The role of DAC organ advisers

[twanguitar]

In view of recent posts relating to organs in the Church of England which need work done on them, it might be worth pointing out that the role of an organ adviser to the DAC (commonly referred to as a Diocesan Organ Adviser - DOA) is distinct from that of an independent organ adviser or consultant which a church might wish to appoint.  It sometimes (but not always) seems to me that DOA's take on the role of organ consultants when an independent consultant, appointed by the church, might have been better qualified for the role.  Churches should therefore be aware that they are perfectly within their rights to appoint anyone they choose to act as an organ consultant, regardless of the opinion of the DOA about their organ or about the need or otherwise for additional independent advice.

I recall the case of a church a few years ago where the DOA was apparently outraged that a church went ahead and appointed a consultant without his knowledge.  This consultant subsequently produced a well-written report which recommended major work on an instrument which was not only unfit for purpose but badly sited.  A row at DAC level then erupted in which the DOA (not an organ builder and with quite a different day job nothing to do with organs or music) insisted that virtually no work at all needed to be done, despite further evidence from an organ builder to the contrary which was in addition to the views of the independent consultant.  The storm was only quelled when, I was told, the Chancellor himself quietly visited the church to assess the situation personally.  He then ruled in favour of the church and its independent adviser, a faculty was granted, the work went ahead and it was finally pronounced a success!  The independent consultant, a fine player himself, was asked to give the opening recital on the rebuilt instrument, but he declined in favour of the DOA.  Very diplomatic of him I thought!

An information leaflet was issued by the Council for the Care of Churches which clarifies the roles of the DAC, its advisers and independent consultants in giving advice to the Chancellor.  The paragraph headed 'The role of the DAC adviser and the role of a consultant' is of particular interest.  My copy was issued by Church House, London on 13 December 2004.  It can also be downloaded from the Council's website at:

http://www.churchcare.co.uk/further_dac.php?BAFB

Among much else, this document emphasises that the DOA should not confuse his role with that of an independent organ consultant.  The two are quite distinct.

I commend it to the forum.

TG

[Barry Williams]

Diocesan Organs Advisers report to the Diocesan Advisory Committee.  The Diocesan Advisory Committee is obliged to advise on the basis that the parish church is the centre of worship and mission.  (Section 1 Ecclesiastical Jurisdicition Measure.)  'Consultants' have no such obligation.

The implication "...    the Chancellor himself quietly visited the church to assess the situation personally " is to suggest a very grave irregularity in process.  Chancellors simply do not do this sort of thing.  If no petition has been lodged they cannot have "then ruled in favour of the church and its independent adviser, a faculty was granted, the work went ahead and it was finally pronounced a success story!"  This is a very serious misunderstanding and its repetition here is unfortunate in the extreme.  Any ruling must be given in accordance with the law.  Visits by Chancellors are always formal and the Chancellor would have been accompanied by the Registrar and Counsel for the petitioners and the objectors.  The submission for a faculty petition is a formal legal process that is governed by the rules of the Consistory Court.  No ruling could be given unless a petition had been lodged.  If a petition had been lodged the visit would have been formal.

No-one is obliged to take the advice of the DAC.  It is an advisory committee and exists to advise intending applicants for faculties and the Consistory Court. Any parish is entitled to proceed without the advice of the DAC.  Independent advisers do not advise the Chancellor.  ("...then ruled in favour of the church and its independent adviser, a faculty was granted, the work went ahead and it was finally pronounced a success story!")  Any advice from an independent adviser can only appear in court as evidence.  If the Chancellor calls upon an independent adviser to give an opinion that opinion will still be evidence, not advice.

The brochure published by what was then the Council For the Care of Churches is good, but it is only one view.  The late Noel Mander published, many years before, a different and equally valid view about organ advising.

