something that has always been a question mark in my mind since I played the organ in the early 90s, as I suspect you may know this organ well.

 

On the Choir there is a 4' Celestina (or Celestino) stop. From memory it is a flute stop and at the time I played the organ it was tuned to beat like a conventional celeste. But there is not an 8' "celeste" (i.e. undulating) stop on the Choir, so the only undulating rank out of 20 stops is a 4' flute.

 

I had expected this stop to be non-beating, principally because I had known that Hill had used the name Celestina for a conventional 4' stopped flute in that period, e.g. on the Swell at Lichfield Cathedral and which is still called Celestina Flute.

 

It's certainly unusual as it is (or was) and I wondered if it had been re-tuned either as a misunderstanding of the name or even opportunistically to give another colour, using the name as licence to do so. I suggested this but told very firmly - no its a celeste. It seems even more odd because I think that the organ has only two 8' celestes in its 120 or so stops, one on the Swell and one on the Echo.

 

It's not very important of course, but as an historical instrument which is claimed to be in almost unaltered form, things like this and the 1' rank and the switched about reeds beg questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This was nearly the same in Europe!

 

Pneumatic actions did not really spread before about 1880-1890, while round 1910

the electropneumatic was already beginning to be common.

A short time also to get a technique ripened!

 

In Britain I know of Willis and Binns systems to be quite good, but

others here know better than me by far.

 

...

 

All of which I have seen organs by them in good state with their original pneumatic

actions.

Of course there are certainly more!

Pierre

 

There are also many examples of pneumatic actions by Hill, Harrison and Norman and Beard which work well today (i.e. 100 years later).

 

To try and answer Nathan's (Tubular Pneumatic) earlier question:

 

As the use of a stable electricity supply became more common place, didn't pneumatic action get overtaken by electro-pneumatic actions for 3 reasons?

 

1) with advances in technology and manufacture of electro magnets, electro pneumatic actions turned out to be quicker to make, took up less room inside the organ and are much less fiddly to install and adjust

2) enabled the console to be placed anywhere, within reason - only the speed of sound being the restriction as opposed to the length of the pneumatic tube runs

3) the response of the action was quicker and cleaner on the whole, especially in terms of repetition and of course the organist could have more gadgets on the console!

 

In the USA money was more freely available so organs were upgraded to the new technology more quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As the use of a stable electricity supply became more common place, didn't pneumatic action get overtaken by electro-pneumatic actions for 3 reasons?

 

1) with advances in technology and manufacture of electro magnets, electro pneumatic actions turned out to be quicker to make, took up less room inside the organ and are much less fiddly to install and adjust

2) enabled the console to be placed anywhere, within reason - only the speed of sound being the restriction as opposed to the length of the pneumatic tube runs

3) the response of the action was quicker and cleaner on the whole, especially in terms of repetition and of course the organist could have more gadgets on the console!

 

Greetings,

 

Although I can certainly understand the push to use electricity for key transmission for the reasons you list above (and the subsequent push to use terrible solid state) within the context of the new pipe organ, I have yet to fully grasp why so many fifteen and twenty-year-old organs had their keying actions replaced. Since the instruments were already built, the consoles were located more or less where their electric replacements were installed, and the response of some of our exhaustive actions was pretty impressive, I am indeed puzzled.

 

I appreciate the relative permanence of the T-P action as compared to E-P. T-P and Tracker actions represent the ultimate expression of infinite renewability using natural materials, whereas E-P and solid state (gasp) present electric contacts, plastics, and other extra-organic technologies which are simply non-renewable. With each step away from T-P and Tracker action, we gradually draw the ability to diagnose problems with the senses, requiring more sophisticated test-equipment and knowledge.

 

Now, this is certainly all nit-picking on my part, particularly given that many E-P actions have proven reliable over the years. However, organs have a habit of living much longer than human beings do, so perhaps in time these issues will become more relevant. Certainly there are many organs with DCC wire in the USA which have been rewired with modern materials; I can't help but wonder what will happen when that new wiring melts, and the circuit cards return to their natural state.

 

Best,

 

Nathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good pneumatic actions are as quick as EP ones, provided the tubes are not

too long, not too narrow in relation to lenght and pressure differences used

for the working of the system; relays must be used when lenght reaches a

dedicated value according to the above factors.

 

25 years ago I visited with two friends, one of which a swiss organ-builder,

a 1907 Goll that was not played since about 20 years.

After an hour or so sollicitating it and adressing some leakages temporarily with tape, it came back to enough life to be tonally assessed - and rather first class by the way-.

 

A partial releathering would have been enough to render it completely playable, provided regular use.

This is a critical factor: pneumatic organs do worn when NOT used.

If played daily, they can be incredibly reliable and long-lasting.

