Contrabombarde

I'll echo that sentiment wholeheartedly. Excellent workmanship and fascinating insight into the inside of the New Zealand organ, plus the chance to play an organ I last played maybe twenty years ago at Addington Palace (and a whole lot better now it sounded too!). As an aside I see that Mr Father Willis's magnum opus, St George's Hall Liverpool can be available on loan as a temporary organ (at least an electronic reproduction of it!) to churches whose organs are taken out and repaired in the factory. Certainly worth bearing in mind as a carrot if and when our local church organ fund gets enough to cover the restoration we're waiting for, though we might not want to hand it back again afterwards!

Oh dear there goes another one. Having just taken delivery of a nice shiny new Win7 64 bit computer it's taken me somewhat by surprise to find that most of my existing software (admittedly bought 5-10 years ago) is no longer working. Theological reference materials, music printing, graphics and now audio. It's going to be another late night again...and there was I believing the marketing hype that advances in computing were, um, advances.

Well, I suppose one solution for the nightmare combination of perfectionist organist and time-restrained recording team would be, on an appropriately kitted-out instrument, for the organist to record everything in advance in MIDI, edit the glitches to his or her heart's content, then for the recording, just set the equipment up and let the organ trot its stuff. I may well stand corrected, but I have a feeling that some of the more excellent Hauptwerk recordings are edited in this way (ie editing at the level of the controls to the organ, rather than editing the sound the organ makes after the sound recording). Any thoughts?

Some of you will know that I've spent the past three years working in the Democratic Republic of Congo which has been in a state of anarchy and war for more than a decade, driven in large part by natural resources. In the past we've had our attention drawn to "conflict diamonds" which fueled the war in Sierra Leone, and recent protests about "conflict minerals" have highlighted the problems currently in Congo. Famously Steve Jobs was questioned, and unable to confirm, that iphones do not make use of materials obtained from areas of conflict or under militia control. Which brings me to wonder how difficult is it to have a certified supply chain that doesn't buy resources from dubious sources. The organ building industry must get through more tin than most industries, both in the pipe metal and in lead-free solder. Do we have any idea where it comes from (at least, where in the ground it came from before being sold to organ builders from tin refineries?) If, to paraphrase an article in the latest Organist's Review, organs are potentially "green" instruments, being largely made of sheep and trees, are they green enough to be able to not use materials whose extraction is perpetuating armed conflicts?

Here's a link to a photo of the Gravesend England: http://www.stgeorgesgravesend.org.uk/history/history3.php That would be something else if ever the money could be found to bring it back to 1764 working order!

Here's a few hardy survivors from the historic organ certificate list from NPOR, deliberately excluding any that have had recorded work done since the end of the 19th century. This Holdich dates from 1843, though a "restoration" by Boggis is undated: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N06579 This Elliot appears to have had nothing done since 1812 (Scone Palace): http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N18134 A three manual Brindley from 1864: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N06611 A three manual house organ by Telford, 1845: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=C00401 Does anyone know about this instrument, England 1764: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N14243 St George's Gravesend, but said to be unplayable. Untouched since 1862, with parts dating from 1626: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=D01627 Bishop and Starr from 1860: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N18578

Therein lies the problem. If I had spent the best part of $1 million on a substantial brand new organ that after a few years was suffering from sinking pipes (as an aside, I thought it was said that the pipes were supplied by an external contractor, not by the gentleman who build the organ as a whole, in which case could the subcontractor have recitifed the problem?), plus various mechanical issues, underwinding and an unsafe balcony, that would cost tens of thousands to fix, I'd be somewhat annoyed and expect the builder to put things right. If I had spent that amount of money and after a few years a few of the keys were slightly too heavy and needed re-regulating, I wouldn't probably feel too hard on the organist if they asked for a few hundred dollars to get it fixed during a regular tuning. Equally if the only problem with the organ was that the priest objected to ever spending any money tuning it and justified an electronic on those grounds alone, one might understandably hit the roof. Obviously it becomes more complicated when the organ is built or provided essentially as a gift, in which case the giving stops at the initial installation and subsequent problems often have to be paid for. Sometimes gifts that are free actually end up costing a small fortune to maintain, and if the church neither had the interest nor the money to fix the issues, one might sympathize with their predicament. But to destroy it without permitting anyone else to take their chances with the instrument seems vindictive to say the least. As for the suggestion that it was unfinished, there are countless "unfinished" organs dotted around, if you include organs with holes in the jambs for "prepared-for" stops, organs with inadequate winding, or experimental design features that didn't work. Just because it isn't "finished" to the level one would expect from a major firm doesn't stop if from being good enough if it serves the main purpose of providing the music for which it was designed to provide without compromise. And this was evidently an early work and one would expect that all new builders have a learning curve, though that might mean risking a higher proportion of issues to later fix in earlier organs.

