Christchurch Priory organ

[revtonynewnham]

[This is a post and thread split from the thread "Researcher seeking organ enthusiasts for Documentary" which subsequently generated interest enough for its own thread . . .  - Forum Admin]

With ref to the comments on Christchurch Priory, it's on record (in a lengthy article in "Organ Building" shortly after the rebuild was completed), that the mechanical console was included at the insistence of an advisor (I can't offhand remember if it was consultant, or DOA, or some other interested party) simply because of the view (which, although I prefer tracker actions) that tracker is always best!  Looking at the drawings in the article, I can see why it's rarely used and has a heavy touch.  I seems to me like an unnecessary complication (and no doubt significant extra expense) on an organ that obviously needs a detached console - or a complete re-thing into something that suits tracker action, which would mean dispensing with many of the characteristic stops on the existing instrument - possibly a complete fresh start.

As Jonathon said, the purpose of a church organ is to serve the current needs of the church - no more, and no less (and that may include concerts, recitals, etc). If it doesn't do that adequately (and in many cases, a historic instrument is fine - in others there is arguably a need to more registrational control)  But the bottom line has to be that the church is NOT in the museum business.

Every Blessing

Tony

[David Pinnegar]

With ref to the comments on Christchurch Priory, it's on record (in a lengthy article in "Organ Building" shortly after the rebuild was completed), that the mechanical console was included at the insistence of an advisor  . . . I seems to me like an unnecessary complication (and no doubt significant extra expense) on an organ that obviously needs a detached  . . .
As Jonathon said, the purpose of a church organ is to serve the current needs of the church - no more, and no less (and that may include concerts, recitals, etc). If it doesn't do that adequately (and in many cases, a historic instrument is fine - in others there is arguably a need to more registrational control)  But the bottom line has to be that the church is NOT in the museum business.

Dear Tony

Your mention of being in the museum business may or may not be sparked by a comment of mine somewhere in relation to the philosophy of the treatment of listed buildings . . . which actually does take into account issues of use in the context of modern needs - or rather at least _should_.

There may be conflicts however between what are seen to be modern "needs" and a place set up and furbished as a Memorial - the Memorial having much greater emphasis on being a rock to remember by - an intangible element of the extent to which it can contain the memory of a time and of events. As in religion, no blind adherence to rules or principles can provide for every circumstance. . .

Best wishes

David P

[twanguitar]

I played it in the company of an organist closely associated with the church (whom I will not embarrass by naming him) shortly after it had been completed.  The tracker console, as I recall it, was not particularly heavy then - maybe it is now due to age and wear.  But I think I'm right in saying that one (the top one I think) keyboard is electro-pneumatic, as it would have been impossible to get to some physically remote stops using trackers.  It is true the tracker console is in some sort of dark cupboard, at least that's what it felt like to me.  And one could barely hear some loud stops such as the Tuba from it.

The organist told me it was indeed a well known personality in the organ world who insisted on this second console.  This personality was associated with a funding body which, consequently, would not agree to release funds unless it was included in the scheme.  He also said there are electric timers associated with the two consoles, and even then it was interesting to see that they showed how strongly people preferred to play the mobile electric console in the nave.  Also I recall how dusty the tracker console was, which was additional confirmation of what he said.

Nevertheless, while one can carp until the cows come home, it was and is a fine-sounding organ and a joy to play from the mobile console at least.  I was taken on a tour of the organ, and I remember thinking that all credit was due to Nicholson's for re-using such a motley collection of pipework and making it sound so fine - AND for finally ridding the church of that awful electronic they had had for so long.

TG

[twanguitar]

Though Voix Cynique might well be personally familiar with the mechanical details of C-C's work in Paris, it is possible from what he said above that he may not have travelled the much shorter distance to Dorset.  In fact the pipework at Christchurch is not confined to the two visible cases.  Bits of it are scattered in a horizontal direction way out west.  As I said, I was taken on a conducted tour of the instrument.  I recommend he try to have the same privilege granted, whereupon the answer to his question would perhaps become clearer to him.

He might then even be persuaded to agree with me that Nicholson's did indeed do a fine job.

TG

[pcnd5584]

I played it in the company of an organist closely associated with the church (whom I will not embarrass by naming him) shortly after it had been completed.  The tracker console, as I recall it, was not particularly heavy then - maybe it is now due to age and wear.  But I think I'm right in saying that one (the top one I think) keyboard is electro-pneumatic, as it would have been impossible to get to some physically remote stops using trackers.  It is true the tracker console is in some sort of dark cupboard, at least that's what it felt like to me.  And one could barely hear some loud stops such as the Tuba from it.

