Nigel Allcoat

On one of my recordings from Saint-Antoine, one particular G major chord (in low pitch!) with exact registration using the Tierce, roused the twitterings to a frenzy in the trees in the courtyard. We even tried a re-take at 2am - but to no avail. They started in the dark too. But I have subsequently learned that some reviewers thought this charming as it underlines the pastoral location and the extreme tranquillity that surrounds the Abbatiale and the village. I think with editing and the like we have perhaps reproduced in some measure, fake perfection. All the best, N

I was very kindly given a lesson on how to delete. I hope the correct version is now up and running. Best wishes and thanks for your patience with me. Nigel

Oh dear. Although good on my PC it is crazy when uploaded so I have left a Sibelius file as you suggest. Sorry again! N

Although very simple to upload I found that the wrong file from my computer went and I don't know how to delete them. Sorry! Please delete the first two (Microsoft Word and a PDF for Cross of Jesus). The third version from school days was the one I wanted not a version from Songs of Praise. Many thanks. N

Isn't the weather terrible, Pierre? Bad in Belgium?

Like most dreams, they are just pies in the sky and thus will remain as a pipe-dream. N

Don't get me wrong - the Jones is a most fine instrument. Musical too, as you say. The difficulty (for me) is that there is another instrument of considerable size and stature close by which plays the Romantic literature. I meant to mention the Elliot in an earlier post and had it in my mind when saying that Tewkesbury needed not a compromise instrument perhaps, when I suggested making a scholarly reconstruction of the Magdalen organ. (I prefer that name to Milton). Of course in England that would never have happened, but please let me have a dream or two in old age as I do with King's College. Best wishes, N

I fully concur. A miracle. For me the grandest organ transplant must surely be the Cavaillé-Coll (one of his very last 1898 in the year before he died) into the château of the Baron l'Espée in Biarritz and then installed by Mutin in 1914/19 with a new case into the newly constructed Sacré-Coeur in the 18th Arrondissement. It is one of the most splendid of all Paris instruments (with the same 'eccentric' combination system still found at St-Sulpice) and sporting bazooka-like Tuba chamades on top of the case. And within our own shores we have the instrument in the Temple Church from Scotland after the destruction of WW2. A very strong organ off Fleet Street that I am sure that can be still heard North of the border under certain conditions! And these were originally for houses!!!! But to return to the original topic and its off-shoots, I think most places will look upon snapping up for pennies a used organ and then installing it in their own church as cheaply as possible - with dire results more often than not. I know of two such instruments close to me and I see nothing particularly wonderful in either. In fact one church wishes to destroy its purchase from the latter part of the last century because its transplant was botched. I think if a reputable firm were engaged you would find it just as costly as purchasing a new instrument that is tailor made. When you take an old organ apart it is possible that so much work needs to be attended to. Installing a second hand organ needs to be approached with care and a reasonable amount of money, even if the new church is allowed to come with any number of lorries for free to transport it away from the old. Caution and professional advice is absolutely necessary. All the best, Nigel

Actually, the sound from there into the Nave is quite marvellous - beyond all expectations. Certainly when you see it you think that it is buried - but the sound reaches the Nave wonderfully and is much more forceful than the Kenneth Jones (well it was where I sat). If it was raised to a proper height it would be arguably the finest sound in a church that we possess in the UK - giving Armley a run for its money, most certainly. It just oozes personality and panache. All the best, N

