The Zurich Resolution 2011 > The Zurich Resolution 2011
«Organ Transfer and Organ Rights»
(1/2) > >>
Moderation Prof. Dr. Michael G. Kaufmann
Prof. Rudolf Meyer
Prof. Dr. Johann Trummer
Organs have, aside from their artistic importance as a musical instrument,
also a great financial value: High mental, technical and financial
capabilities have to be mobilised to build an organ; the task often extends
over a long period and demands immense resources. As a rule, an organ
is designed for a very specific space (church, hall, parlour, cinema etc.)
in which it can develop its full tonal potential; this is its «home».
Although most of the instruments are of impressive construction they still
remain, in contrast to the immobile buildings they are in, a sort of «furniture
». In a way they therefore are «mobile» since they can be disassembled
and set up again elsewhere, should the external circumstances
In this podium discussion, the resulting problems are to be debated and,
based thereon, appropriate decisions are to be made. The discussion will
also include the significance of the unity of space, instrument and sound,
selling organs in order to purchase a better instrument or out of necessity
and lack of money or other reasons, and the characteristics of a positivist-
oriented industry transforming the spiritual need of the people into
a dependance and exploiting this for its own sake.
Yet an organ is an individual – and deserves to be treated that way!
Michael Gerhard Kaufmann
Michael Gerhard Kaufmann was born in
1966. He studied School and Church
Music as well as German Language and
Literature in Karlsruhe (Germany). He
holds a doctorate in musicology and an
honorary professorship at the Trossingen University of
the Arts. He is the coordinator of the study network
«OrganExpert» and the archiepiscopal organ inspector
for the Archdiocese Freiburg. He is active as teacher,
author, editor and organist and is a member of the
Executive Committee of the German Association of Organ
Consultants (VOD), the Society of Friends of the
Organ (GdO) and the Swiss foundation Cultural Heritage
Philipp Caspar Andreas Klais
Philipp Caspar Andreas Klais, born
1967, grew up in an organ builders
workshop and followed in the footsteps
of his father, grandfather and greatgrandfather.
He received his education
as an organ builder at a French organ builders' workshop
and within his father’s workshop.
16 years ago he took over the management of the organ
construction workshop Klais Bonn. Among the the
many organs since completed in the Bonn workshop
since then, include the Cathedral of Cologne, the Concert
Houses of Singapore, Auckland, Birmingham, Peking
and Arhus, as well as the Church of St. Elisabeth
in Marburg and the Cathedral of Zaragoza.
Presently, a new organ is being built for the Church of
St. Maximilian in Dusseldorf.
Andreas Ladach was born 1969 in Wuppertal
(Germany). After high school
(Gymnasium with Abitur) and civil service,
he began to study electrical engineering
and to play the organ. He was
offered a used organ in 1996, which he sold to a Polish
church. This sale inspired him, after completion of his
studies, to begin procuring and selling used pipe organs
throughout Europe. In 2002, he bought the Wuppertal
Trinitas Church in order to install a permanent
exhibition of used organs. He speaks five languages
and annually sells, or acts as a broker for, 80 organs
Rudolf Meyer (1943 *) studied organ,
school music, church music and composition
in Zurich, Paris and Haarlem.
Following his choir master tenure in
Burgdorf and Rapperswil, he took charge
from 1976-2001 of an occupational and concert
class at the Zurich University of the Arts and became
the organist at the Winterthur City Church. In addition
he was Guest Professor in Syndey, Australia and in Cologne.
In Winterthur he led the restoration of the Walcker
Organ (1888) and the resulting five International
Organ Conferences, which focused on contacts. He
strives for ease of contact with out-dated organs and
postulates «Organ-Rights», a legal statue for these instruments.
In addition to concerts, master classes and
his organ expertise, Meyer regularly directs complex
choral projects. Most recently, Bach’s St. Matthew Passion
in 2011, performed with modern concert practices.
He increasingly enjoys composing.
Johann Trummer was born in 1940. He
studied theology and musicology at the
University of Graz (Austria). In addition,
he studied organ with Franz Illenberger
and harpsichord with Vera Schwarz at
the University of Music and Performing Arts. Since
1996, he has worked at the University of Music in Graz
in various capacities, such as director of the Institute
for Performance Practice (1981-2000), Leader of the
Department of Church Music (1973-1991). He served
on the board for the Institute of Church Music and Organ
(2000-2008) and is a member of the Board of Directors
of the New Bach Society (Leipzig). As a priest
in the diocese Graz-Seckau, he was a member of the
Executive Committee of Seminary of Graz from 1969
Prof Dr Kaufmann:
Are the Provisions of UNESCO of Chartres and Venice good enough?