As a former Assistant Organist of Christchurch Priory (and one who had to put up with the geriatric toaster for two years), I can state that the upstairs console is certainly not heavy as a result of wear - as you have said, it is hardly ever used. Personally, I did find it uncomfortably heavy - even just after it was finished. I have played for a good number of services at both Chichester Cathedral and Christ Church Cathedral  (Oxford), and in neither case have I ever found the action to be heavy, even with all four claviers coupled together. However, at the Priory it was, unpleasantly so - partly due to the fact that the console is positioned in a ninety degree turn from the orientation of the soundboards.

The organist told me it was indeed a well known personality in the organ world who insisted on this second console.  This personality was associated with a funding body which, consequently, would not agree to release funds unless it was included in the scheme.  He also said there are electric timers associated with the two consoles, and even then it was interesting to see that they showed how strongly people preferred to play the mobile electric console in the nave.  Also I recall how dusty the tracker console was, which was additional confirmation of what he said.

This is indeed true - although the present organist does like to practise on the attached console. The Priory authorities insisted on the mobile Nave console, largely because of the regular series of Thursday lunch-time recitals; the audience enjoy watching the organist at work.

Nevertheless, while one can carp until the cows come home, it was and is a fine-sounding organ and a joy to play from the mobile console at least.  I was taken on a tour of the organ, and I remember thinking that all credit was due to Nicholson's for re-using such a motley collection of pipework and making it sound so fine - AND for finally ridding the church of that awful electronic they had had for so long.

TG

Well, it is true that there are some good points about the organ - not least that it replaced the electronic. However, as originally finished, it was not so fine sounding. I recall the opening recital, where most of us were quite convinced that the artist engaged to play had chosen to confine himself to the Swell Organ, for some reason. It was certainly significantly under-powered.

This was confirmed a few weeks later, when, after playing one of the first lunch-time recitals on the re-commissioned pipe organ, it also fell to my lot to play, as soloist , for the first big concert with orchestra. The programme consisted of the Third ('Organ') Symphony, by Saint-Saëns, and Duruflé's setting of the Requiem. I recall clearly the look of shock and disappointment on the conductor's face when, at the rehearsal, I played the first big C major chord (on the tutti) and he said 'OK, but we need a lot more.' I had to reply that this was all there was. Needless to say, during the concert, aside from places where the organ was played solo, or when the orchestra were playing more quietly, the organ was, quite literally, inaudible.

It is only over the last few years that several costly changes have been made to the voicing of certain stops (and some additions made), that this instrument is anything like adequate for this large church.

Even now, I have to say that I do not particularly regard it as a fine organ. The voicing of the Swell reeds is still odd - and bizarrely, some of the G.O. (particularly the foundation stops) reminds me of the old toaster. Then there is the Choir Organ. This is, unfortunately, neither one thing nor the other. It is not sufficiently robust to act as a foil for the G.O. chorus (and in any case, the schemes of the compound stops are not conducive to such a rôle), yet it is largely too loud for choral accompaniment. The lack of enclosure exacerbates the situation. Fo example, the Corno di Bassetto is too loud for 'lining-out' in the Psalms. In addition, the pointless duplication of certain pitches means that this department is rather less useful than it might have been.

Still, at least it is now loud enough.

[pcnd5584]

What I wonder at is why they didn't simply place the attached console between the main case and the Ruckpositiv case at the front of the gallery... and why design the organ in such a way that one manual cannot be on the same action as the rest? Surely, if Cavaillé-Coll could manage tracker action on a 102-stop, five-manual organ in a large Parisian church, it shouldn't be a huge challenge with a four-manual, sixty-one stop organ in the spacious South Transept of a large Norman monastic church?

I have noted twanguitar's post subsequent to the one I now quote. However, I felt that it was worth clarifying the situation.

The organ of Christchurch Priory is situated, for the most part, on a gallery in the South Transept. Since the building is quite long (I believe that the Nave itself is of eight bays), there is also a Nave Organ. This is placed in the easternmost bay of the South Nave Triforium, behind a separate case. It includes the (partly extended) flue chorus and the extended Posaune and Tuba ranks. One bay further west are the Pedal Bombardes.