This makes my heart leap for joy when I read this. I realize of course that the Case/Buffet remains and the insides that provide the sound, are renewed or rebuilt to suit the taste of the time. But had there been a movement as found in some other countries, I feel that this would have been a tremendous opportunity to have used scholarship to recreate an organ from past times to play (in a superlative acoustic) all of our glorious repertoire from the same times. Mincing around on positives gives no impression of the grandeur of the works of late Elizabethan and Jacobean times. This Abbey already had a Romantic organ of extraordinary stature. This is just one of those places that something did not need to be a compromise. The Chair case (we are reliably informed) exists. What a moment to recast the ensemble with a new copy of it. The Abbey would be a Mecca for players/scholars/students/pedagogues alike. But perhaps all this occurred not quite at the right time for our thinking to create something to happen along those lines. I know many would raise hands in horror and shriek. I suppose I would myself once upon a time before I had moved around the world and found how sadly lacking we are in the UK to provide instruments to promote our very own music. The Grove organ needs in my estimation, to be raised to the higher level (I believe one of the solutions/arguments used before when the West End position was being considered). I believe that a higher position would bring even greater wonders of sound into the building. I know that I am not alone in thinking this. No instrument in the building (other than the distant newer portions away from the cases) was designed for there - I think. Nevertheless it is more than fortuitous that things have worked out so well. Organ transplants are not often the happiest of operations. Tewkesbury have been extremely fortunate with their donations. But hearing two organs with swells and solos and tubas in the same place, one cannot help but compare them. Human nature, isn't it? After visiting Tewkesbury for that concert and launch of the Organ Guide I began to seriously think what other places there are where old cases exist. I then realized that I have two in my very own Diocese and fancifully tried in my mind to create a project and bring them together again. The two cases are from St John's College Chapel, Cambridge (before the Scott chapel). The Chair case is sumptuous and in a redundant building believe it or not! The big case houses a mid-Victorian instrument in a sensational Bodley-designed interior and they are by chance, only 3 miles apart! But at Tewkesbury, I firmly believe that they could have embraced the best of two British organ worlds with the instrument/case that they possess. Here endeth the ramble. But I still dream of my mean-tunings by the Severn as I do of the Dallam by the Cam. Best wishes, N

I was there and can honestly say that hearing the Grove and the Kenneth Jones side by side, so to speak, it was a revelatory experience and confirmed my impressions of both. A downside in playing the Grove I believe, is the proximity to a bookstall! This makes for difficult rehearsal for a concert? Best wishes, N

Alas, you have been in the silent presence of one of the wonders of the English organ world.

Works a-treat! Bravo. N

No. This is not the case. Sibelius has the excellent facility called SCORCH which is a free programme devised by them to allow non-users of the the composing programme to see the results on the Web. You can print any of the music once you have loaded the free programme from the site. Quite simple I would imagine to chose and print. There are thousands of scores already 'up there' waiting to be printed/saved by any interested parties. I have used it in the past with no trouble at all. Best wishes, Nigel

Most valid points. It seems that no matter what make of electronic instrument it is, some go well whilst others don't. I use the analogies of ordinary day-to-day things to provide clarity to the decision-making of Churches. Therefore as examples off the top of my head: How many computers have you had in 10 years? How long has your microwave lasted and has it lost power? Do you still have the same television after 10 years, radio or hi-fi? etc. I can also say that I know of a person who possess a perfectly working (mechanical) bicycle that is from just post WW1. And as it's Monday I shall gripe and write! Why is it that most churches who purchase digital equipment have something far too large and loud? The company also mainly place the speakers in a position (West wall) that once might have been the ideal place for a pipe organ. The latter would be designed, scaled and voiced to be the perfect fit, speaking with optimum clarity into the largest space. However, speakers are ugly and provide very flat sounds after a time. Even unmusical folk will observe this - and say so. But the specification seems to bear no relationship to the pipe organ it is replacing in that position. Why? As Diocesan Adviser I once suggested to a tiny 18th Century church a specification for around 16 stops maximum for their digital organ. The company rep had an apoplectic fit on the spot when I handed this over. His initial specification for the church seating 80 and with a Wedgwood-like interior included a 32ft Contra Bombarde and a Festal Trumpet en Chamade. (How the latter can be so named on such an organ with speakers, defeats me!) I think that most, if not all of the companies make standard specifications with some minor room for manoeuvrings. To have something bespoke each time would increase the cost considerably and thus be not a quick solution to an organ problem. Once Art comes into it (as in the building of pipe organs of course), the costs become almost prohibitive when one realizes the longevity of the equipment. These are thoughts that frequently occur to me as I certainly don't want to see the fruits of hard fund-raising labours being frittered away in the short-term. I would heartily like to encourage (certainly C of E) churches to become more mediaeval in their use of the (often) largest building in their community. Secular use of the Nave is wonderful. Concerts and the like (for children as well as Music Clubs) make tremendous use of it. A lovely organ to be part of this as Solo, or in Continuo or Ensemble - not solely for Church use (remember its origins in Greek and Roman times?) - is so exciting. I am not thinking huge instruments here. I am thinking along the lines of an extension of Tudor times when small organs in larger places were dotted around to be part of worship in Guild Chapels or Lady Chapels. The advent of new actions after mechanical, allowed vast machines to appear. Let's keep the best of course. But is it really necessary to always think that a new organ now has to emulate that particular time in its evolution? Who knows, a new breed of pipe organ in these circumstances might spark a resurgence in composition and liturgical music. The use in small churches with three or four singers could at least be a solution to those places that are now no longer Tractarian. The occasional instrument could join forces too. The work of the organist in smaller places would become an exciting time that could use the resources of the Parish again. I am not lampooning the work done by the digital people. But I do get so aggravated that we have to only have mostly what they produce - and often with the most ridiculous names like cars or a reference number like a filing cabinet and with photos of it standing in some grand cathedral. To get back to Tony's original request - it is rather hard to put one alongside the other to determine costs and perhaps use whatever figures come up in a debate. It is no different for me than having my Steinway C and my Roland HP-1700L. The former is a joy whilst the other is a toy. With my thrice yearly tune of the former put alongside the pence of switching on the electronic substitute, the financial difference is vast.The Roland though, is just a piece of kit that enables me to put chords and notes into Sibelius and to make my latest piece sound ridiculous in Marimba mode. But the results and possession of the former are priceless. I would never have had the calibre of student to teach had I sat them down to an extension of the National Grid. Best wishes, Nigel