I presume this must count as the longest-lived British organ to have have had no major rebuilds? 392 years old this year, still handblown, and in deference to Brasenose, it still has its Farting Duck (sorry, Regal)...It is still maintained and tuned, though I would imagine only the great and the good would be allowed anywhere near it: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=A00232

Well, there are plenty of potential reasons one could ban organs on health and safety. Accessing tall pipes for tuning can be hazardous, and one celebrated tuner fell to his death in Westminster Cathedral doing just that. There's the weight of the instrument. Putting a multi-ton monster on a fragile gallery is asking for trouble, and whilst you might get away with external steel girders in say Nairobi Cathedral, that's not really an option in Grade 1-listed cathedrals. Then there are the humidifiers that can potentially harbour Legionnaire's disease. I've never heard of a documented case of Legionaire's caused by an organ humidifier, but it only takes one to lead to all sorts of restrictions. And of course the famous EU ban on lead in any electrically-operated items. (Though there can't be many electric-action organs that couldn't if necessary have been rebuilt with tubular pneumatic action - with miles of lead tubing to prove a point - and hand blowing, hydralic or gas powered blowers)! There is a serious point to this post - there are dangers with anything, including organs, and one must never lightly ignore sensible health and safety concerns. In any case, for all the risks that organs potentially pose, there are plenty of mitigating mechanisms to ensure they are not a risk to the public, the performer or the builder, and constructing something that is potentially hazardous or allowing something to deteriorate to the point of becoming a danger is grossly irresponsible.

Can anyone beat the unfortunate Compton rebuild of the Binns at Selby Abbey which burnt down only three weeks after it was finished? http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...amp;#entry11995 Notably he didn't get to install its replacement - I wonder if it was disappointment by Compton at the thought of replacing something that he had only just completed, or dissatisfaction of the organ by the authorities?

I came across a further account of this organ at: http://poststar.com/news/local/article_a47...1cc4c03286.html Foley-Baker were the firm who salvaged what they considered to be any parts of value (the blower!), apparently dumping the lead pipes in a hazardous waste facility. From their website: "Your Pipe Organ ~ An Investment Worth Preserving" "Foley-Baker specializes in tuning and “saving” troubled instruments. We take great pride in identifying, troubleshooting, and solving problems that often plague pipe organs." Clearly so!

I was once the organist at a church with a substantial if somewhat unlovely late Norman and Beard that was creaking at (and between) the seams. The trouble was, it had been built so substantially that it was impossible to repair. The sides of the reservoirs actually doubled as the building frame, and to have releathered them would have required the organ to be totally dismantled. Doubtless not the first of its type, but I fail to understand the wisdom of designing an organ that cannot be accessed for repairs save breaking it apart. Even accepting that reservoirs may last the best part of 100 years, they will eventually fail. And how many more rebuilds are prefaced with "parts of the old organ were simply impossible to gain access to"? That organs have ever been built with pipes so crammed in that it is physically impossible to tune them beggars belief. Surely part of responsible organ building is to ensure that the entire organ is serviceable with minimal disruption, and that if say the bellows do suffer a leak they can be accessed without having to first take the entire organ to pieces? Is it really that difficult to do, and if the space allowed for the organ dictates that, is the organ too big for what is going into it, or the space the wrong place for it in the building? I was seriously questioning whether we could do away with the bellows altogether and retrofit a Schimmer system, though I have no idea if that would work with a tubular pneumatic action. It reminds me of how a headlamp can cost a couple of pounds, but with the complexity of modern cars it can take a mechanic several hours to replace (having removed and replaced the wheels, engine, aircon unit, gearbox and goodness only knows what else in the process), at a cost of hundreds of pounds for the labour. Absolutely daft.

And if you ever fly over Congo that very probably will be true! (Still getting over hearing that a recent plane crash was caused by a live crocodile escaping from a passenger's carry-on luggage - goodness only knows what's been sharing the cabin with me when I've been flying around there!)

I just got a link to Facebook but can't see anything further. What am I missing? There's nothing mentioned on the church website. A bit of Googling suggested that a former priest had done some nasty things, is this a means of the church having a clean sweep or raising money to pay for damages perhaps? But it does sound a rather strange way to treat a new organ, though there are others that have lasted less long.

Another four manual with an Echo division rather than a Solo is the wonderful Schulze at Armley. His five manual at Doncaster has a Solo on manual IV and an Echo on manual V, but I'm not sure how much of either is original (the Solo was N&. I wasn't aware of any organs in which the Echo or Celestial was played through the Choir, thanks for the link to the Newcastle organ. The old Hexham Abbey looks on paper like a wonderful high Romantic warhorse - what happened to it, and why was it replaced? I'd heard once before that an entire disconnected Echo division was hiding up in the triforium at Westminster Abbey - given how many rebuilds that instrument has had, I'm surprised it has been silent since the 1930s, why? And Liverpool Anglican Cathedral was supposed to have a Celestial division, and I believe I'm right in saying it actually got as far as being built before one of Hitler's bombs flattened it and presumably most of Willis' workshop) during WWII.

Somewhat off topic, I once had a stolen Escort convertible parked/dumped outside my house. Within a day, bonnet, engine, wheels, one door and registration plate had disappeared. When I reported it to the council they said they couldn't do anything about it as it didn't have a registration plate! If all else fails, there are several large carparks near the university hospital that I've used in the past that look to be a few minutes' walk from the factory.