 

-College St-Michel, Brussels, Kerkhoff 1909-10: excellent condition in 2006,with

only a normal maintenance, no repairs;

 

-St-Julienne Namur, Walcker 1907: organ electrified in 1962, original membrane-chests

(Taschenladen); mind you: this one has never been releathered. The membranes

date back 1907 and still work satisfactorily!

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if you would be able to answer something that has always been a question mark in my mind since I played the organ in the early 90s, as I suspect you may know this organ well.

 

On the Choir there is a 4' Celestina (or Celestino) stop. From memory it is a flute stop and at the time I played the organ it was tuned to beat like a conventional celeste. But there is not an 8' "celeste" (i.e. undulating) stop on the Choir, so the only undulating rank out of 20 stops is a 4' flute.

 

I had expected this stop to be non-beating, principally because I had known that Hill had used the name Celestina for a conventional 4' stopped flute in that period, e.g. on the Swell at Lichfield Cathedral and which is still called Celestina Flute.

 

It's certainly unusual as it is (or was) and I wondered if it had been re-tuned either as a misunderstanding of the name or even opportunistically to give another colour, using the name as licence to do so. I suggested this but told very firmly - no its a celeste. It seems even more odd because I think that the organ has only two 8' celestes in its 120 or so stops, one on the Swell and one on the Echo.

 

It's not very important of course, but as an historical instrument which is claimed to be in almost unaltered form, things like this and the 1' rank and the switched about reeds beg questions.

Unfortunately, I can't claim to know the Sydney Town Hall organ nearly as well as I'd like. It's now a few years since I've lived in Sydney, and I'm currently in an organ wilderness across the Nullarbor plain. For what they're worth, I'll offer the following comments, but expect that there will be others contributors to these threads who know this wonderful instrument better than I do.

 

1. From what I recall, the stopknob of the register in question is engraved "Celestina" rather than "Celestino". I don't know whence the "o" version derived, but the "a" version of the name agrees with other early Hill (and, I think, Gray & Davison) stop names.

 

2. Out of interest, I just looked up my old copy of Sumner's "The Organ", and it describes a Celestina as a 4' open wood flute. The Sydney example is certainly of flute tone, but I'm quite sure that it is of metal. (It always intrigued me that, on the other hand, the Choir Violino 4' - as to more of which, see below - is of wood.)

 

3. Auguste Wiegand asked for quite a number of changes to the organ during his time as Sydney City Organist, but only some of these were acted upon. Apart from the Piccolo, Trumpet and Vox Humana changes mentioned in my post above (and others below), he wanted and obtained a Celeste on the Choir. (As you note, the Sydney Town Hall organ is singularly lacking in Celestes.) To achieve this, I gather that the pipes of the Celestina were moved up an octave and tuned from pure. But see point 4. below ...

 

4. At the time he was working on the organ, Roger Pogson wrote an article about the restoration in which he stated that (at some unidentified stage) "the Choir Celestino [was] tuned pure to become Violino 4'". However, the Choir already had a Violino 4' - it was one of the original contracted stops accepted by Hill - while the Celestina was substituted by Hill for (what was originally intended to be) a Flauto Dolce 4'. In other words, the Choir had both the Celestina and Violino from the beginning. Therefore I'm not sure what Mr Pogson meant in the above statement.

 

5. What does seem reasonably clear is that the Celestina was reinstated as a 4' stop during the Pogson restoration. (Mind you, a simple statement that it was reinstated begs the question of what had become of the top octave of pipes. I assume that they were placed in storage, and I certainly haven't heard anything to the effect that replacements were needed.) While I could very well be wrong on this point, I suspect that it has been tuned impure deliberately. If this is the case, it would seem to be a compromise between reinstating the original pitch and retaining M. Wiegand's vision of a Celeste for the Choir.

 

6. I've only mentioned to this stage changes in speaking stops. However, the biggest changes that Auguste Wiegand pushed through were the total enclosure of the Choir - previously only the Choir reeds were enclosed - and the whole or part enclosure of the Solo (other than the Tubas). Certainly, since the Pogson restoration, the Solo reeds (other than the Tubas) have been under expression, but not the flues. I think that, under M. Wiegand, the whole of the Solo had been enclosed (other than the Tubas).

 

The changes at point 6. above represent monumental changes, and very big decisions indeed in the context of the restoration. For most of its long history, the Sydney Town Hall organ has had a fully enclosed Choir and mostly enclosed Solo. I suspect we're delving into philosophy here, but it is arguable that the instrument with Wiegand's changes was valid historically, even if not original. At least, I suspect that this is the view that will have been taken in justifying those that were retained ...

 

Rgds,

MJF

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are also many examples of pneumatic actions by Hill, Harrison and Norman and Beard which work well today (i.e. 100 years later).

 

To try and answer Nathan's (Tubular Pneumatic) earlier question:

 

As the use of a stable electricity supply became more common place, didn't pneumatic action get overtaken by electro-pneumatic actions for 3 reasons?