As a Diocesan orgasn Adviser I often recommend that churches seek an independent opinion from an organ builder who can give a full report as to the condition of the organ and the cost of repair/restoration.  It is unfortunate that some churches will seek reports from organ builders yet not pay for the expert advice received.  It is always wise to have the opinion of a qualified organ builder (i.e. someone who hs undergone a full apprenticeship in the usual way, with years of experience,) before making proposals that will cost large sums of money.  Also, it is only right that the church should make a contribution towards the cost of the report.  I remember seeing a brochure in one church that proudly proclaimed that thirteen quotations had been obtained and the church did not pay for a single one of them.  The cost would, in effect, have been added to other jobs, because factories have to be paid for whatever.

The report that twanguitar has given is, happily,  not typical of the excellent work going on throughout the system and only relates to one particular case.

Barry Williams

[organforumadmin]

Dear Twanguitar and Barry


Thanks for a couple of very interesting and informative posts here, from which no doubt readers will have a better idea of how hopefully good decisions are reached . . .


From a purely layman's standpoint the system appears to be set up to work well in so far as a DOA will be familiar with a wide range of situations and instruments on his patch and that experience must be generally useful especially over a course of time. A DOA who then advises a parish to obtain the benefit of a number of professional organ builders' consultations must be particularly wise.


The problem with independent organ advisors commissioned privately is that in issues of fine balance, fine judgment which could go either way, or taste, it must be difficult to escape from fulfilling the desires of those with a vested interest enough to pay the fee. This is the reason why a DOA is so very valuable with a wider impartial overview.


There are cases where on account of fashion those desiring change will utter murmerings that such and such and instrument should be restored by Bryant and May and, despite a noble and worthy heritage of the instrument, they'll get in a reputable independent advisor to write the appropriate report. The purpose of a DOA and Diocesan bureaucracy is to bring a wider perspective and well conceived result.


Best wishes


Forum Admin

[twanguitar]

The post here by forum admin seems to me to be a hostage to fortune, although I suppose that might possibly have been his intention in order to stimulate further debate.  If so, he has succeeded!

Surely he cannot really be suggesting that independent organ advisers are merely paid poodles of a church who will only be interested in " fulfilling the desires of those with a vested interest enough to pay the fee" and that the church will simply " get in a reputable independent advisor to write the appropriate report"?

Although it would be up to them to present a view, I rather imagine those who constitute the Association of Independent Organ Advisers (currently John Norman, Dr Christopher Kent, Ian Bell, Dr William McVicker, Paul Hale, Dr John Rowntree and the Rev Canon Dr Nicholas Thistlethwaite) might currently be spluttering slightly over their post-prandial sherry should they be reading this thread!

Seriously though, I think a rapid edit on your part might be called for.  I'm not sure this forum should be suggesting anything of the sort, surely?

TG

[Barry Williams]

"  ...fulfilling the desires of those with a vested interest enough to pay the fee"

"...get in a reputable independent advisor to write the appropriate report"?"

I cannot imagine at any of the organ advisers quoted by name would do this.  However, those quoted are by no means the whole (or even the majority) of independent organs advisers.

Surely, the first place to start is always an organ builder which John Norman and Ian Bell undoubtedly are.  (And most eminent at that.)

Barry Williams

[organforumadmin]

Surely he cannot really be suggesting that independent organ advisers are merely paid poodles of a church who will only be interested in " fulfilling the desires of those with a vested interest enough to pay the fee" and that the church will simply " get in a reputable independent advisor to write the appropriate report"?

Hi!

:-) Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify this . . . I was very particular to precede this within the context of being within the parameters of

where issues of fine balance, fine judgment which could go either way, or taste, it must be difficult to escape . . .

I trust that no-one's feelings will be hurt as a result.

Even Barry has commented upon a case within the current Organs for Urgent Sale list that a decision to sell an instrument from a noble and reputable institution might be a case of "fashion" having been preceded by another post commenting upon a reputable and respectable commentatator having made a statement with the implication that would lead one to assume that the instrument was rather worn out by now . . .

The fact is that in balanced cases it is the _will_ to go whichever way personal tastes will lead and be led by whatever personal opinions are to one's favour depending upon the psychology of whether a glass is half full or half empty.

