Threat to organs encouraged by the Church Times

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

A friend has tipped me off about The Church Times -
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/section.asp?id=113519

Removing an organ

An electronic organ is all that we need; so this Victorian mammoth — which would cost a for­tune to repair — could go. But where could it go?

Could someone kindly enlighten Maggie Durran?

Dare I suggest, especially as we can only read the article on payment of a subscription that anyone who subscribes to this magazine presenting such one sided information withdraws their subscription in protest?

Is this an issue on which the IOB might usefully make comments?

Incidentally, one of the reasons for my presentation of heresies or otherwise perhaps controversial theological views on this forum is to try not only to enable the forum to be a place of open, open minded and possibly adventurous debate as well as to open up ideas about "religion" which prejudices had prohibited before, but also to enable the forum to engage with a wider community. I'm surprised and disappointed that none of the cloth other than Tony have had the courage of faith to be able to dispute and agree where appropriate and opinions call. By getting greater theological debate on board, people with a genuine interest in organs can enable enlightenment about the real issues of organs to be spread on a wider basis.

It's important that such apparently one sided opinions as expressed in the extract above in a magazine which must profess some degree of expertise in church matters to be seen to be the amateuristically prejudiced perspective that they are in reality.

It pains me that so many of the modern generation pay so little heed to the painstaking crafts of their forebears nor are grateful to their generosity being under the illusion that they live in a disposable world.

Best wishes

David P

[Colin Pykett]

David may have read the full article but I have not, so obviously I cannot comment on it.  Nor do I think comment is appropriate merely on the basis of such a short extract.  However I do know that the author, if she is the same Maggie Durran I know of, is a practising Christian and a professional management consultant specialising in church assets and more general issues.  In particular she has been involved in issues affecting organs on several occasions as far as I know.  Prior to that I believe she was ordained in the Anglican ministry.

One can find quite a lot about her, and the work she does, by Googling for the following search string (include the quotes to cut down the dross and make the search more specific to her name):

"maggie durran" organ

Hope this might be helpful.

Colin Pykett

[Moderator's comment:  This post has been reported, but I am happy that it is fair comment - it's stating facts as seen by the correspondant and helps us see where the person concerned is coming from]

[David Pinnegar]

David may have read the full article but I have not, so obviously I cannot comment on it.  Nor do I think comment is appropriate merely on the basis of such a short extract. 

Dear Colin

Point taken and very valid.

But of course if that partial view is what, and all that, the Church Times chooses to publish in its extract, the Church Times cannot complain about how people might draw their own conclusions. The extract may be deliberately provocative in order to draw attention and comment in order to boost their sales, and if so they cannot complain at the result of their own success in that.

The Church Times have put a particular slant upon their publication and I look foward to hearing that what we read there is not the whole story. . . . If I read it correctly the presumption that the digest of the article promotes is that "electronic organs are validly considered to be good enough and that Victorian organs, which are mammoth (whoolly mammoths having been redundant to God's creation or evolutionary process some milennia ago) cost fortunes to maintain - and are therefore redundant"

I will happily apologise to Revd Durran for any misunderstanding that I have promoted through this post and do so publicly, but if there is a misunderstanding the argument that both she and all supporters of the cause of the preservation of the pipe organ have is with the Church Times in the manner of the presentation of the digest of her article - which of course may validly draw other conclusions of which only magazine subscribers are aware.

No doubt the publicity that this post has created so far will have caused them to benefit with paid subscriptions already from those wishing to read the full unbiased text.

Is it beyond the bounds of fair comment to have referred to the authorised published extract of the article as "apparently one sided information"?

Best wishes

David P

[David Pinnegar]

POSTSCRIPT: A friend has just passed me a copy of the full article. Whilst appearing well balanced, it appears to me to remain one sided upon the issue and on the assumption that the organ is redundant to musical contribution to sacred worship. The article concludes "For this reason, you should expect those with responsibility for church buildings and their contents to give you a fairly hard time before agreeing that it can be removed. But if you really need to remove it, persist."

One might question the word "need" - and I have been experimenting with 2 inch thin loudspeakers that can be installed behind front pipes without endgendering danger to the instrument's pipework to enable such organs as cannot be repaired within current constraints to be mothballed whilst an electronic keeps the spirit of the use of organ music within worship alive . . .

