[HAM] Chopped C3. Does this make me a bad person?

[John Brevik]

Well, here's another perspective. Of course, there are a few "home- 
brew" chops floating around, although I myself have never seen one --  
are they really that common? The various Hammond lists over the years  
are full of stories of largely unsuccessful attempts to make this  
idea work well, and I think you'd get a good consensus from those who  
know what they're talking about that they're not a good idea in  
general, regardless of one's technical skills, so I'm 100% with you  
on this point.

As far as professional chops, meaning actual portable cases built  
from the ground up, I know one guy who does a lot of this work, and  
he has told me that he re-uses almost every single original cabinet  
that comes in, the rare exceptions being the ones that are "falling  
apart" and practically beyond repair. (I suspect that this practice  
is typical, but I don't know; maybe John H. will weigh in here, but I  
think he's fed up with the list these days.) And of course the reason  
he's able to re-use all those cases is because there are so many  
organs out there whose cabinets have been all but destroyed from road  
use. Now, whether the "chopper" or the person who roaded his or her  
B3 is "responsible" for the presence of one fewer original Hammond on  
this planet is a matter of perspective, and I don't much see why we  
need to point fingers. As an earlier poster pointed out, from the  
standpoint of "preservation at any cost," the right move is  
undoubtedly to get a chop, save the cabinet, and then transplant back  
when you're done schlepping the thing around.

Of course, you then don't have the "majesty, respect and attention"  
of the original box, but maybe that's a fair price to pay out of  
respect for the instrument?? It is a home organ by design, after all,  
and not built to put up with being jostled around and banged up.  
Besides, I've heard enough of your playing, Joe, to assert that 30  
seconds into your set you have the respect and attention of anybody  
you should be worried about -- no matter what the thing you're  
sitting behind *looks* like.

One poster drew an analogy to a '56 Strat, which I surely wouldn't  
chop up, but I wouldn't ever play it either, for fear of putting a  
belt-buckle rash on a $12,000 slab of wood. Which is a shame in its  
own way.

On a personal note, I do wish that the tone weren't so dang negative  
on this board lately. Is it contagious?

Best regards,

John


On Jun 22, 2007, at 7:35 PM, joe d wrote:

>>> I have an old B2 I would love to chop, but I do not have the tech
>> skills to do it.
>
> First...Bad person?  that's a ridiculous way to put it.
> The answer is - it depends.
>
> Well, let's see here...the reasons to chop are slimming (thank God)  
> if you look at the facts.
>
> 1. These are vintage instruments that ARE NOT MADE anymore.  That  
> alone should be a clue.
> If you own the originals...even if the condition is described as  
> "beat up"... the above fact will hopefully start sinking in and the  
> words RESTORE will hopefully be replaced with chop.
> B2/C2/A100's-101s/B3/C3/RTs...you name it... restore.
>
> 2. Chopping does NOT make oving/setup much easier when all is said  
> and done.
> I'm betting I can have the original stock setup up and wailing  
> before you even get the chop setup.
>
> 3.  I've seen more chops beat up and not working WAY more than I  
> see non-working hammonds.Taking away most/any of the solid wood/ 
> base/structure is not beneficial to housing a real hammond nor is  
> it beneficial to it's lasting power when moving a chop a lot.
>
> 4. Stock height/weight,solidity is better for dedicated hammond  
> players over many of the chop setups.  If you dont spend boo-koo $  
> on a cop that gets this right...why even do it?
>
> 5. Stock pedals/setup beats any jerry-rig or make shift on a chop  
> ANY DAY.
>
> 6. 90% of chops look stupid.  I'm sorry...its only my opinion...but  
> they look S T U P I D.  You bag on restoration...and spend a ton of  
> $ on...what?...something that looks like an 80 keyboard?
> Think of the orig/stok organs majesty alone (not even turned on it  
> commands respect and attention).
> * I am not knocking anyone who knows how to chop well...I'm just  
> saying that fr an item that IS NO LONGER MADE...maybe a chop can be  
> considered in only the most SEVERE of cases (like the hammond is  
> split iin splinters and here's no way it can stand up even with  
> nothign in it)....otherwise PLEASE - PLEASE restore.
> They don't make 'em like that anymore.
>
> Then to hear you say "I'm a guitar player...I don't care what it  
> looks like".  I'm sorry but this reponse is BS. A guitar can eaily  
> be rebuilt and are more readily replaced.  You're not an organ  
> player, yet you think you have a right to say "I don't care...chop  
> it. I don't care what it looks like".
> Jesus.
> It's not just about the "look" - there's method to the madness.   
> Learn to play hammond and gig with it and we'll talk. How about I  
> take some weight off you fav geetar and see how you feel about  
> that?  Or fill your hardbody baby with foam?
>
> I'm not trying to single you out and simply be rude...I am just one  
> of those who is adamant about turning off the chop process and  
> pointing towards RESTORE - at any cost.
> Why?  They're gorgeous as is (even the beat up ones), it's ase/body  
> IS as functional as it is beautiful...and THEY DON'T MAKE EM ANYMORE.
>
> Keep 'em alive please.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning  
> Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/? 
> locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
> --
> Subscription Options/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.zeni.net/hf/
> Hammond-Leslie FAQ: http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/faq/
> HammondWiki: http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/
> hammond at zk3.dec.com archives: http://zk3.hammondforum.com/
>