When organs are removed from churches, memory is gone. One should consider the instrument as a life - one should consider its CV. No doubt it will have inspired ten organists to write for it and then an organist wants to do away with it. . . We need to consider the cultural impact of that.
Italy - lots of organs are being removed.
Philipp Klais: There have been a flood of English organs coming to Germany. German organs of the 1950s and 1960s are going into Eastern Europe. Often in the past organs were thrown away. We need strong cultural heritage provisions to give rights to the organ. We should not treat all instruments in the same way. It's sad to see organs leave the spaces that they were made for: they need to be treated as a family member.
The organ in the chapel of the Palace of Wurzberg was removed in the 1930s. It is still in our workshop awaiting the right space to home it . . .
Andreas Ladach: Every organ is tailor made for a space and use somewhere else is only partial in success. See www.ladach.de which is a board for second hand organs.
In the process of organ transfer, in the decision to change an organ, in the old building everyone hates the organ. In the new building, everyone loves the organ, often because it is the best in the area (to say nothing of the great efforts that people have expended in succeeding in the acquisition of the instrument)
Rudolph Meyer: Often it's organists who threaten the organ. Renovation of electronpneumatic actions creates a lot of organ-builders' work.
It's easy to get rid of an organ - you remove the covering of a key and then get the newspaper to photograph it and then the three million euros flows in to repair it . . . I have experienced instances where organists have deliberately sabotaged the organ, creating a cipher or something, for this reason.
Any removal of an organ from its original place should be decided by courts with the expertise of art historians and other heritage consultants on hand.
Prof Dr Trummer: The East has catch-up potential and the west wants to dispose of instruments. (??Mentioned Cardinal Kunig of Vienna and the story of wanting an instrument for a cathedral?? ??Moscow?? ) Minsk cathedral organ is being renovated at the cost of the State. Other instruments in demand in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet occupations. But in the eats there is confusion - Orthodox liturgy was only singing, without organs. Other than what was experienced on a limited basis in that context, the organ was known only in concert halls. In Soviet times, organ composition was only allowed if it was dedicated to the State.
Philipp Klais In Paris the Radio France concert hall was gutted and the new concert hall did not want an organ. There was a 100 rank instrument that needed a new home. As a matter of interest, they subsequently wanted and installed a new instrument.
A business in the USA apparently recognizes the "rights" of the Organ to exist in the space for which it was designed ???
Seehttp://www.organmatters.com/index.php/topic,941.0.html for the news article...
The following is a very rough translation from Google Translate . . . if anyone can make improvements and post them in a reply I'll copy and paste the altered text here.
--- Quote ---Declaration of Rights For Organs
On the occasion of the panel discussion as part of the 50th International Conference of the Organ on the 8th of GdO August 2002 had at the Musikhochschule in Lucerne I first sketched ideas on dealing with so-called outdated as the existing organs and the demand for a sort of "Declaration of Rights" as in England 1689th The President, Prof. Wolfgang Baumgratz gave me the job then spontaneously, in "Ars Organi," explain in detail my vote.
The ever-lasting yet rigorously conducted Ausmerzaktionen of organs in the past six post-war decades have progressed to a degree that cultured people are alarmed, whose horizons extend beyond the desires of the professionals with their rabid rebuilding or replacement of such instruments.
The purpose of this article is by no means the prevention of a modern contemporary organ building work, but quite modest, the proclamation of the rule of law for, the only truly popular musical instrument, the organ. The writer is a consultant for both modern and heritage projects and is also the former, accomplices'. A fruitful learning process shapes his experiences.
In the press seem understandably little votes that go in the direction of such a law, probably for fear of dwindling volume of orders for buildings. After all, wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 11 August 2001 Michael Gassmann heed worth one feature article, "In close proximity so far." Should now after Kahischlag anachronistic and not understood or really insignificant witnesses after 1945 and before 1990 a set of instruments to be created, which shall carry out such organs through fair trials, protects, or possibly even substitute for unconditional release.