One purpose of a forum such as this is a matter of democracy offering a place for civilised and gentlemanly debate in which issues can be explored, difficulties and circumstances explained so that decisions may be based upon the wider perspectives of understanding and this thread is an open invitation to anyone advising on instruments or instrument or building curators and players, especially of any instruments coming up in the "Urgent for Sale" or "Organs in Danger" to join this forum and comment appropriately.

In the light of such discussion on this forum it was a courageous and impressively enlightened decision for a school in the south east of England to have delayed a change to an instrument, particularly as an educational establishment, to enable a year in which great musicological benefit is to be gained by the delay of the change.

It's in this sort of way that a forum such as this can be a source of wider considerations achieving better appreciation of the King of Instruments rather than fulfill the mere function of a talking-shop.

Best wishes


Forum Admin

[organforumadmin]

[The following post has been orphaned from the post that instigated it as a reply - Forum Admin]



I apologise if this post is perhaps rather long winded but Moderators are aware of controversy which appears from the first post to have catalysed this thread, and for this reason it appeared relevant to explore a wider understanding of the real function of the relationship between commissioning body, consultant and solution provider as a management process.

I think the role of Adviser and Consultant has become blurred.

Um . . . I'm not at all sure that this post is not blurred.

Your GP could be regarded as an 'adviser' who ,if you get a chest pain, might refer you to a 'consultant' who is good at cutting you open and fixing your heart. You need another consultant to fix your hip joint, prostate and so on. Most organ builders are good at universal tasks but there will always be experts.

I'm not sure of the point being made.


However taking the analogous historic building preservation situation there are jobbing builders (in the organ world who can tune an instrument and repair some trackers) who will (wrongly) use a 4:1 sand and cement for stone pointing a wall and there are enlightened master builders who will recommend a 1:2:6 or 1:3:9 mix of cement:lime:sand to point a wall.

In the organ world the DAO is akin to the local authority Conservation Officer. A building Conservation Officer will be expected to know when it is appropriate to render a porous and spalling stone wall of little visually functional value and when it should be repointed with a lime mortar. He should know not only what to do but also possibly which craftsmen have the knowledge to carry out such works without requiring constant supervision or training on the job and which firms have the expertise appropriate to the job on hand and in house.

He should be able to report back to his Authority that he has confidence in the capacity of those on the job to take the right decisions and their willingness to call in the relevant expertise if necessary. If he does not have that confidence, he will be authorised to keep a much closer supervisory eye upon the situation and the job as it develops.

Inevitably the best results are where there is cooperation - a partnership between client, adviser/consultant/supervisor/foreman and master builder/craftsman/tradesman. In each case there will be a symbiotic relationship at all levels in the task management chain between knowledge shared and specific expertise depending on the situation and circumstances.

All will always be subject to commercial influences. In remarking to an organ builder friend that I was impressed by a certain instrument in a school chapel in the Thames valley he informed me that it was only good on account of the Organ Advisor having ensured the builder gave adequate space to the pipes - other instruments by the same builder having been tonally less successful on account of cramming a larger specification into a smaller space. The wisdom of the OA had prevailed to ensure a better result and the dynamic of that relationship between client, advisor and builder will always have strengths and weaknesses according to the cleverness, wisdom and experience of each.

A good test for anyone thinking of becoming an adviser or consultant might be to respond to the question:
'You have a Trumpet stop with no tongues; how do you go about getting new ones made for a specific instrument?

Whereas the earlier part of the post appears to distinguish between and adviser and a consultant, this part of your post blurs them together.


However, taking the suggestion at face value, is not the answer to that is simply to advise to get in the relevant builder rather than buying the relevant metal and attempting to do it himself? What other answer could you possibly conceivably be thinking of?

As far as builders are concerned who might be experts, for instance a reed maker might be just the man needed for your job in hand but will not necessarily have the musicological experience to relate to a change of tonal specification for instance of what stops should be incorporated in particular for the playing of for instance De Grigny nor what nuances should be employed let alone how they can be incorporated into an instrument capable of wider repertoire and blend. Long live the DOA!

The relevance of a DOA in the administrative process is that a three legged stool is more stable on which to be seated than a monopod or bipod: parochial bodies acting alone or only with a commercial solution provider without an advisor of some degree of expertise are more likely to randomness of movement . . .


