EDITORIAL

We recently received a letter from an organ-builder, who, for reasons which will be apparent, had best remain anonymous. The salient paragraph of the letter went as follows:
It is with some sadness that I note the mention in this month's Reporter of the Hill organ from Leith. We have today received an invitation from the Department of the Environment to tender for the rebuilding of the Leith organ with electric action and tonal modifications, in Aldershot. We have declined and returned the papers, explaining politely but firmly that after all the effort that was made to save this organ, we feel this course of action is quite wrong.

Readers will recall the Leith organ (Reporter, July 1982, p.4). It is an A.G.Hill instrument (1897), with 3 manuals and 28 stops, on tubular pneumatic action. It is (or was) very largely unaltered. On paper, it seems to be a typical Hill instrument of the period, and first-hand reports indicate that the excellencies which might there- fore be expected, were indeed to be round. 'Tonal modifications' are about as appropriate as replacing Butter field"s chancel at All Saints, Margaret Street, with something in plate-glass.

Tubular pneumatic action has its problems. There are questions about the availability of components and materials, and not so long ago, most builders in this country would have declined to retain an exist- ing action of this type. But views are changing. A number of build- ers have restored tubular pneumatic actions in recent years, and discerning players (their sensitivity perhaps sharpened by frequent acquaintance with good tracker actions) can now be heard insisting that there is an important distinction between tubular and electro pneumatic actions which has a significant effect upon the player.

Broadly, the best tubular pneumatic actions maintain that sense of physical contact between player and sound-producing parts of the organ, whilst electro pneumatic actions destroy it. If this is so, it follows that we cannot substitute one for the other with impunity, and the retention of tubular pneumatics is not simply a matter of mechanics and the organ builder's convenience: it has implications for the player, and for the integrity of the instrument.

To return to Leith (in particular): various things must concern us. There is, first and foremost, the fact that it is the Department of the Environment which is inviting tenders for this work. The DOE has a massive responsibility in so many areas for the protection of our national heritage, not least, in setting up and staffing enquir- ies into controversial proposals. It can only be highly disturbing that the Department is collaborating in (and paying for ?) the re- building of an instrument which ought in fact to be scrupulously preserved in its present state. Secondly, we must pass to the implied question of who has preferred advice for rebuilding ? It seems that the organ builders were not asked to make proposals, but were invited to tender for a given scheme. The public should know who is respons- ible for this dubious scheme. And then, there is the attitude of the organ builders. It is praiseworthy for an organ builder to decline to tender for a scheme which he believes to be misguided and destructive: say what we will, it is clear that none of the English firms is so over-loaded with work that it can lightly turn away the chance of a substantial contract. But how many will do this ? If only there was in this country an organisation within which reputable firms could agree on a common approach to such cases, and could agree that none of them would have any truck with such proposals, we should soon see a dramatic decline in the spoiling and destruction of fine old organs. The builders could only gain in respect. But, of course, there is no such organisation, and someone will be found to do the job. We shall wait with interest to see whom it will be.

Return to Index Page for this issue

Return to Reporter Index Page