Does not Sibelius allow uploading and sharing for nothing? N

I am hopeful that this church was correctly insured. If so, it seems that the figure to be on the claim for the organ will be about £10,000 - £12,000 per stop. A church in my 'care' has been told (for their 9 stops) £100,000. Now, for saving space as we know, a new organ takes up very little room on the ground if properly designed. Victorian instruments often are like a small house. On the ethical side, I would think it dreadful that the organ builders are being displaced in the proposals by, in comparison, short-lived electronics. And anyway, I am wondering if insurance would come their way if it was not replacing like-for-like in this situation. As for running costs, most digital devices have a 10 year warranty. But I know that maintenance is sometimes necessary to correct sound and to replace parts. More than that (and the cost of that) I have no idea. Others in the world must have figures somewhere to help. I hope that they soon find a solution to their loss. Nigel

Whilst I can see some reasoning behind the experimentation and production of simulated organs (for practice mainly), the long-term pros and cons are considerable in my opinion. Having had first-hand knowledge of churches installing digital simulators for Liturgy and Repertoire the longevity of the digitals never seem to be very long - in fact in a number of cases shorter than was first explained upon purchase. My own village has now spent around £11,000 10 years ago and around £27,000 in the past year. There is no collateral at the end of the life-span really. Some consoles might be re-usable in one way or another. Certainly speakers cannot. But in the end, it is a question of basic integrity; an artistic and financial integrity coupled to an acoustical one. A new pipe organ which (other than the blower and console light) is designed using age-old principles will just be beautifully maturing when the the digital version is being carried out for burial. The following might be helpful for a start in coming to terms with the arguments that abound; - it is a public judgment made by one of the highest-ranking Law Lords and Appeal Judges in the land and made by him at a Consistory Court in which I was a witness to preserve the organ and not allow in a digital alternative. The church did not want to spend around £700/800 a year on pipe-organ maintenance and made the excuse that a Vestry had to come from the space occupied by the organ. Another underlying reason for its proposed ousting was that a number of influential people in the running of the Parish wanted alternative musical things and thus, digital. The Law The legal principles applicable where a re-ordering scheme is proposed are to be found in the judgment of the Court of Arches in Re St Luke the Evangelist, Maidstone 1995 Fam 1. Giving the judgment of the court, the Dean, Sir John Owen, cited with approval the questions posed by Chancellor Cameron QC in Re St Helen's Bishopsgate of 26 November 1993. Those questions are: "(1) Have the Petitioners proved a necessity for some or all of the proposed works, either because they are necessary for the pastoral wellbeing of St Helen's or for some other compelling reason? (2) Will some or all of the works adversely affect the character of the church as a building of special architectural and historic interest? (3) If the answer to (2) is yes, then is the necessity proved by the Petitioners such that in the exercise of the court's discretion a Faculty should be granted for all or some of the works?" The Organ The legal principles expressed above, as I have already stated, apply as well to the organ as to the other facets of the re-ordering. In addition, I have considered whether any other legal principles are engaged in respect of the organ. It is possible to argue that it is not a fixture, but a separate article or chattel. The test as to whether an article is a fixture or chattel is dependant on two tests (see Berkeley v Poulet [1977] 1 EGLR 86). These two tests depend upon: (1) the method and degree of annexation; and (2) the object and purpose of the annexation. Although the organ is free-standing, for myself I would hold that the organ was a fixture. As I have said, it is obviously an object of considerable weight. It was re-built and enlarged specifically for St Nicolas. In my view it bears all the characteristics of a fixture. However, the distinction between the organ as a fixture and as a chattel is in this case of little or no significance. To remove it and replace it with a vestry plainly forms part of the scheme of re-ordering and so is subject to the in Re St Luke the Evangelist principles. Even if it is a chattel, the Petitioners must prove a good and sufficient reason for disposing of it (see Re St Gregory's, Tredington 1972 Fam 236). In my judgment, when considering whether an article such as this organ should be disposed of, the tests of "a proved necessity" and "good and sufficient reason" come to much the same thing; in each case there is a balancing process to be carried out. As with the exercise of any judicial discretion involving a balance of various factors, the more important and significant the artefact, chattel or other item, the more significant must be the countervailing necessity or reason for disposing of it. I have not found the decision in respect of the organ at all easy. I have great sympathy for the Petitioners and am prepared to accept that their views represent the majority of the congregation, possibly a large majority. I have no doubt that they feel that the only solution to a new vestry is to be found by removing the organ from its site inthe north aisle. Self-evidently, they regard the importance of having a convenient vestry as greater than retaining the organ. On the other hand, the organ is, in my judgment, an item of historic interest. It was originally built by a local organ builder, which gives it a special connection with the locality. The fact that it was rebuilt in 1951 does not diminish that historic connection. I accept