Brian Childs

I quite agree but I wanted to sound of note of caution. More than once I have had to try to sort out a situation where someone who would have been perfectly willing to agree to a course of action if asked nicely has been so incensed by the approach adopted that they have dug in their heels and completely refused to co-operate. I expect Brussels bureaucrats are no different. I just wanted to ensure we did not shoot ourselves in the foot by adopting too confrontational an approach before we had established there was no alternative to that. BAC

Probably longer than three years but my reading of the IOB site is that for most of this time they considered that the Directive applied only to the elecrical components and were planning on the basis of that. It seems that it was the application by Allen for clarification that set the cat amongst the pigeons. If the IOB were cruising along under a particular belief, it is hardly surprising that the DTI was. However, the Lords Spiritual, are part of the upper House. Surely at least a couple of them can get a debate going. You get a better quality debate in the Lords because it contains people who have both expertise and long experience, and relatively few party hacks. David Wyld has already started the ball rolling but some additional support and lobbying of contacts would not go amiss. I have some contact with the Ulster peers and I will try to stir something up. Brian

As a matter of fact I do. You cannot live in Ulster for over 30 years without acquiring some familiarity with things that go bang. However, on this occasion I am not at all sure that all the ire being directed at Brussels is properly targeted, and while it may be true that the Directive applies to pipe organs it does not follow that the Regulations by which it has been implemented in the UK do. It is not unknown for countries to botch their attempts to implement EU Directives, leading in time to enforcement proceedings some years down the road. But consider the facts. The RoHS and WEEE Directives are addressing a problem of waste disposal that hardly existed even 50 years ago but is growing at a fearsome rate. Most people are aware of the problems of the disposal of nuclear waste but there are numerous other nasties generated by our modern life styles, which we cannot solve by dumping ever increasing mountains of waste into holes in the ground. There has already been extensive litigation over who was to pay the costs of dealing with the effects of chemicals called PCBs which were spilt on a concrete tannery floor, seeped through it and down to the chalk aquifer below contaminating the water which it contained, a source from which the local water company extracted part of its supplies. (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather) Those who live in the South east or any other part of the country where subterranean water is extracted and used to supply households surely have an interest in seeing it is not contaminated. Another [potential source of problems is the discarding of household appliances parts of which are made of, or contain, harmful substances. One can hardly disapprove, surely, of attempts to protect our children and grandchildren from a ticking toxic time bomb ? And given the understandable reluctance of individual governments to act by imposing restrictions on domestic manufacturers which did not apply to those elsewhere and thus placed local business at a competitive disadvantage a Europe wide solution offered the best hope of some action whilst maintaining a level playing field. But how did the organ come to be caught up in all this? I think if you look at the IOB website it becomes farely obvious that the pipe organ has been the victim of guilt by association with what are frequently called on this Board "toasters" and which many here would dearly love to see consigned to a hole in the ground. A moment's reflection serves to show that the average "toaster/pipeless organ" contains a considerable number of the same sort of circuits to be found in PCs and Mobile Phones , which are clearly a concern of the Directive. If there is a desire to restrict computers and phones going to landfill in massive quantities the same argument applies to toasters. Indeed the Allen Company has been in discussion with the Commission about the implications for their products as the IOB site makes clear. So the pipe organ shares a name with the electronic organ and contain some electrical components and some harmful substances- it is not all that surprising that the the view taken was to include it, rather than exclude it. But as we all know the situation with the pipe organ is different and can be shown to be so, unless someone discovers a massive landfill site somewhere full of decaying pipes from redundant organs. Dismissing that as a very unlikely scenario, it ought to be possible to get an exception made. This is after all a heritage issue not just for us but for almost every country in the EU. So I do not see the need to declare war just yet : I think one should give sweet reasonableness a try first. Brian Childs

Well it used to smell of fish when I lived there and I suppose they were dead, but as MM has pointed out there is a great deal to be said in its favour. Unfortunately, it is not very far above sea level and with global warming.... Now the sewers I do remember. They certainly made their presence felt in Summer, though to be fair it was the sewage treatment works about three quarters of a mile away across the fields behind out flat. Happy days !!!