At least they don't march up and down the nave during the (hour long) sermon and vigorously poke you in full view of everyone if they even think you look like you might be drifting off, like they do here in Congo. Though when the sermon is being amplified beyond the point of maximum distortion it's a bit hard to sleep in any case

I'm getting the distinct impression reading between the lines that searching for a distinctly British style of organbuilding is like the Emperor's new clothes. Perhaps the only distinctive feature of modern British organ building is that there is no distinctive feature - every builder has something to offer, some build very good pastiches of 17th or 18th or even 19th century builders, some produce vanilla organs that sound good playing anything but their coherence comes from the brief to design something comfortable with playing anything as opposed to to design something in a British style. But if that's so, if "Britishness" as a characteristic style means the absence of a characteristic style, is that such a bad thing? For discussion...

I have in my possession some spotted metal diapasons for the facade of my practice organ that I'm putting together. They are not speaking, and rather filthy, and I'd like to brighten them up if possible. What suggestions do people have for cleaning off years of grime from metal pipes and bringing out a nice shine that can be done in the warmth of my own home? Thanks very much! Contrabombarde

A most ingenious solution and admirable honesty to admit that it's practice that makes perfect! But I wonder if in striving for a perfect mechanical solution to borrowing reeds, aka the search for the perfect Swiss watch that manages at great expense to keep perfect time without resorting to quartz crystals and radio signals, a much simpler solution would have been that those stops that don't lend themselves to mechanical borrowing could have been on a separate electric action? Or say a Barker-style action if you want to retain a degree of mechanicity? At what point does pragmatism overcome a desire for all things mechanical? One could design a totally mechanical action sequencer with different levels of memory. After all, the King of Instruments had adjustable analogue memory systems a century before the advent of the computer. But with solid state being so cheap and simple, is it worth the trouble to design a mechanical alternative? Of course, had the European Union decided differently a few years ago, we'd have been forced to do just that. Banning lead from all devices with electrical connections wouldn't have needed to have been the end of the organ building industry by any means - but it would have meant all new instruments would have had to have been built of mechanical or tubular-pneumatic action (with lead pipes of course), with mechanical combination systems and powered either by gas engines or by teams of strong fit people. Hey, why go to the gym when you can do a workout on the local church organ?

There's plenty (?) of music written for just the feet, but usually it's intended to be played on the pedalboard. This takes some beating... ...which just goes to show that even if you lose both arms in an accident you can still continue to play the piano.

To be honest, it's rather surprising that nothing major has yet happened to Manchester's organ since its last major reconfiguration in the 1950s. One of its predessors lasted only eleven years in the building - they got a new organ by Nicholson in 1860 and a decade later replaced it with a Hill that evolved into the current instrument. The Nicholson got sent to Bolton, and if I understand the NPOR correctly, ended up being moved yet again, this time by Nicholsons in 1994 to become the "new" organ in Portsmouth Anglican Cathedral. The different heights and designs of raillings front and back to the screen does pose a problem for case design - I doubt many people would be thrilled to see a return to Hill's screen case: http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/PSearch.cgi...N06095&no=1

Thank you to all those who have responded so far - lots to think about and some very interesting pictures, especially of the Comptons. I thought that four manual mechanical organs would be more likely to remain flat. Aesthetically I prefer the visual appearance of flat manuals though a slant is probably a comfort factor, as is the vertical and horizontal distance between manuals. Clearly with six manuals you really need a slant, though really how much repertoire really demands more than four?

Is there a "British style of organ composition" or "British style of worship" currently that will dictate considerations? I am not aware of anything exceptional but might have missed something in the making. If not, then you will probably end up with something that will facilitate music of one particular genre more than another. That might mean a swing towards a "French romantic" or "German baroque" say, though one could argue that a characteristic of a good versatile organ (not necessarily an "eclectic" organ - I doubt many people would still think that HNB eclecticism of the 1970s was the pinnacle of the British organ with their positives and square pistons) is that music of any age can sound good. The variety of excellent work coming out of British organshops lately, whether inspired by the Victorians (Willis), the English 18th century (Drake, G&G), or just the attempt to build a versatile instrument that takes styling cues from a former age but produces something with unique character (Tickell at Dulwich, Mander at St Ignatius) makes me think we have two different styling streams going on. One seeks to replicate excellence from former ages of British organs, the other seeks to produce something essentially undateable. Which in the long run will still be around without tonal changes and modifications a hundred years from now we cannot know; but I would think most people would be quite happy with an instrument of either stream and current levels of quality. Things are certainly much improved from the days of the first Royal Festival Hall organ, with Compton jokingly supplying near identical specifications to each of its three manuals, but with Germanic positf names, British great stop names and French swell names.

I'm curious. Across the pond I read that many organs of three or more manuals tilt the upper manuals, in some cases at 2 degrees, and even negatively tilt the choir downwards so the Great is the only level manual - is that an AGO standard? Conversely over here I see many four manual consoles that appear "flat", all four manuals level wih one another. Aesthetically I prefer the appearance, but does it impair playing? What is considered standard or current good practice for three or four manual consoles with British builders, or Continental firms? Does spacing between manuals affect whether you tilt or not? Contrabombarde