Therefore, this section had to be on some form of electro-pneumatic action. This instrument relies heavily on the Nave section - even for normal service accompaniment, as I myself can testify.

In addition, apparently you have forgotton that the main purpose of the Grandes Orgues in a French church is not to accompany either a choir or the congregation, but to provide voluntaries and other (usually improvised) organ music during the services.

[Barry Williams]

I understand that the organ builder was not permitted to do what was considered appropriate.
 
There was a 'consultant', a well-known organ recitalist, whose views prevailed.  It is those views that appear to have been reversed by the more recent tonal alterations.

I have played it from both consoles.  The tracker console is unpleasantly heavy.  I fail to see the point of having a tracker console in that position. 

I remember the organ as it was when Geoffrey Tristram was organist there.  The sound was glorious; although it got around the building quite well, the the Nave Diapason Chorus was essential for service work.  I think that the Nave Section was softened in the rebuild.

Barry Williams

[pcnd5584]

In respect of Christchurch Priory, I understand that the organ builder was not permitted to do what was considered appropriate.
 
There was a 'consultant', a well-known organ recitalist, whose views prevailed.  It is those views that appear to have been reversed by the more recent tonal alterations.

I have played it from both consoles.  The tracker console is unpleasantly heavy.  I fail to see the point of having a tracker console in that position. 

I remember the organ as it was when Geoffrey Tristram was organist there.  The sound was glorious; although it got around the building quite well, the the Nave Diapason Chorus was essential for service work.  I think that the Nave Section was softened in the rebuild.

Barry Williams

Barry is quite correct.

I recall discussing the schemes with the then organist and subsequently writing a long letter to him, detailing everything I felt had either been omitted, or incorrectly specified. He then sent this letter to the consultant, who wrote back to me; the gist of his letter was that I was incorrect, and that the organ was going to be a fine instrument.

Interestingly enough, everything I mentioned (and one or two additional aspects) had to be addressed after the organ was finished.

I think that a number of us were somewhat concerned at the blatant waste of money when the builders were compelled to provide an attached console and a second action. We all felt (and still do) that this money could have been far more profitably spent on the tonal side of the instrument.

As part of the process to raise funds for the restoration of the pipe organ, the previous organist (who has his own recording company) produced a CD re-mastered from old tapes of Geoffrey Tristram playing the old Ginn/FHW/Compton/D&R pipe organ. It was indeed a fine sound.

Perhaps not such a motley collection of pipes, after all.

[organforumadmin]

[Post orphaned in the topic split - Forum Admin]

apparently you have forgotton that the main purpose of the Grandes Orgues in a French church is not to accompany either a choir or the congregation, but to provide voluntaries and other (usually improvised) organ music during the services.

I wasn't thinking of rôles, merely physical layout. I had quite forgotten the Nave organ. In this case, I would have to ask - why tracker action at all?

On the other hand, some extremely complex layouts are still possible with tracker action - see http://www.mander-organs.com/portfolio/peachtree.html. However, here, clearly, the trackers run under the sanctuary floor - clearly impossible with an organ elevated in a gallery with an isolated nave division in a triforium. Admittedly, there is also a 2m/p West end organ (playable electrically from the East end console) but I suspect that, in that building, it's more a luxury than a necessity.

Incidentally, how does the organ at Chichester work? I think it's tracker action, but clearly it's in the North Transept arch, on a gallery, with the Nave division in the South Nave triforium, so that can't be tracker - and does one then have a problem with one action being faster than another? Reminds me of the organs at San Lorenzo del Escorial - merged from four (IIRC) into one by Organeria Español with electric action and a huge five-manual console up in the chancel, with a simply horrendous lag on the Nave organs.

[pcnd5584]

apparently you have forgotton that the main purpose of the Grandes Orgues in a French church is not to accompany either a choir or the congregation, but to provide voluntaries and other (usually improvised) organ music during the services.

I wasn't thinking of rôles, merely physical layout. I had quite forgotten the Nave organ. In this case, I would have to ask - why tracker action at all?

Yes - but the rôle informs, or at least influences, the layout.

As has already been stated, why tracker indeed.

On the other hand, some extremely complex layouts are still possible with tracker action - see http://www.mander-organs.com/portfolio/peachtree.html. However, here, clearly, the trackers run under the sanctuary floor - clearly impossible with an organ elevated in a gallery with an isolated nave division in a triforium. Admittedly, there is also a 2m/p West end organ (playable electrically from the East end console) but I suspect that, in that building, it's more a luxury than a necessity.