Whilst doubtless true of England today, (though not for all denominations- it seems that some evangelical sects are doing rather well) it is certainly not so here in Ulster where it is standing room only for major festivals and 70 - 100 on a normal Sunday, nor in the USA nor in much of Africa etc... But that said I do sympathise with MM, although it is the liturgy rather than the sermons that I find the biggest turn off. Judging from what I see on TV these days if and when we return to England we shall have considerable trouble finding a place of worship that offers a traditional Anglican service. Those who like jigging about and touchy-feely Christianity are entitled to, and are welcome to it, but I would sooner shoot myself than take part in what passes for Anglican worship in some parish churches these days. I would follow others and convert to Rome but I am told that the situation there is every bit as bad with the added problem of recurrent allegations about paedophile priests etc. Where do you go if you want to find a service that is conducted in a quiet and dignified fashion, apart from the bits (such as the music) which are intended to show somewhat more assertiveness ? BAC

Hi everybody, I have now found the regulations which are causing the anxiety and read through them. I am now a good deal less concerned than I was before, although there would be no harm in getting specific clarification made in the legislation ; something that might be more easily done with these regulations because it is less hassle to alter delegated legislation than primary legislation since the former does not require parliamentary time (always in short supply) to alter it, whereas primary legislation does. Anyway here is the the main provision Electrical and electronic equipment to which these Regulations apply 3. These Regulations apply to electrical and electronic equipment that is within the categories set out in Schedule 1 and to electric light bulbs and to luminaires for use in households. You will see that the regulations apply to the categories of equipment listed in Schedule 1. What does schedule 1 say ? SCHEDULE 1 Regulation 3 Categories of electrical and electronic equipment 1. Large household appliances. 2. Small household appliances. 3. IT and telecommunication equipment. 4. Consumer equipment. 5. Lighting equipment. 6. Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools). 7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment. 8. Automatic dispensers. There is a perfectly plausible (though not guaranteed to succeed )argument that a large pipe organ is not included on this list at all, since it does not fit into any of the categories. If that were to be accepted, the regulations do not apply at all and the problem has just gone away. Since I do not think anyone has ever suggested that it was intended to apply the regulations to the pipe organ such an iterpretation has the obvious attraction of making the problem go away with the least possible effort on the part of everybody. HOWEVER It could be argued that organs were "leisure" equipment within category 7 or large household appliances within category 1. Neither conclusion seems to me particularly obvious, let alone so compelling that there is no escape from it. It is perfectly possible to scan down the list, and to see it as a list of common household electrical items, and to conclude that the only things which were intended to be included were common household electrical items, so pipe organs are off the hook. To put the matter beyond doubt it would be possible to insert something into schedule 2 which lists the exceptions to the obligation to comply. If all else fails the offence created is only punishable by a fine, so you could always go ahead and add the fine to the final account. BAC

Duplicate removed

Thank you for that date. That made it fairly painless to track down the Restriction of Hazardous substances Regulations. They can be read here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052748.htmFortunately , to spare me from looking completely daft, I did mention in a previous post that there was an EU fast track: these came down it. They do come into effect on 1 July 2005. It seems likely that the other regulations will arrive a little more slowly since they seem to be a delegated matter to be dealt with at the level of the Regional Assemblies for Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland

I would normally take exactly this line and give the proximity of April the 1st I would have assumed this was another "Italian Spaghetti Harvest" story. However the second post on this thread is from Mr Mander and Dr Wyld has also contributed. Of course, there could be an arrangement for a monumental practical joke BUT it does not seem very likely. The massive loss of good will that would ensue from making a number of people who were trying to help you look like a prat, and the virtually impossibility for the forseable future thereafter of ever mobilising support from these people again - once bitten twice shy - would surely lead intelligent people in the positions they occupy to realise that such a joke would be very likely to be be highly counter-productive, and possibly result in financial consequences reflected in their respective firms' accounts long after the laughter had faded away. BAC