Mr Allcoat's evidence that the organ is probably far and away the most valuable artefact in the church. There is, in my opinion, considerable force in his strongly held view that" ... to throw out this fine instrument in its present working state is hard to comprehend". In my judgment those responsible for a church and all its artefacts have a duty to preserve for future generations, so far as is possible, not only the future of the church building but also its important artefacts. It is for that reason that the Dean of Arches in Re St Luke the Evangelist and Chancellor Cameron QC in Re St Helen's stressed the importance of observing the principles applicable to re-ordering. There are factors which cause me some anxiety about the case for removing the organ. First, the annual cost of maintaining the organ is not large by comparison with other costs of upkeep. Secondly, it has not been well maintained and more work is necessary. But the cost of buying a digital organ is, on any view, substantial. The life of such an organ is finite and, I believe, compares unfavourably with the life of this pipe organ if it were properly maintained. Thirdly, there is no evidence that the Petitioners have given any thought to the difficulties expressed by Mr Allcoat in removing the organ, nor what will be done with it. Self-evidently not every church could accommodate an organ such as this. There is no evidence of any plan to see that it is preserved. At the very least, before its removal is sanctioned, I would have expected to see evidence of it being re-located and preserved. Fourthly, I am not satisfied that there is no other site available for the vestry than that presently occupied by the organ. The most obvious site would appear to be one of the two rooms to be constructed in the south aisle. These rooms are said by the Petitioners to be unsuitable. One is said to be too small; the other unsuitable because as a vestry it could not be used as a meeting room. I find neither of these reasons very persuasive. In any event, in my judgment, they are not of sufficient strength to outweigh what in my opinion would be the very detrimental effect of removing and disposing of this organ. For the above reasons I have concluded that the Petitioners have not proved a necessity of sufficient weight or a sufficiently good reason for me to sanction the removal of the organ. I have reached this conclusion only after giving the matter anxious consideration. I suspect that the Petitioners will not only be disappointed but feel that their aims have, to some considerable extent, been thwarted. However, I hope that they will reconsider the siting of the vestry in a constructive way. The whole development of the community hall, linked to the church and the old grammar school will provide more space. In my view, with careful and constructive thought it ought to be possible to find a suitable alternative site for a new vestry without removing the organ from its existing position in the church. I see that one of the large problems of today's age is that we no longer see much further than a few years into the future and therefore what legacy we are leaving for future generations. In my mind Priests , Churchwardens and PCCs are custodians of the benevolence from previous generations. I know that what they have might not fit in with present trends but sometimes meeting that challenge can produce some surprising yet positive results. With a true understanding of the proper spending of money and the more free way in which it is donated to the Church, we should not be in such a pickle. You try telling people that they should give one hour's worth of their earnings a week as their giving to the church! I think that is around £685 for somebody on £24,000 a year and working 35 hours per week. If donated as a taxpayer, the tax would then also be recovered under the national scheme. Furthermore, without being morbid, less and less folk provide generously in their wills. I know parishes are different, but in my own parish the amounts given in death duties from parishioners in my lifetime could have purchased a new pipe organ many times over. Our ability to educate and enthuse (in the right quarters) seems rather lacking in many parts of our society. But with new experiments in Liturgy, I suggest that we should never forget the foundations of our heritage. I for one, only played the organ as I was attracted by the extraordinary sound. I only joined the choir so that I could get nearer to it. I couldn't wait for the final prayer at the choir practice so that I could have 15 minutes playing the organ. I know for certain that as a burgeoning musician of 10, my ears would not have had much interest in speakers as they certainly haven't in old age. My extra thrill is the architectural vision of an instrument. It is (and should be for me) a thing of beauty. For at a conservatively generous 95% of the time it is seen and not heard. That should be considered too when designing and placing it. In conclusion, if you feel that to some degree you can be somewhat profligate with precious funds, by all means buy a digital device for £30,000 with so many things that never even get used (my village can go from English Cathedral or German Baroque to French Romantic at the flick of switch). It will last perhaps 20 years. Therefore, it is like asking the Treasurer to write a cheque each year for £1500 with very little to show for it at the end. Not many ordinary pipe organs demand that kind of money for yearly upkeep. However, I have said to churches where only a digital replacement is being considered - by all means get one but also purchase a pipe organ (small and exquisite) so that we never lose sight of the future and those who need to play the organ and be fired by its mystery, beauty and its music. It comes as a glorious shock to churches when you tell them that the organ as an instrument is certainly older than Christianity. Our educating of others is lamentable sometimes. Best wishes, (and as you see, my N Y resolution is not ever to be brief), Nigel