There are clearly challenges that should be made to Maggie Durran's assumptions, lack of support for the instrument and general approach and I must be blind for I cannot see within the article the answer to the question posed by the extract or digest published on the Church Times' website.

Best wishes

David P

[Brian Daniels]

I receive CT every week and this article did disappoint for a variety of reasons.
Firstly is the apparent assumption that the default plan 'B' is electronic. It never used to be that
way and  there are  'monsters'  about that could be replaced or modified to be refined.'
In the same  breath why is the pipe organ seemingly the 'Cinderella of the church budget  when it has served  so well for  many  centuries?
Whilst on the subject of finance I have been struck over the years by the  apparent ease with  which money is raised to refurbish bells and good luck to those concerned for  that and perhaps there are lessons to be learnt here.
On the other hand   one never hears of a threat of a sythesised belfry as an alternative even though the technology has been around for decades.
Maybe it's down to education and the esoteric way the organ world seems to work. Perhaps we all  are at fault to some extent for keeping our lights hidden(?).
Finally. and for my money, the CT article sends the wrong message and it will be interesting to see if this is reflected in next week's postbag.

Brian Daniels.

[Barry Williams]

I am sorry to say that the article in question does not present an accurate view, nor does it sugges contacting the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

I shall send a letter to the editor with a few comments, but  in the meantime I encourage everyone to write in support.
Barry Williams

[Colin Pykett]

I've just noticed that somebody apparently objected to my post of 10 June on this thread and reported it to a moderator.  I'm not sure why, as it was only my intention to point people towards further information in the public domain about the author of the article in The Church Times which is the subject of this thread. 

If I have offended anyone I will, of course, be willing to consider modifying the post, and would have done so earlier if I had been contacted personally.  This can always be done by sending a message through the forum's messaging system.  It is not always possible to write one's posts in ways which are guaranteed not to upset somebody, but I would like to assure everyone that no offence or distress was intended in this case.

(Incidentally, that goes for all my posts.)

Colin Pykett

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Colin

Far from being unhelpful your posts are heartily welcomed. You mix a combination of expertise and caution which tempers others' enthusiasms appropriately at times and leads to healthy debate on issues, such as this one, where debate and public dissemination of what is going on otherwise behind the scenes is so vital if we are not going to wake up one day and find our environment devoid of its heritage.

Best wishes

David P

[KB7DQH]

Well, I have found an article about a new PIPE instrument... that likely counters the arguments presented in the article currently under discussion... If for no other reason to show that there IS a future for windblown pipes in our religious institutions...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/06/12/2364624/organ-gives-church-a-new-sound.html

The Fisk has become somewhat of a phenomenon, fulfilling the church's hopes that the instrument, which replaced a 1930s organ, would find a place for itself in Charlotte life.

Outen can list the ways that the organ has contributed to parish and community life in the few short months since it was installed.

"It has been the source of a lot of enthusiasm," Outen said. "It has generated energy because of its newness and because of the completion of the project. It has brought a level of beauty and excellence into the parish, a physical, tangible thing that is a point of pride and a point of inspiration."

Where the old organ's sound was dull and muted, the Fisk's music is bright and clear.

The old organ was installed in a tight corner, and its sound was muffled and far away. The Fisk resides in the back of the church, its pipes stretching high to release music that sounds free and deep.

"It's a really inspiring and versatile instrument that will carry a room when it is full of people," Goen said.

"It's the difference between a student violin and a really fine violin," Outen said.

Outen describes the Fisk as having an "extreme level of quality" that is infectious.

"It has caused a lot of people to sit up straighter, perhaps to pray harder, even to be more engaged in what they are doing here," Outen said. "The organ itself presents a level of excellence that's just inspiring. I think it has touched everybody."

Before it was installed, the organ did have its critics. Maybe it was too expensive. Its musical style might be too different from the old organ.

Outen hasn't heard a single negative comment post-installation. "It seems to have been wholeheartedly accepted."

Organists, professional players and people who haven't touched an organ in decades, have asked to play a few songs on it.

Student groups have come from Furman University and UNC Greensboro to see and hear the Fisk. Organists ask if they can give recitals at St. Peter's.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/06/12/2364624/organ-gives-church-a-new-sound.html#ixzz1P3HWeyHe

Eric
KB7DQH