EDITORIALOne of the cries which we sometimes hear from organ builders in these conservationconscious days is What about our artistic instincts? How are we to be ourselves if we are constantly tied to the practices and the tastes of the Past?" They have a point. The true organ builder (that is, one who is master of all aspects of the craft, and who has consistent artistic principles which define for him the style of instrument which he will build) is an artist in his own right, and not simply a servant of whichever past style happens to be currently in fashion. Though there may be instances when it is desired to create a new organ entirely in the spirit of a particular past era, or even to produce a straight replica of an extant historic instrument, in the vast majority of cases the building of a new organ is the opportunity for a modern master of the craft to produce a modern work of art: in his own style, without pedantic constraints as to scales and voicing, and bearing his own inimitable stamp. It can then be assessed as a musical instrument in its own right without any of those embarrassing qualifications of "If it hadnt been for the organist..." or "I should like to have done this, but Dr soandso, the consultant, insisted.," No true artist will be afraid of having his work criticised (in the best sense of that word) if it really as his own work. He can ask no more. But this licence cannot be extended to include the rebuilding of old organs. The moment an organ buil*der is confronted with an existing instrument by another builder constraints are imposed upon him. However much he may choose to rescale and revoice the pipes, it will not be the same as if he were building anew. How far should a builder allow these constraints to restrict him? To what extent should he compromise his own ideas to accommodate existing materials? A great deal depends upon the instrument with which he is working. Here really is the nub of the matter. A second-rate instrument, already rebuilt by various other organ builders, need offer no real ethical constraints: the modern organ builder can do whatever the materials will permit, safe in the knowledge that it will still be a secondrate instrument at the end of the day. The case is completely different if the builder is confronted with an intact instrument, of good quality and some musical distinction. In such instances, the modern builders priority is to respect the work of the original builder, and all other considerations must come second. It is at this point that the pressing argument is raised that the instrument in question is "inadequate to meet contemporary needs". There is no need to parody this view: it has been done often enough by those who propose it with phrases such as "unable to meet the legitimate demands of all schools of organ composition". Without resorting to such nonsense it is clear that many instruments deemed historic or which at least fulfil the criteria outlined above impose restrictions or difficulties upon the player which he or she would not expect to meet in a new organ. Some of them are poorly sited; some are much smaller than the building requires; some are much bigger than the present congregation can afford; some of them have eccentric tonal schemes dictated by the whims of a former organist. But the majority of these organs are perfectly serviceable musical instruments not as we would build them now, it is true, but still works of art in their own way. The irony is, that the more this is being realised (and compare all the talk about conservation and restoration of organs today, with what was not being said 15 years ago) the more difficult it is to secure the true restoration of these organs. It is much easier to defuse the conservationist argument by appearing to embrace it than by opposing it outright. "This organ is a wonderful example of the work of Father Willis, and we must restore it to its original glory for future generations. At the same time, we will take the opportunity to augment the resources of the organ a little by....". Most of us believe in conservation until we have to live with the consequences of it. More on this next time. |