Jeremy Dawson

Dear all, I rather stumbled across this message board, but as a member of Sheffield Cathedral Choir for the last 9 years, I thought I should add to this debate. First, I should declare that I am NOT myself an organist, and therefore the statements I make are based on what I have been told by many people who have played both organs (the 1966 Mander and the temporary replacement), and from what I have experienced myself having heard the organs. The Mander organ was, indeed, in a terrible state. I don't know how it got this way, and don't think it's fair of me to speculate, but the testimonies of everyone I know who played it in the last years of its use would agree with this. To what extent it could have been repaired to its previous condition, I do not know, although I have been told that it would have been uneconomic to do so. However, it was also abundantly clear that the original instrument would not have been satisfactory for its current use. As previous posters have said, most of the organ itself is tucked away in a corner of the north transept/north choir aisle. A nave division was indeed added later, I presume to support congregational singing. But even this did not do the job particularly well. I don't quite know why the organ was designed like this, but it is certainly the case that until around 15-20 years ago, the Cathedral choir operated more along the lines of a parish church choir. Presumably the organ was considered generally satisfactory to support this (although I can't imagine, even then, it would have been particularly helpful as an accompanying instrument due to its location). The choir has changed a lot since the, however, and its role and repertoire are now similar to most English cathedrals. The Mander organ was entirely inappropriate to support this type of choir, both in capabilities and location. Someone mentioned an independent consultant - yes, there was (at least) one who was used, and this is the conclusion they came to. It made far more economic and musical sense to have (a) new organ(s) built and installed than to pursue the Mander route. As for the new organ: well, it is uncertain when this will happen, as there are financial constraints (the whole Cathedral is undergoing a redevelopment compaign, of which the organ is a part, but it is behind its target); however, I think it is certainly possible, if finances permit, that a west end organ and separate choir organ would be built. I suspect we're talking about quite a few years before anything will actually happen, though. Finally, a word about the temporary organ we have - I'm not a fan at all, and the sooner we can get a proper pipe organ to replace it the better. HOWEVER, in my opinion it is far preferable to have this, than to have continued with the Mander as it was, even if it had not deteriorated further. As a member of the choir it provides far more support, and is far more reliable, than what we had before.