David Knight spoke on Conservation and Utility, looking in particular at some of the special problems associated with organ restoration and the need to balance historic integrity against wear and tear. An instrument should ideally be returned to one of its historical states but there may be more than one and the question to be resolved is which one will best preserve its principal features? Organs as working musical instruments may be regarded in different ways by those who will use them. Unless in a museum environment, the replacement of working parts may be inevitable and he referred to Grant O'Brien's doubts if reversibility in restoration is really possible.

Dominic Gwynn's paper was on Materials for Conservation Restoration. Constant developments in the style of church music have resulted in continual demands for often significant alterations to organs. There is still a strong tendency amongst organ builders to over restore often those parts not visible or directly affecting the sound in order that the mechanical life of the organ is projected into the foreseeable future and the craftsman's reputation for reliability protected. Parts and techniques are often inappropriate and there should be a strong presumption that materials and methods used are as close as possible to the original. In this way, the weakening of an organ's original character is minimised.

John Mander examined Imagination in Restoration Schemes. He looked at how we should be approaching conservation work and the effect Lottery grants will have on the way conservation and restoration will be controlled. It is important to thoroughly research the history of the instrument and be clear, if more than one, which phase a restoration should relate to. Work must be reversible and he quoted some examples. The addition of an electric blower must not change the existing winding system or result in the loss of parts. Also with regard to the preservation of fragile pipework, tuning slides should only be introduced if pipes have to be lowered in pitch.

Alan Thurlow spoke on A Performer's Point of View. Organs are working instruments and only rarely museum pieces. They must work efficiently even if retaining archaic features. This will present difficulties with performers who are not willing to accept the limitations of historic organs. He made comparison with the preservation of historic cars and clocks and other fields where strict restoration is the accepted norm. We were reminded that in old organs, mechanical actions are not likely to be as responsive as new ones and that not all organs, even by leading builders, are of outstanding quality. Players may sometimes worry that they may be criticised for the shortcomings of old organs they perform on. There is often tension between players and those with a strong conservationist lobby; discussion and persuasion is often necessary.

Mark Venning looked at Pneumatic Action Restoration. This is a very specialised branch of organ building requiring knowledge and skills no longer in common use. He referred to the perverse ingenuity of pneumatic actions and the admiration and exasperation their restoration engenders. Not all pneumatic actions are suitable for strict restoration, some having been engineered into impossible locations as if there were no tomorrow where maintenance is not practicable and restoration a nightmare. Advisers must therefore be well informed and some tolerance built into the tendering process; should it become clear that more work is necessary, the cost can be adjusted.

David Frostick talked about Voicing in Historic Organs. He listed the common problems of old pipework; damage to mouths and feet caused by coning and collapsing under the pipes' own weight, resulting in changes, however subtle, to the original voicing. He also mentioned problems caused by impurities in the metal resulting in degradation and the corrosion of pipe feet caused by the acid content of upperboard timbers. Less obvious is the effect of churchmanship on organ pipes. High Church ritual with copious use of incense and candles eventually results in a sticky, dust-attracting deposit on the pipes which is difficult to remove. Nicotine in Town Halls has a similar effect. On the other hand, Low Church practice generally promises cleaner atmospheres which are much more beneficial to organ conservation.

There were two subjects for general discussion. The most important subject was the lack of statutory protection for organs and the need to compile a nationwide inventory of historic instruments. Richard Halsey from English Heritage made it clear that as the legislation stands at present, only buildings can be listed and not their contents. There is a grey area concerning fittings which are only considered part of the fabric if they are fixed to it. This matter has made much work for lawyers. With many instruments it is clear whether they are fixed or movable, but with a great number of larger organs, it is not. If an organ stands in a chamber specifically constructed for it, but the building frame is not fixed to the walls, is it a fixture or a fitting? Technically speaking, organs could be protected by regarding them as Ancient Monuments in the same way as industrial machinery is protected. However, this would not cover those in private houses or churches.

For many, the conference was preaching to the converted but the occasion seemed particularly beneficial in revealing some of the mysteries of organ terminology and construction to the English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund representatives who are now handling applications for organ grants. They need some basic knowledge in order to correctly evaluate the advice in reports from advisers.

The general conclusion from this day seems to be that it is necessary to accept that old organs will have limitations, that these should be accepted with imagination, the instruments used appropriately and not forced into compromising situations. Organists do not usually expect to perform Reubke on a Schnitger.

Return to Index Page for this issue

Return to Reporter Index Page