Also in the organ is being strongly dispute a genuine culture building, which paradoxically is very difficult, especially in church circles.
In Switzerland alone, should be mentioned as examples of younger following facts: Münster Bern (Kuhn, 1930), Lausanne Cathedral (Kuhn, 1952), Basel Cathedral (Kuhn 1955), Cathedral of Chur (Gattringer 1940, Spaeth 1968). Chur was only in the AgSO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fir Swiss organ preservation), but only after the decision, after all, even late filing an opinion on the situation. In the other cities have only interested in the new future ruled by the existing instrument, of course, negative. However, lacked an adequate legal defense. The Basel Cathedral organ awaits them in the Resurrection Catholic. Cathedral in Moscow. Germany knows similar cases, such as the Schuke organ of 1965 in the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, which came to Brandenburg. Currently fighting in the Ansbach parish council as a proponent of a hypothetical reconstruction of the organ Wiegleb (1738) with a community-based movement for the preservation of the Steinmeyer organ from 1961.
My thesis on the legal organ of the following:
1st Organs in churches, theaters and universities are public.
2nd Each organ has a right to continued existence.
3rd This right can only be denied if, after considering all relevant factors, a new building is needed.
4th Titular organists and organist curators have instruments entrusted to them, not as entrepreneurs.
5th Is a tool for discussion, the organ-construction companies are invited separately for Offerierung for conservation measures or for a new building.
6th A new cognitive body will deal with the untimely recent discussion of the Organ throughout art and humanities context.
7th And each era created and creates good and bad organs.
8th Give the organ the benefit of the doubt!
Organs, which are in public spaces and have the relevant acquis including, as to public cultural policy, such as harmony music, church bells, the choir being and much more. The great danger is lurking from two sides: the public is poorly informed and hence not interested in organizational units. It also leaves the professionals free rein carefree operation. So the organ concert being a very small thing inside the circle and Audience and therefore must eke out a niche. Worldwide wei.sen the music academies of organ formation to a place in the far corner. Exactly these abuses, we owe the sometimes widespread culling of our previous generation of instruments and the glorification of the grandparent generation instruments. So does the public relations organ.
Regarding Item 2
Organ units are factory-finished products to mediate sensory messages. So they are only little of the beneficial device assessment. Rather, their tonal expressiveness is a priori main argument for its continued existence in the plant.
Regarding Item 3
Certain exceptions are those instruments that are perceived as irredeemably material because of their carelessness, vulnerability-rich design and extremely low-cost industrial production. In view of the areas of style, they are too little for music.
As for the perception and Decision making aspects of a particular organ might apply:
- Context of technology and organ at the time of its construction, and the culture of its time in organ building,
- Biography of an instrument (Titularinnen, titular, church services, first performances, composers, concerts)
- Music history
- Art history in general and specifically.
Regarding Item 4
In my book "Dealing with outdated Organs" I tried to trace the sometimes ominous organ Verknüpfüng of Psychology and let many of my colleagues and professional colleagues. Here I limit myself to the perception that we deal with organists, the updating of our existing Dienstorgein mostly of psychological, personal drive (Selbstverwirldichung) and push out new versions in advance according intense and persistent. Existing organs threatens danger always first on the part of the 'entrepreneurial spirit' of the players. Only after that vote, the organ builder and sent to the general renewal instructed to song.
On Item 5
Each civilization maintains the principle of natural regeneration, renovation / restoration and innovation. Associated also the economic purpose of such action. But: here's degree required. Since a certain material pressure is always omnipresent, it makes no sense now, while new construction projects of open-cash-generating organ builders, so to speak, as a compulsory exercise to obtain information from the same houses still for further maintenance of the existing organ. The organ builders offer a cheaper solution but the one that is favored by the client side. We therefore need an independent organ for business people and musicians who advise a community, and especially early objective. The usual objection about, for reasons of space we could not leave old, must be seen relative.
Regarding Item 6
Constitutions and laws we need, once the direct agreements between people (citizens) are no longer sufficient, for example, to urban planning or traffic regulations to regulate non-bureaucratic. Appropriate committees as delegates provide to the public for existing agreements, also for the observance and application. In the art-organ system has deteriorated since the First World War so the present-centeredness exhausted all creation and is a show about the three periods, past, present and future faded. Only in an almost blind Orgeiwesen then began to work with contempt of those products always last the fifty years.