My Greetings for a wonderful year. Here is a present of some musical memories from 2009. Nigel

Perhaps even more simply; I firmly believe that a Descant has to be able to stand on its own merit as a memorable melody. N

Certainly the former and I shall find my book of the latter. But for me one the most monumental of reconstructions and restorations when he was with Marcussen, is in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam. This was the organ that first totally inspired me to learn more of the old organs and the literature from those times. I sat in the great Nave of this building for a concert and the hush descended on the many hundreds of people as the huge painted doors slowly creaked open and when fully outstretched, the Plenum showered down on us. This was my Damascus moment. Best wishes, N

Both the works to which you refer were part of the Midnight Mass from Westminster Cathedral. I had a restless night after sitting through it ( I must admit) as the juxtapositioning of Latin and English throughout the solemnities left me rather emotional and a tad annoyed for such a broadcast. But there was a glorious 'oops a daisy' moment from the Archbishop when he wished everyone a Happy EasterrrrrrrrrrrrrrChristmas!! We had Garth Edmundson up to the first pedal note to finish and it was if Matthew had been shot. Happy St Stephen's Day. Nigel

I would have expected the occasion to have had a more past flavour to everything in honour and recognition of Sir David's rather grand Birthday this year. So I heard some of my really great favourites perhapd becasue of it. Did he attend I wonder? Greetings on this most special day. Nigel

Although I am not commenting directly about the questions above, I think that one must see the broader picture concerning French, and more to the point, Parisian partisan camps. They have always been there - not just in music but in all areas of French life. It is built into the Gallic DNA. But I could hazard a guess as to what transpired. M. Dufourcq in a photo I have, sits proudly at his(?) Gonzalez house organ. Do we find that builder being used at the churches in Question No. 1? Musical/Artistic wars are legion in Paris - even to this present day. All the great people have been caught up in one thing or another and it has often been the 'supporters' that have caused the most trouble - a little like the UK's football crowds. Rarely is it the players producing the fracas. Organ builders too seem to provide rivalries that are made more great by players. Is it not true that an Assault court case recently came about after a public scrap between two noted figures on the Paris scene happened whilst they were both on the jury of a competition - and it was all over an organ restoration/rebuild? I look forward to somebody actually providing us with the answers. But I dare gamble that it was all just un orage dans une tasse de thé if the truth be known. It always is! Seasonal greetings. Nigel