|
JIM BERROW___________________________________
St. Anne's, Underwood Road, London. l7 October 1992 This short conference was a perfect case-study in passing fashion and how fashions pass. If the 1980s gave us anything, it was the intellectual, financial and political justification for considering only the short-term benefits and implications of our actions. The 1990s have demonstrated a need for more thoughtful consideration of what is worthwhile and what is not. This was a conference which could open our minds to these possibilities through an old church, its organ and a debate on 'new' alternatives. We received a stimulating welcome from the parish priest, Fr. Brian Ventham, who gave a witty and illuminating address on the vicissitudes of the parish and church. St. Anne's is a magnificent, optimistic building, now surrounded by a new community which does not necessarily share in its culture, objectives or worship. Faced with the same problems as his predecessors, Fr. Ventham chose to approach them in exactly the opposite direction, starting a programme of planned restoration and fund-raising to put back what had been unashamedly undone in the name of progress, and to rectify the damage that simple care would have provided at less cost. The historical background of the building was outlined in an appreciation by Michael Gillingham, making a long-overdue return to a BIOS conference. We were then introduced to the extraordinary Bishop & Starr organ by Paul Weaver, Director of Music at St. Anne's. Both he and Fr. Ventham realised that, although in perilously poor condition, it has the potential to offer enormous reward if carefully restored. They also have the sense to relate their musical demands to that which the instrument can provide in the meantime. Dr. John Rowntree talked about the organs of Bishop & Starr and some other contemporary work in the Catholic Church, and the morning ended with a well-planned demonstration of the instrument by Relf Clark. This kept within the bounds of stops and action which are still functioning reasonably well. After lunch and before the Annual General Meeting, the church hall eminently took on the role of the Colosseum, for an open symposium chaired by Christopher Kent. The precise topic for debate was never fully defined, but given that The Revd Norman Warren (Archdeacon of Rochester and author of controversial guidelines on the role of pipe organs in his diocese) was on the panel, Dr. Kent valiantly tried to steer it away from the traditional electronic v. pipe argument. This was doomed to failure, as Norman Warren's views are well known and have been quoted at length in these pages. He bravely faced the BIOS lions, in the form of Stephen Bicknell, Michael Gillingham, Dr. John Rowntree, and The Revd Dr Nicholas Thislethwaite. The Archdeacon told us that pipe organs were better, to be preferred to digital (as opposed to electronic?) instruments and felt that he had been misquoted and misunderstood in his views, which advocated alternatives to rather than unthinking replacement of pipe organs. However, - he questioned whether the pipe organ was the right instrument for today's worship, and felt that,financially and musically, a thirty-five-stop electronic instrument was preferable to a five- stop pipe organ. As a parish priest from another Anglican diocese, Dr. Thistlethwaite seemed unconvinced. He raised issues about the quality of the advisory system, finance, the unsubstantiated claims of electronic manufacturers (especially in the light of practical experience) and the pretentiousness of electric organ specifications which pander to the vanity of many organists. Dr. Rowntree had previously circulated the Organ Advisory Group's succinct policy statement on organs in worship, and underlined the natural elements in music making which suit the pipe organ, and that such an instrument often had a symbolic value to the congregation. For Dr. Rowntree, to press a button on a computer or CD player, was not an act of human endeavour. As the organ-builder on the panel, Stephen Bicknell picked up the human relationship necessary between musician, instrument and instrument-maker. He quoted a startling statistic, that more than half of the new pipe organs built in the United States and this country are built to replace electronic instruments. He made a plea for tougher qualifications for organ builders setting up in business, a more professional approach to fund raising (and, presumably, awareness of the costs of satisfactory musical solutions) and management skills in the clergy. The most trenchant views came from Michael Gillingham, who declared an interest in organs, food and art and found that, in one of these, imitation is never as good as the real thing. For him, the day when the church sets its seal on what is not the 'real thing' will be very sad indeed. While competence in advisers was not always what it should be, the major problem is that people want to accept only the advice that they want to hear. His motto for over-large electronic instruments would be that more is in vain, when less will serve. A lively general discussion and summing-up followed. Were electronic instruments cost effective if they were not built to industrial standards of reliability? Why are church authorities encouraged to replace church fabric with authentic materials, but receive contrary advice when it comes to the organ? One organ builder member thought that there was no particular threat from electronic instruments; the real threat was the unwillingness of congregations to spend adequate money on instruments of any sort. We were reminded that eliminating cowboys in the pipe organ business is in the interests of us all. At the end of the day, the organ is not a machine, but a musical instrument able to offer its player challenges and rewards. Bad advice and bad or organ-builders may have had a greater effect than all the electronic instruments combined. The conclusion was that BIOS must be a major voice in improving standards. This member was grateful to Archdeacon Warren for taking part in such a potentially difficult debate. There does seem to be a difference in his professional advice to parishes and his views as presented to us, with qualifications which many would recognise as reasonable concerns and the basis for a more enlightened debate in the parishes. Thanks to our hosts and congratulations to the speakers and the Conference organisers for a worthwhile day. We must return to St. Annes when Fr. Ventham and Paul Weaver have completed their long schedule of restoration and we can hear the Bishop & Starr organ playing an even larger repertoire and confounding those who confuse novelty and short-term gain with progress. But what would Archdeacon Warren have advised on the future of the Bishop & Starr organ we viewed that morning? |