Best wishes


Forum Admin

[Barry Williams]

[The following post has been orphaned from the post that instigated it as a reply - Forum Admin]


I can quite understand where Brian is coming from on this.  The fact is that Diocesan Organs Advisers approach their work in many different ways and at different levels.  Also, the needs of parishes vary greatly.  I had to deal with one parish where the church's independent adviser was Ian Bell, undoubtedly the finest in the business (and a fully qualified organ builder,) and the church had a professional organist in post.  The organ builder was out of the top drawer.  My role was therefore quite different to guiding a village church through the choice of a single manual electronic keyboard in a place where they had never had a pipe organ and had no space for an organ, even if they had the money.

Some months ago, before this thread started, David Pinnegar asked me to write about my experiences of being a Diocesan Organs Adviser.  Perhaps, when this thread has run its course, I may do so.  In the meantime I repeat what I have said before.  Non-organ builders (including me) need to be very careful indeed about making organ building decisions.  As David has written "Where a DOA recommends additional consultation with organ builders . . . "  This is so important.

Barry Williams

[organforumadmin]

[The following post has been orphaned from the post that instigated it as a reply - Forum Admin]

For example many distiguished organists are advisers but most of them, I suspect would not be too happy with my hypothetical task of making new tongues for a reed stop without the old ones as patterns.

:-) I'm sure I'm not alone in suggesting that it would be beyond the remit of an OA to make tongues for a reed stop whether with or without the old ones as patterns.

It's when people get too close into the action of a subject of which they have only partial knowledge that, sadly, well meaning but ill advised results occur. I heard recently of an instance where repeatedly a set of transistors kept blowing. Were the electronic design to have been confined to the realms of an electronics engineer, ensuring the correct specification of components, protection diodes on electromagnetic devices, and a resiliently stabilised power supply, then the operation of the transistors would have been wholly reliable.

It's the function of a DOA to ensure that an organ is the subject of a teamwork of skills proportional to the technology, artistry and heritage of the instrument in each case. None of us would want to fly an Airbus a320 were the safety of the whole machine were to be assessed by only a turbine blade specialist or otherwise a wing hydraulics engineer. The job of the safety engineer must not be of interfering with the software of the fly-by-wire flightdeck computer but should be one of the coordination of the team.

This forum has recently received the benefit of the interest and report of a DOA performing just that function and in an excellent manner.

Best wishes


Forum Admin


Postscript: I note that Barry Williams and Forum Admin have just joined the -1 Karma point club. Presumably we have made points relevant to the reason for the safety net that DOAs provide . . . .

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

On http://www.aioa.org.uk/services/costs.htm should I doubt sanity in the composition of the stop jamb depicted there?

Best wishes

David P

[pcnd5584]

Hi!

On http://www.aioa.org.uk/services/costs.htm should I doubt sanity in the composition of the stop jamb depicted there?

Best wishes

David P

Interesting. It looks like a Nicholson job. It also looks as if there is no flue stop below 4ft. pitch - which is to what I assume you refer....

[pcnd5584]

One assumes that the 8ft flues are out of the bottom of the picture!

In which case, one may assume incorrectly.

Look closely at the photograph (which appears not to have been edited) - there is too much space on the right, below the Harmonic Flute. Either, for some reason, the jamb was laid out with a larger gap between the lowest stops on this department, or they are simply not there....

[pcnd5584]

A manual division with no 8ft flues? If it was a reed-only division one might understand, but having a 4ft-up flue chorus with no 8fts seems very strange...

Well, yes it does. But this is what it appears to be from the photograph. I doubt that this is actually the case, but if not, there is far too much space under the Harmonic Flute drawstop....

[organforumadmin]

Well, yes it does. But this is what it appears to be from the photograph. I doubt that this is actually the case, but if not, there is far too much space under the Harmonic Flute drawstop....

:-) Yes - I thought likewise which is why I thought it worthy of drawing attention, particularly on account of its provenance. A very curious photograph in such a place . . . and no-doubt someone somewhere has an explanation . . . ?


