Re: Hammond Advertising

[r_ruggiero <r_ruggiero@global2000.net>]

>       Since we're talking about this and that!!! I remember that there 
> was a piece of literature from Hammond about a "test" at the University 
> of Illinois where Laurens Hammond proved that in many instances you could 
> not tell the difference between a Hammond and a pipe organ. It seems the 
> AGO (American Guild of Organist) brought a suite against Hammond trying 
> to keep it from being advertised as an organ. A screen was set up so the 
> Hammond and pipe organ consoles could not be seen and the AGO members 
> were to indicate which instrument was playing. They were wrong enough 
> times that the FCC or FTC or whoever controlled "truth in advertising" 
> back then said indeed the Hammond could be called an organ. So there!!!
> What we love is indeed an organ , not just an instrument!
>                               Dick    :-)
> 
It's interesting to read about that test - however, I doubt that today's 
ears would have as much trouble telling the difference.  Remember that at 
the time of the Hammond's debut, the only electrical competition was the 
amplified reed organ.  Hammond's very convincing flutes and even 
principals must have sounded pretty close to the wide-scaled, "boopy" 
sounding organ pipes of the era.  

A similar test, BTW was done at Princeton University in the 1950's, 
pitting a Schulmerich electronic carillon against the cast-bell 
instrument in Cleavland tower - with similar results.  And to think, now 
we can smell a sampled sound a mile away. . .
Rick