Incidentally, how does the organ at Chichester work? I think it's tracker action, but clearly it's in the North Transept arch, on a gallery, with the Nave division in the South Nave triforium, so that can't be tracker - and does one then have a problem with one action being faster than another? Reminds me of the organs at San Lorenzo del Escorial - merged from four (IIRC) into one by Organeria Español with electric action and a huge five-manual console up in the chancel, with a simply horrendous lag on the Nave organs.

The Mander rebuild and restoration of the organ of Chichester Cathedral is, as far as I am concerned (having played it no many occasions), superb.

The main instrument is as you describe it, with mechanical action to the five divisions of the main organ. The stop action also has a parallel Solid-State system, utilising powerful solenoids, of German manufacture, in order to 'drive' the combination pistons. The Nave Organ is on electro-pneumatic action - at least, I do not recall it being direct electric. I have no idea regarding the time lag with the main organ. In any case, the Nave Organ is used to bolster the singing of hymns, so even if one is playing on a moderate registration on the main organ, the Nave section cannot clearly be heard from the console. The congregation may hear the main organ fractionally later than the Nave section; however, as far as I know, the Nave Organ, once the upperwork is reached, dominates the sound. Incidentally, the Nave Organ also has its own console, situated on the floor of the Nave, on the north side.

A useful expedient when playing pieces on this organ, is to use a small amount of the Nave Organ, in order to help project the sound down the Nave, past the Bell-Arundel screen. If one were to use no more than the 8ft, stops with, perhaps occasionally the 4ft. Principal, in the Nave, this has the effect of amplifying the sound of the main organ, without detracting from its impact.

However, I am glad that someone has finally got around to authorising the addition of a Swell to Choir coupler.* The original omission of this, I always regarded as the only serious handicap on this otherwise excellent instrument.

Incidentally, the Solo Sub Octave coupler is electric, additional key-contacts being fitted to the Solo clavier. Thus there is no further weight experienced by the player when using this device.



* There is a possibility that this was simply overlooked by the consultant (and, presumably, everyone else involved in the planning of the rebuild), and consequently left off the drawings.

[Brian Daniels]

Looks as though we are back on the DOA/Consultant issue again!

Heavy tracker action has as much if not more to do with windchest design than tracker runs; important though these are. Long runs tend to induce excessive inertia rather than weight of touch. Unless of course there is so much friction at the terminations that the pallet spring rate has to be increased.

If what I read is correct I find myself asking the rhetorical question, 'If we can't get it right for a prestigious establishment like Christchurch Priory what hope have we elsewhere'?

Brian Daniels.

[pcnd5584]

Looks as though we are back on the DOA/Consultant issue again!

Heavy tracker action has as much if not more to do with windchest design than tracker runs; important though these are. Long runs tend to induce excessive inertia rather than weight of touch. Unless of course there is so much friction at the terminations that the pallet spring rate has to be increased.

If what I read is correct I find myself asking the rhetorical question, 'If we can't get it right for a prestigious establishment like Christchurch Priory what hope have we elsewhere'?

Brian Daniels.

Thank you for this, Brian.

I recall seeing an article (with photographs) some years ago in Organists' Review, wich featured the Kenneth Jones organ in the Cathedral of the Madeleine, Salt Lake City. This instrument was constructed with mechanical action, and, despite being sited on the west gallery, had tracker runs at, I believe, seven different levels.

Here is a view of this instrument. Or at least, it would be, if the html code on this page did not keep changing itself, and adding characters to the link I copied.

Try this one: http://www.kennethjonesorgans.com/salt_lake_city.html

[Barry Williams]

"Looks as though we are back on the DOA/Consultant issue again!"

As I understand it, and PCND may be able to confirm or explain, there was a 'consultant' appointed by the church who dictated exactly what was to be done and how.  When that proved unsuccessful, the church had to pay to put it all right.  There was a legacy or gift and that money was used for the purpose.

It seems at least possible that the 'consultant' might have aimed at the wrong target in his or her design.  I understand that the organ builder was instructed, by the church, to work according to the 'consultant'.  From what PCND has written I infer, possibly incorrectly, that the problems were anticipated by some folk yet dismissed by the 'consultant', but found ultimately, to be correct, at at significant cost to the church.

If I have got this wrong please, PCND, correct me.