I have started reading the directive in the Official Journal but as anyone familiar with EU legislation will know it is completely different to the Westminster model which sets out to be a precise as possible , with tight definitions of what is covered and what is not. The directive style is more aimed at outlining a policy to be implemented. The following is a direct quote : " The Directive should cover all electrical and electronic equipment used by consumers and electrical and electronic equipment intended for professional use." Moreover, the context is important and this is about waste management so the intention is as much to deal with the plastic covers of the mobile phones as it is the electrical innards of the said phones since they can be just as polluting. However as I have pointed out in my post on the other thread in the General Discussion section Directives are not self executing and need to be implemented by National Legislation. It seems to me that is where fire can be most usefully concentrated, ie at the implementation stage at Westminster. BAC

Hi Everybody, I notice that the proposal here is described as a DIRECTIVE. This is significant because whereas EU Regulations are centrally made and apply automatically throughout Member States directives as their name implies are instructions addressed to member states to introduce a law within that state to implement the objectives of the directive within the state. In other words there will be an Act of Parliament passed at Westminster for the UK, a measure of the French National Assembley., and so on. This indicates two things, it seems to me, at the moment, though I do need to do more work on this since until yesterday I was completely unaware of this operation of the law of unintended consequences .... Lobbying activity should for those in the UK be focussed on Westminster and not Brussels since it is at Westminster that the legislation to implement the Directive will be made and it is there that it can be amended Since I retired I am not as up to date with proposed legislation as I once was BUT if this legislation is actually to come into effect on 1 July then there must be either a provision for this to happen in an Act already passed or there must be a Bill currently going through Parliament. I have as yet discovered no reference to either so it is entirely possible that this legislation does not as yet exist. That said there do exist fast track procedures for handling the implementation of stuff coming from Europe. However, it is not all that unusual for Europe to set a target date for implementation of a directive and for some member states not to get round to doing it or in some cases to ignore it. So it is not necessarily the case that 1 July brings the world crashing down around our ears... If anyone knows, and those in the organ building fraternity are most likely to, the title/SI Number of the legislation by which the directive is to be carried into effect it would be helpful if they could post that information here. While it is possible to find it out, being given a head start is always a help. Brian Childs

Have just e-mailed my MP. Since I am the Chairman of her Constituency Association she has at least to appear to listen. Would it not be a good idea to try to discover if there are any member(s) of either House with a particular interest in the organ either as a solo instrument and/or in its accompanimental role and then "latch " on to them. Personal enthusiasm will make them want to do something. The people here can assist them to do it. Just a thought. BAC

Tubas 8 and 4 I think, his letter mentioned "tubas" at the end. It is a long time ago now, and my interest in sport could perhaps most accurately be described as minimal but is not Hull City the football (ie soccer) team, the rugby teams being HKR and Hull (without further adornment) ? Should I be correct in this recollection then presumably any match in which they played against each other could only be for the purposes of either (a) charity or ( to provide a legitimate front to stage a riot.

Hollins being a native of Hull who presumably did not mind going back from time to time this has to be a possibility. But there is also an Orchestral Trumpet though somewhat less assertive on the organ of the Usher Hall in Edinburgh and since Hollins was organist of a church in that city for 42 years, and since at least some regard A Trumpet Minuet as Hollins' take on the Eighteenth century model of a trumpet voluntary it also has to be a possibility that the Edinburgh stop was the one he had in mind

According to the butchery trade yes - "shoulder of lamb" and "shoulder of mutton" as per window tickets !!

Christopher Ede, pageant master at the 1951 Festival of Britain concert at Hampton Court palace. RM recorded this work at Huddersfield Town Hall (TPLS 13022) and the sleeve notes written by Felix Aprahamian state: "In 1951, John Cook composed music for the Festival of Britain Pageant at Hampton Court and this fanfare, based on music from that score, is dedicated to the Pageant-Master, Christopher Ede/. It may be that RM was the first to record it. Curiously the LP also contains what must surely be the first recording of Leighton's Et Resurrexit which was composed for, and dedicated to RM, who gave the first performance at St Columba's Church of Scotland in London. The other pieces on the LP were Robert Cundick's Sonatina and Myron Roberts' Homage to Perotin

