> No one is stopping you or any other secular organization from building your own organs. It seems weird to complain that churches were the only organizations willing to spend the money to build and maintain organs. If anything, you should be grateful they invested the resources in the first place. Without these churches, is it not possible the organ would be virtually extinct at this point?

I think its reasonable to be both happy these things exist at all, and are available to some for free rather than in extremely expensive private collections, while also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist.

We can easily take this to an extreme as an analogy where it would seem more reasonable to you to hear the complaint.

The world isn't perfect, and as strong as the desire is to reduce things to a "good" or a "bad" the real world comes with confusing good and bad points that we don't have to average out into a final score.

> While also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist.

Can you go into more detail as to these exclusionary practices? All organizations, all things really, are defined by both what they include and what they exclude. Nothing is fully inclusive, else that thing would have no meaning!

To be more concrete, How, were churches more exclusionary than other private or civic organizations of their times? When we judge the history of something, we really need to judge it in proper context, including by comparing to the society at large within the same time frame. On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did!

> The world isn't perfect, and as strong as the desire is to reduce things to a "good" or a "bad" the real world comes with confusing good and bad points that we don't have to average out into a final score.

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs.

I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Even if they were less exclusionary to the group the other commenter identifies as a member of than other things "of the time" that's a relative measure and "better than some other things" isn't really relevant to the point.

> On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did!

Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant.

> I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs.

You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. There does not have to be some primary emotion and weighing these things is at best a waste of time. Accepting a bad side of something does not have to come with ignoring any good sides. This was the mistake you were making and still are. It's not a shocking bit of wisdom, it's just a simple thing to keep in mind when you find yourself drawn into an "is complicated thing X good or bad?" argument.

> I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary.

Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. It only takes on a moral character when you consider what is being included or excluded and why. Being "less exclusionary" could be bad, depending on your perspective! I asked you to be more specific, and you chose not to do so, although I can probably guess what you mean, I will instead wait on you to be explicit.

> Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant.

Inclusivity and welcomeness are not the same thing. Christianity is inclusive because it posits every human to be a child of an all-powerful God, having instrinsic worth, and the capacity to be saved and exalted by that God. While conquest definitely played a part in the religion's expansion, it certainly isn't the only factor or even the primary factor.

> You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence.

No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me. For instance, I never said there had to be a primary emotion. I did, however, suggest that there should be one, at least relative to the subject of organs, specifically organ production and access.

> Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral.

Yes I did, and at no point did I even assign a moral value to the exclusion because it's not relevant. Even the original poster didn't.

It can be necessary for the group, inherent in groups, whatever. You don't need to argue around the balance of good Vs bad and can leave it at simply "this part in isolation is a shame". That's it. It's not a big revelation, or shouldn't be, but it may help you with not reacting like such a simple statement is an attack on a larger part of your identity.

> No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me

You called it obvious yet didn't understand it.

This isn't Reddit and I don't want to contribute in turning it into that, if you don't want to read my banal points then don't - I have nothing to win or lose here. If you want to try and understand I think I've framed it as best as I can, so try reading it without assuming it's an attack, responding further after a few misunderstandings is futile because either I can't explain it to your further satisfaction.

Much like the balance of emotions, there does not need to be some winning think out of this.

Now that so many people are non-religious, I wonder why groups are not being formed to take the place of churches, and have choirs and organ music. Clearly there is a desire for such things. If churches can do it, surely secular non-profits could do the same thing. Gather together one or more times a week to sing and listen to music. Maybe have talks about whatever people want to talk about (hopefully avoiding things like politics so everyone feels welcome). Organizations to replace the community that churches used to provide. It could provide service opportunities, a resource for the poor and needy to get help. Even a place to find a boardgame group. It would need a one word name like church/synagogue/mosque so people could move into an area and ask “Where is the local …”

Maybe people aren't so non-religious as they seem. I see a lot of claims in here that there are no believers in church choirs etc. At best that's wishful thinking, at worst it's maybe even a lie to draw people in.

In my experience, most groups that have Christian hymns in their repertoire are closet Christians at least on average. Even in the choirs that sing strictly secular songs, believers are overrepresented just from selection effects, since they sing a lot more.

But yes, there are choirs that stick strictly to secular repertoire. There was a "red" choral revival in the 70s, and of course worker and patriotic choirs go a long way back. They got to have something that unites them besides the singing, though. In my town the main secular choirs are the opera choir, which is united by their love of opera and classical music, and the chamber choir, which is 90% doctors and nurses from the local hospital.

> Where is the local …

Library.

Libraries are often community based, can hold events and talks, are an assumed "no cost" place too. I've lived in cities where you can go and play music on their instruments, use 3d printers, computers, access training, hold community groups, use their sewing machines, watch performances and more.

What you need is the funding.

Yes... all the libraries with Pipe Organs and choirs...

I see what you are saying, but library isn't it. It needs to be an organization like a church, just non-religious. Libraries and churches have some similarities, but the many differences, and not just religious versus non-religious.

I want to see a purely voluntary organization. There is a head of the organization, but that person has a normal full time job, as does everyone else who "works" there. People need to pay dues to pay for the building, the utilities, the pipe organ, etc. but none of that money can go to a person's salary. No mega "churches".

Other organizations have them as well, though they are still difficult to get to — most professional and many college concert halls, theaters (especially, perhaps, those restored to their movie palace glory).

I've seen people that are really good at playing organ play piano really well, but I've yet to come across a pianist that liked the organ. The lack of expression in the keys is what makes the organ a much harder instrument to play in a musically interesting way than the piano, but with the 'schwellwerk' you can offset some of that and you have endless combinations of stops to modify the tone and that's a big part of playing an organ (as well as the footwork).

There are some crazy good organists out there, and they definitely make them come to life in a way that people that don't have the organ as their main instrument would struggle with. I've been to some organ performances that were indeed boring and some that were out of this world, same organ!

> At the same time, I don't find the organ particularly interesting musically.

Find different organ music!

I can do without Buxtehude, say. But I would rather listen to Duruflé and Howells then basically anything else.

We are much of the same mind. The organ may be the queen of the instruments, but the human voice is king, and I much prefer singing without distracting organ accompaniments.

That being said, I don't think you can get a full picture of Bach's achievements without having some appreciation for his organ work, particularly the chorale preludes. Those are some of the most magnificent pieces he ever wrote, and I adore them despite my ambivalence towards the sound of the organs.

There's some great classical organ pieces, but I suspect you've heard most of them :)

I had the pleasure of hearing this guy[1] perform with the local symphony the other year and was impressed by his take on the instrument. He not only played classics like Saint-Saens Symphony No. 3, but also his own creations.

He also built his own electronic organ that he takes on tour. Hacker and a musician.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Carpenter

I think organ music loses more in recording than most other forms of music. Not only the earth shaking acoustics, but also all the improvisation that's typically part of liturgical organ music.