It would be interersting to know if the Diocesan Organs Adviser was involved in detail over this.  I doubt it, for once the faculty has been granted, many DOAs have no further contact - at least not until there is a further petition or formal request to the DAC for advice.

All advice given by the DAC and its advisers is on the basis that the parish church is the centre of worship and mission.  That is the law, as I have written before.  In certain places recital work is part of the mission of the church, so regard for that capaicty is right and proper, but only rarely can that be at the price of accompanying divine worshsip.

Barry Williams

[pcnd5584]

"Looks as though we are back on the DOA/Consultant issue again!"

As I understand it, and PCND may be able to confirm or explain, there was a 'consultant' appointed by the church who dictated exactly what was to be done and how.  When that proved unsuccessful, the church had to pay to put it all right.  There was a legacy or gift and that money was used for the purpose.

This is correct.

It seems at least possible that the 'consultant' might have aimed at the wrong target in his or her design.  I understand that the organ builder was instructed, by the church, to work according to the 'consultant'.  From what PCND has written I infer, possibly incorrectly, that the problems were anticipated by some folk yet dismissed by the 'consultant', but found ultimately, to be correct, at at significant cost to the church.

If I have got this wrong please, PCND, correct me.

No, you are correct. See my post above (July 17, 2011, 10:14:12 PM). I think that at that time, I was the only person in a position to be able to anticipate problems with and omissions from the scheme specified by the consultant. Contracts had not yet been signed, and it was only the fact that I had recently been the Assistant Organist of this church that allowed me to see the documents. I still have the letter which I received from the consultant concerned.

It would be interersting to know if the Diocesan Organs Adviser was involved in detail over this.  I doubt it, for once the faculty has been granted, many DOAs have no further contact - at least not until there is a further petition or formal request to the DAC for advice. ...

Barry Williams

I am not sure about this one. I cannot recall who was the DOA at the time. In any case, the consultant concerned was not the original choice. We began the process with a cathedral organist (who, for obvious reasons, I cannot name here); shortly afterwards this person resigned, due to pressure of work.

[Jonathan Lane]

Looks as though we are back on the DOA/Consultant issue again!

Heavy tracker action has as much if not more to do with windchest design than tracker runs; important though these are. Long runs tend to induce excessive inertia rather than weight of touch. Unless of course there is so much friction at the terminations that the pallet spring rate has to be increased.

If what I read is correct I find myself asking the rhetorical question, 'If we can't get it right for a prestigious establishment like Christchurch Priory what hope have we elsewhere'?

Brian Daniels.

Thank you Brian, a very useful point, which most including me had failed to raise!

Jonathan

[pcnd5584]

Another thing I've griped about - well-known organbuilders with no websites! Glad to see Kenneth Jones has finally joined the 21st century (dare I call it the digital age?)... although it would appear, opening pages on individual organs, most have no information on them, only one has a specification (in PDF form - I'd prefer it to be in HTML on the website itself), one turned up a 404 Not Found. Is there a point putting up a website (or a section thereof) which has very little on it?

In fact, this website has been around for a while - but has not looked much different to this. Kenneth Jones himself has retired. It may be that the website will be re-launched in the near future.

[Jonathan Lane]

"Looks as though we are back on the DOA/Consultant issue again!"

As I understand it, and PCND may be able to confirm or explain, there was a 'consultant' appointed by the church who dictated exactly what was to be done and how.  When that proved unsuccessful, the church had to pay to put it all right.  There was a legacy or gift and that money was used for the purpose.

It seems at least possible that the 'consultant' might have aimed at the wrong target in his or her design.  I understand that the organ builder was instructed, by the church, to work according to the 'consultant'.  From what PCND has written I infer, possibly incorrectly, that the problems were anticipated by some folk yet dismissed by the 'consultant', but found ultimately, to be correct, at at significant cost to the church.

If I have got this wrong please, PCND, correct me.

It would be interersting to know if the Diocesan Organs Adviser was involved in detail over this.  I doubt it, for once the faculty has been granted, many DOAs have no further contact - at least not until there is a further petition or formal request to the DAC for advice.

All advice given by the DAC and its advisers is on the basis that the parish church is the centre of worship and mission.  That is the law, as I have written before.  In certain places recital work is part of the mission of the church, so regard for that capaicty is right and proper, but only rarely can that be at the price of accompanying divine worshsip.