(Footnote 1 - Rudolf Meyer, dealing with untimely organs. Berlin, Verlag pape 1999th)
Make accurate for that period must exercise responsibility committee. This is such a completely integrate into the framework of other arts and humanities and music history. It is not enough, organ issues alone organ builders, organists, pastors and public figures paid leave. The results are sometimes disastrous. Finally is to enter into self-realization of the instrumental limitation on the organ as people really need-Applicable.
Regarding Item 7
"Every organ is machine but also a musical instrument. Each organ is a musical instrument and also machine "(Frederick James). But the interest of the broader communicative public figures eventually applies to the proportion of Tnstrumentalen. Currently, in St. Anton (Zurich), the bag shop organ from 1914 with no ifs and buts restored. The organ builder from Männedorf toiled from thousands of constituents with a complicated pneumatic control and regulated in this half to death. But is not negotiable: it all serves not only the technical monument, but a sound system that conjures up only with those that sound infrastructure, and for whose restoration was designed to not new.
In this example, the paradoxical situation is quite clear in recognizing organs revealed. Another anonymous example: a replica of a Schnitger organ followed onto the construction methods of the Hanseatic League Punctual master, so only "organic materials" to the rafted wood. Everything is right outside the room: the instrument is structurally indeed a masterpiece, both musically to use due to high penetrance, but only to the 4'-position. Only after a thorough instruction of the hearing-is by a specialist may be a tiny crack in the door to understanding dawned. So I would like to show how tricky it is to fall due to slogan-like simplifications such judgments:
pneumatic organs are Unorgeln, are replaced only the essence of Baroque orgelbauerischen high-bloom or Cavaille-Coll approximate new tools with ???? windchests deserve appreciation.
On Item 8
While striving for effective care is always at ease, another gift of our psychic nature. We think of organ builders of the older generation: they had to perform in Germany after 1945, works that were as of today only scrap. Today a far fairer material, art-craft construction has gained the upper hand. We know the characteristics: material needs, optimal installation, mechanical installation, Mas sivgehäuse, classical or housing design. Of course the sound is properly mixed lichen Organ Moving with neo-Romanticism, which in dealing with this limited slip Schaffi charging problems. The arguments are the future for the next generation, our current products may also go to the collar when not entering a Orgeiwende. And people today are traumatized by organs zwischen 1940 and 1970. They is not too different evil, if weiterzuklingen under her eyes hardly any of these organ-motion instruments have a right to enjoy. It was still just a "Gekrickele" (Jacob Adlung). We know tools, despite all the negative words like industrial chassis, Novopan, aluminum valves, etc. are still Nylontrakturen musical instruments still receiving a decades-long tradition alive (see point 2). This aspect is often overlooked.
It should be much more likely to give a presumption of innocence before sentencing, as the rule of law in each process.
Because each instrument is a natural right to respect for, just then, when it is under severe conditions of material and financial aspects had to be created. We Swiss are to be warned about, as Kriegsverschonte to be arrogant. When will the so-called post-war Europe in organ building is rehabilitated, at least, not glorified? Let us beware of a repeated liquidation of an entire oeuvre-period! Rather, we should strive to collect valid samples of the time and just stand for their preservation. And not under the Zufligung soon, ever-obligatory 'French récit (St. Peter's Church in Mülheim an der Ruhr, Marie organ in the Basilica Ottobeuren), because the conversions are still under change of the instrumental "gene structure".
"In benefit of the doubt" can also mean that here and there an existing organ can be supplemented by a second completely independent tool.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---My proposals for the Declaration of Organ Rights are as follows:
1. Organs in churches halls and high schools are public *
2. All organs have the right to continued existence
3. This right can only be negated if after consideration of all relevant factors a new build is indicated
4. Titular organists are caretakers of the instruments entrusted to them, not owners
5. If an instrument is under discussion, then the original organ building firms should separately be invited to tender for the maintenance work or for a new build
6. A new conservation committee will give consideration in the overall artistic and humanistic context to more recent anachronistic organs under discussion
7. Good and bad organs have been creatred in every historical period, just as now.
8. In dubio pro rea! [Presumption of Innocence - give the benefit of the doubt]
--- End quote ---
* At first perhaps a startling proposition - but one might look at this in terms of trusteeship of something built by reason of public donations or public funds
 Message Index
[#] Next pageGo to full version