That is my information too. In 1974 when the record was just released I wrote to Peter to ask if he had a copy of the City Hall Organ Specification (no NPOR accessible on line then !!) and some questions about his segment of the LP. I got back a very nice letter plus his copy of the specification as it then stood for me to copy since he only had the one copy and had to trust me to return it. I did (that is both copy it, laid out as it was on the old light touch console, and return it). I do hope the Post Office delivered it but one had less cause for reservations in those days about the trustworthiness and reliability of the GPO. I think I still have the letter in my files along with my correspondence with Michael Smythe and the Programmes from all the City Hall Recitals I attended, including that to celebrate Peter Goodman's 50th birthday. After lunch I will see if I can dig it out. Corroboration as we lawyers say !

The colonel presumably and not your Dad ? You admit to being 56 but some people are so sensitive about their age they have been known to knock a few years off! However, I am sure no true Yorkshireman would do anything like that...

[/color]

The question I believe is what would you do ? The first thing I personally would do would be to ask them (1) how much money they envisioned spending and (2) did they actually have the cash currently in hand or was it a question of raising it ? Depending on the answers received , I might then decide that further mental endeavours were not justified and unlikely to prove fruitful! BAC

Kevin Bowyer surely ought to be a candidate, as did Richard Hills who has recorded several times on cinema organs but not yet, as far as I know, on a classical organ despite being an Oxbridge organ scholar. Obviously the organ world would benefit from having charismatic performers who were as well known as those from a previous generation but I suspect few will emerge, if only because the opportunities to make a living as a concert performer in this country are few and far between . This necessitates even very talented performers (eg Simon Gledhill) having a "day job", and given the relatively small number of church positions which pay a stipend on which it is possible to live (or even avoid starving) that is often likely to mean teaching in some shape or form. Those who are teaching at third level will need to cultivate all the attributes of schizophrenia (as popularly understood, not in actuality) to add to the paranoia they have probably already got if they are to combine being a popular entertainer with what are conceived to be the appropriate attributes of musical scholarship among which such things as accessibility, audience appeal and the ability to communicate in terms capable of being widely understood do NOT figure highly, or indeed at all. For those with jobs of other sorts the demands of working in a country which venerates unpaid overtime and where the cost of housing condemns many to live far from where they work (thus adding to either end of the working day) surely must place substantial (if not insuperable) obstacles in the way of maintaining a flourishing secondary career. BAC

Always excepting the Dean at Guildford ?

Has anyone considered that in a parallel universe somewhere there will be a web site for clergy with a thread "Voluntaries: occupations for clergy" I wonder what it says? Perhaps things like the following : Too long *Shows no sign of having seen the music before he started to play * Dry, uninteresting playing of dull boring music * Self-indulgent waffle * Too scholarly * Not appropriate in the context of the service * Playing the same piece of music three times on the same day (Oh yes he did!) etc, etc I do not doubt the accuracy of what PCND describes for one moment but I wonder whether it is really the case that ALL clergy are destined for Hell while ALL organists have a confirmed reservation within the pearly gated enclosure ?

Dear MM, Remember writing this ? I think the post dates from February 18th but a search will surely find it.... "mistakes were made," then it has rather more to do with musical-mistakes than organ-building mistakes, and I could ramble on, not just about Schweitzer and the "orgel reform" pack-hounds (I can never spell the German word Orgelbe...whatever it is!), but also about the whole early-music movement, including Dolmetch in London. Pierre mentions Lawrence Phelps, and his "mistakes," but at least he was a thinker and doer, who responded to the challenge of taking the organ back from whence it came, to the job of being suitable for the mainstream heritage of proper organ-music, which had largely passed England by, as everyone wallowed in the sentimentality of Caleb Simper. (Yes, I know this is a gross over-simplification!) That a man like Robert Hope-Jones could ever be considered a serious organ-builder, is testament to the waywardness of English creativity around the turn of the last century. I would include America in that same equation....we lost him...they got him! But you are dead right about Lemare. Who today plays to a packed house. Now I must begin my search for a recording of the complete works of Caleb Simper since PCND indicated a desire that I should .... or perhaps I have got that the wrong way round. Byeee.