Barry Williams

Whilst there can be problems when someone who isn't accredited advises and the church decides to take their advice without question, I also know of a number of incidents when a DOA has advised work on new organs that fails to meet the needs of the church, and ultimately, if carried through, would have resulted in an instrument that would have been a burden on the church rather than a blessing for it!

Jonathan

[David Pinnegar]

This is an example where people making interventions in instruments should really have a clear sense of purpose in mind and principles akin to those associated with historic building preservation are a good place to start.

The extent to which one must view organs as mere functional (disposable) commodities and heritage objects (what do we keep and what do we throw away, in whole or in part) must depend primarily on
a. age,
b. intentions of original benefactors and the depth of the memory they are intending to commit to the eternal,
c. intensity of artistic creation at the time
d. commonality of extant examples of similar work
and this can direct a layer of decision making in the context of
e. compatibility with current use.

John Ruskin wrote on the balance between monotony and change especially with regard to the Gothic and in order to assess an approach on either side of the balance, I like the phrase in
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm

Treatment may be defined as work carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal--it cannot be considered in a vacuum.

So much of such philosphy is nowadays international, encouraged by the work of ICOMOS, that the fact that this particular document, which I have chosen at random on an internet search for the relevant concepts, is not British, is irrelevant. Most national governments have adopted similar guidelines.

On integrity:

A [xyz] may have several areas of historical significance. An understanding of the [xyz] as a continuum through history is critical in assessing its cultural and historic value. In order for the [xyz] to have integrity, these character-defining features or qualities that contribute to its significance must be present.

As with any piece of engineering, function is first and the second is "if it aint broke don't fix it". This applies first to actions and to maintenance and refurbishment and second to tonal specifications.

With regard to historic buildings
1. the reason for intervention should be clear
2. the integrity of the object should be preserved and alterations should be reversible
3. any additions should be identifiable from the original and not confusable

Four treatments are defined by http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations,and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical or cultural values.

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/41351 identifies these guidelines as having arisen from the 1964 Charter of Venice.

http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/819/1/Meraz-Architecture_and_Temporality_in_Conservation_Philosophy.pdf appears interesting but I find theses littered with words such as "epistemological" rather heavy weather and written perhaps more to sound clever than to appeal to relevance (akin, for instance, to the style of a Hammerwood student who went on to write http://www.cerebration.org/teletheory.html )

No doubt BIOS and others have developed guidelines but from the countless examples of what we now regard in retrospect as poor decision making in the course of the history of organs, I believe that the area would benefit well from wider academic philosophical theory developed well in other fields.

Organs are not an intellectual island and the principles of balances between monotony and change, preservation and function, have been well considered and established throughout the heritage.

Best wishes

David P

Postscript: BIOS:

The significance of an old organ increases with its age, rarity, and the extent to which it remains in its original state. Organs of any size from the seventeenth, eighteenth or first half of the nineteenth centuries in any state of preservation are now so rare and of such historic importance that their preservation, and, if necessary, faithful restoration, should be assumed as a matter of course. Organs of the period 1850-1920 survive in somewhat greater numbers, but again their preservation and restoration should normally be the rule. Organs from 1920 onwards may not be historic as such, but nevertheless major unaltered examples of the work of good builders should be preserved in their original state.

Organs that have been so radically altered that they no longer represent the style of the original builder may be of lesser interest, though some such instruments may still contain extremely important historical material.  Any organ case, pipework or mechanism more than a hundred years old should be considered for preservation.

Organs, like other musical instruments, are works of art. The most significant examples rank alongside famous violins and paintings by great masters though, as they are fixtures and not often marketable, their monetary value may well not reflect this. Even the most humble examples represent great care and skill on the part of their makers, and the temptation to alter them to conform to tastes in playing that the maker did not envisage should be avoided. Nor should it be imagined that the non-sounding parts of the organ are just mechanism, and can be changed at will; each part has a vital role in affecting the way the instrument can be played, and therefore the way it will sound.

[organforumadmin]

In view of the work of ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) throughout the heritage, shouldn't this thread be worthy of continued attention? Of course it would be appropriate to move the last post and this back into the thread of DOA organ advisors. . . .


The ICOMOS publication http://www.international.icomos.org/quebec2008/quebec_declaration/pdf/GA16_Quebec_Declaration_Final_EN.pdf
is possibly a good place to start. It's interesting that it does not include sound in its examples of intangible components of Heritage.


Best wishes


Forum Admin