 

1) with advances in technology and manufacture of electro magnets, electro pneumatic actions turned out to be quicker to make, took up less room inside the organ and are much less fiddly to install and adjust

2) enabled the console to be placed anywhere, within reason - only the speed of sound being the restriction as opposed to the length of the pneumatic tube runs

3) the response of the action was quicker and cleaner on the whole, especially in terms of repetition and of course the organist could have more gadgets on the console!

 

In the USA money was more freely available so organs were upgraded to the new technology more quickly.

 

======================

 

I tand to be corrected etc.......

 

However, isn't part of the answer pure economics?

 

Who today, could find the resources (or even skills) to creat a NEW pneumatic-action, when fly-by-wire, computerised organ-actions are now becoming commonplace?

 

They are basically very much cheaper and easier to install, which does not necessarily imply that they are in any way inferior. When a whole organ can be controlled from a box, using almost no wires at all and key sensors do all the rest, it is like the modern automobile.......sensor and computer controlled via sophisticated programming.

 

If it isn't cheaper, then it certainly should be, but as I haven't a clue what it costs...... :)

 

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Who today, could find the resources (or even skills) to creat a NEW pneumatic-action?"

 

(Quote)

This would have some advantages, tough:

 

-It is an action that permits big romantic or modern organs,

provided no movable console is wanted;

 

-There are several excellent designs at hand from which

we can start;

 

-This is something organ-builders can do themselves, avoiding

thus any dependance to big external firms.

 

As for the know-how, it is still there. There are several german and

british builders that do have it.

Even at Aubertin, a name respected in the UK, you have an employee

extremely skilled in that matter: Michel Gaillard.

This man can rebuild a pneumatic organ from a near-to-be-scrapped

state.

 

Best wishes,

Pierre

Link to post
Share on other sites
======================

 

Who today, could find the resources (or even skills) to creat a NEW pneumatic-action, when fly-by-wire, computerised organ-actions are now becoming commonplace?

 

They are basically very much cheaper and easier to install, which does not necessarily imply that they are in any way inferior.  When a whole organ can be controlled from a box, using almost no wires at all and key sensors do all the rest, it is like the modern automobile.......sensor and computer controlled via sophisticated programming.

 

If it isn't cheaper, then it certainly should be, but as I haven't a clue what it costs......  :P

 

MM

 

This issue is close to my heart at the moment. The organ I play was rebuilt in 1988 with a digital transmission and playback system (replacing a pneumatic action in use since 1914). For the past couple of years this has been the cause of numerous random ciphers, and the instrument is getting towards unplayable. I'm told the digital system is not repairable. This is in addition to the electropneumatic action, where the magnets are also at the end of their life, and the cause of further, slightly more manageable ciphers.

 

So should we replace the digital transmission with the latest version, as well as restore the EP action, and expect another 18 years (approx cost is £60k for a 20 stop organ). Or completely replace the action with something simpler and therefore more reliable and with a longer life. :)

 

Or could I assume that the latest digital systems will last longer? But how can this be proved? :P

 

JJK

Link to post
Share on other sites
The changes ... represent monumental changes, and very big decisions indeed in the context of the restoration.  For most of its long history, the Sydney Town Hall organ has had a fully enclosed Choir and mostly enclosed Solo.  I suspect we're delving into philosophy here, but it is arguable that the instrument with Wiegand's changes was valid historically, even if not original.  At least, I suspect that this is the view that will have been taken in justifying those that were retained ...

 

Rgds,

MJF

 

Many thanks for taking the time to answer my query. At least I wasn't imagining that something had been changed (I had forgotten about the swell box changes to the choir and solo too).

 

I'm sure you're right to see the changes that took place in Wiegand's tenure as City organist as part of this instrument's heritage and worthy of preservation. It's one of the grandest organs of the world. Hearing, and seeing, Olivier Latry play it in a recital about 12 years ago is something that I will always treasure - fantastic organ and a fantastic musician.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or could I assume that the latest digital systems will last longer? But how can this be proved?  :)

 

 

Greetings,

 

My narrow opinion tells me that plastic is plastic and technology is technology. While I am not totally opposed to say, diode-matrix switching as a practical matter, I have no interest in multiplexed or computerized systems. Removing the one-to-one correspondence in the key action introduces risks that did not exist before; namely the possibiltiy of a complete, catastrophic failure. My opinion of the equipment sinks further when combining this with the non-renewability factor which comes with it, and the inconvenience of removing diagnostics from the human senses - also a trait of solid state. In the end, I see digital equipment as building-in obsolescence and a future need for replacement

 

I highly recommend the experience of reaching ones hand through a bunch of ribbon cables and having them crackle and snap at the slightest touch; to say that this technology will last and last is mere specualtion. Infinite renewability of natural materials is on the other hand matter of fact; and will continue to be so as long as God remembers the recipe for sheep.

 

Best,

 

Nathan, notorious tubular-pneumaticist and neo-luddite

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...