Best wishes


David P

[dragonser]

Hi,
a good points people make about the Stop Jamb list.....
but I wonder if it might be the case that there is another stop jamb for the Swell manual with the stops that complement the ones shown ?
is it sometimes the case that the drawstops are placed in order of pitch [ 16ft first ] then mixtures, then Reed stops [ again in pitch order ].
I mean that the drawstops start with the lowest pitch flute stops, then have the mixture stops [ are these flute pipes used on the mixtures ? or is it sometime reed pipes ? ] then the reed stops with lowest pitch Reed stops.
then this might explain why the stops are in the order they are and that another stop Jamb would be needed to complete the Swell division.
is it also the case that sometimes the Reed stop engravings are in Red ?

regards Peter B

[pcnd5584]

Hi,
a good points people make about the Stop Jamb list.....
but I wonder if it might be the case that there is another stop jamb for the Swell manual with the stops that complement the ones shown ?

I doubt that this is the case, here. It looks to be from a fairly small- to moderate-sized instrument. It is true that, for example, H&H (particularly in the 1950s - '70s) often split the Pedal flues and reeds across two departmental panels*. Here, there is likely to be only three, or at most, four further stops, for the foundations.


* For example, Saint George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, Coventry Cathedral, Manchester Cathedral and The Royal Festival Hall.

is it sometimes the case that the drawstops are placed in order of pitch [ 16ft first ] then mixtures, then Reed stops [ again in pitch order ].
I mean that the drawstops start with the lowest pitch flute stops, then have the mixture stops [ are these flute pipes used on the mixtures ? or is it sometime reed pipes ? ] then the reed stops with lowest pitch Reed stops.
then this might explain why the stops are in the order they are and that another stop Jamb would be needed to complete the Swell division.

Whilst this is normal practice (except in certain instruments; for example Coventry Cathedral and the Royal Festival Hall), it appears here that there is too large a gap underneath the 4ft. Harmonic Flute. As I stated above, there are likely to be no more than four further draw-stops. It would be a very strange console layout which separated just four foundation stops from the rest of the Swell Organ. I have acted as a consultant on several occasions and, even in the case of small instruments, I have never needed to recommend this, through lack of space.

is it also the case that sometimes the Reed stop engravings are in Red ?

regards Peter B

Comptons and one or two other builders occasionally did this. Geo. Osmond & Co., of Taunton (now defunct) occasionally adopted this style - particularly where they used stop-keys, instead of draw-stops. Personally, I cannot see the point, particularly where, in the case of Osmond's, they also engraved the couplers and other accessories in red.

In fact, I think that the simple explanation is that, in order for the artwork to fit the available size, the jamb was 'Photo-shopped', to avoid the undesirable expedient of visually cutting a stop-head in half.

Having just zoomed-in on the photo, it is clear that this is exactly what was done, albeit reasonably neatly when viewed at normal size. A little below the Harmonic Flute draw-stop, there is a thin, dark line, running parallel to (and on the left of) the black inlay strip. Then, just below the stop-head, across the jamb, is an irregular line, with a slight discrepancy in the colour of the background, as compared to the rest of the jamb.

Thank goodness that little mystery has been solved. Now I shall sleep more easily tonight....

[David Pinnegar]

In fact, I think that the simple explanation is that, in order for the artwork to fit the available size, the jamb was 'Photo-shopped', to avoid the undesirable expedient of visually cutting a stop-head in half.

Having just zoomed-in on the photo, it is clear that this is exactly what was done, albeit reasonably neatly when viewed at normal size. A little below the Harmonic Flute draw-stop, there is a thin, dark line, running parallel to (and on the left of) the black inlay strip. . . . Thank goodness that little mystery has been solved. Now I shall sleep more easily tonight....[/font]

:-) Well done for finding _the_ solution! Picking up this discrepancy and solving the problem is clearly one of the examination questions that has to be answered to qualify for AIOA membership  . . .

Perhaps the corrolary to this might be true - that it's a test for prospective clients to see whether they really do need AIO advice . . . :)

Best wishes

David p