Colin Pykett

I know who this seller is as well and it will be interesting to see how much the console sells for. But when you think that a new console of this size and quality would cost well into the five figures (GBP) from a trade supplier, it has a long way to go before it would start to become an uneconomical proposition even allowing for the amount of renovation work that will be required, on top of transport costs. I wish that ebay had been around in the days when I used to design and make my own consoles from scratch! However they did have one big advantage, which allowed them to be completely dismantled into nothing more than a pile of boards and planks using only a screwdriver. This made moving them from one place to another very simple - it could be done by one person if necessary. But ready-made console shells are often glued up rigidly, making it difficult or impossible to get them around tight bends or (heaven forbid) up or down flights of stairs. I once bought quite a small 2 M/P Compton console from an Electrone electronic organ but even this suffered some damage when I was obliged to break apart some glued joints for these reasons. The damage was repairable but still regrettable. These experiences made me wonder why organ builders made them like this. When fully assembled, a console of the traditional size and shape can be completely rigid even when glue is not used, provided the necessary thought is applied at the design stage. The main reason is that the large panels at the front and rear provide all the mechanical stability necessary - there is no tendency to rock or bend. At the same time, the very small amount of 'give' that glue-less construction does provide can be useful where the floor is uneven. But I ramble ...

I would say that it's highly relevant. In medieval times, the fifths were pure and most thirds horribly sharp because they used only a diatonic scale for modal music with 7 notes to the octave (basically the white notes on today's keyboards). This was probably tuned to the so-called Pythagorean scale or something close to it (not that it had much connection with Pythagoras in reality but that's another story). So it's not surprising that they regarded the pure fifths as consonant and the impure thirds as dissonant in those days. This lasted until around 1500-1600, when European composers decided they wanted to use more intervals than the old modal system permitted. So they threw out Pythagorean tuning, added 5 black notes to the octave to enable modulation to be both composed and rendered, and tuned the whole lot to quarter-comma meantone. It seems to me not mere coincidence that meantone had impure fifths and pure thirds, exactly the opposite of what the old modes imposed, because they could have used any old temperament that took their fancy. The theorists of the day were certainly up to it in terms of understanding the maths. However they chose meantone, and thus thirds became regarded as consonant and they have remained so ever since. So the story does seem to suggest that the rules of harmony which evolved at that time might have been influenced by the early temperaments used, in particular quarter-comma meantone. It's just nice to my mind to have more robust explanations for things like the deprecation of consecutive fifths in harmony. Incidentally, I'm not suggesting any of this is necessarily novel. Others might have told the story similarly. However I haven't personally come across it told in quite this way, though that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

Why are consecutive (parallel) fifths deprecated so strongly in 'classical' harmony (i.e. that from the common practice era)? One often-quoted reason is that they undermine voice independence, though I've never really understood that since it would also seem to apply to consecutive fourths (wouldn't it?) yet they are allowed. A better reason to my simple mind is that there might have been a desire for music not to sound at all like the continuous parallel modal organum of former times - music was making a big break at that time and when that happens, haven't composers usually striven to remove the more obvious vestiges of former custom and usage? As part of this transition, other intervals had become playable on the new and expanded keyboards with their 12 notes to the chromatic octave instead of the 7 to the diatonic octave used for the former modal music. Thirds were of particular interest because harmony depends on triads which are built from 3rds as well as 5ths. But the introduction of a 12 note scale brought with it the bugbear of temperament, which basically boils down to trying to fit too many pure intervals into the octave. Hence the arrival of quarter-comma meantone with its many pure thirds but no pure fifths at all - a very different kettle of fish to the previous era of modal music which was stuffed full of pure fifths. In quarter-comma all the 5ths (besides the unusable Wolf) are not well in tune (getting on for three times worse than in equal temperament). So is it possible that these out-of-tune fifths were put in there deliberately so that they became more noticeable and possibly objectionable when played consecutively, unlike in the modal era when they were all pure? At the same time the many now-pure 3rds in quarter-comma were exactly what was wanted by composers who were developing the harmony we know and love. Is this also why consecutive 3rds are fine even in conservatoires today? The fact that all keys could not be used in meantone might not have been seen as a major problem at first, since the concept of 'key' as opposed to 'mode' was perhaps still a novelty which was a rich source of exploration. Perhaps only when that limited novelty wore off and yet greater opportunities for modulation became of more interest did other, less extreme, temperaments become desirable so that all 24 keys could be explored. So to summarise: 1. The introduction of keyboards with 12 notes to the octave necessarily arose at around the same time as composers wanted to use more intervals than the old modes allowed. So to explore 'key' rather than 'mode' they had to invent temperament to enable all the new intervals to fit into the octave. 2. One of the earliest temperaments was quarter-comma meantone, in which all fifths were noticeably out of tune (quite apart from the unusable Wolf fifth which we can ignore here). 3. These impure fifths might have been deemed subjectively unattractive, particularly when used consecutively in harmony, unlike in fifth-dominated modal music where all fifths were pure. Maybe the impurity was deliberate intent. So was the unavoidable introduction of keyboard temperaments a factor in the way that the rules of harmony necessarily had to evolve?

Francis's passing is a great loss. I feel privileged to have corresponded with him on many subjects, with emphasis on the word 'many'. His knowledge of Thuringian organs was encyclopaedic, so that he was equally at home explaining why organists were expected to check and remedy the tuning of the reedwork (including that on the pedal organ!) each time they wanted to play, as well as his being fully conversant with the latest digital studio recording techniques. All this in addition to many subjects inbetween, including having designed his own hardware synth in the 1980s. His skill as an executant was impeccable, and he visited Thuringia and Saxony frequently to examine the organs, give recitals, and make recordings of them. He sent me many fully-finished CDs complete with sleeve notes which at first I assumed were available commercially, thus I was surprised that they apparently were not. I suggested that he might remedy this, though rather got the impression that in retirement he might have become somewhat weary of the effort that would have been involved if he got so closely involved with the commercial interface of the recording industry. With his crossover background over so many years this would have been perfectly understandable. I became aware that Francis had perhaps the most sensitive musical ear of anyone I've known, so it was again a privilege that he allowed me into his personal sound world. One example was his fascination to get to the bottom of the so-called 'Handel' temperament, for which a set of frustratingly vague tuning instructions had been published c. 1780. We corresponded a lot on this, and he seemed delighted when I sent him a realisation of the temperament which suggested that it might still retain echoes of the much older quarter-comma mean tone tuning. So much so that he immediately ran off yet another recording of Scarlatti's works played on an appropriately-tuned harpsichord! Then there was the occasion when he asked for an opinion on the 'hum' that apparently pervaded the rural area where he lived. He could hear it even with all the windows closed, so I asked if he could record it. Sure enough there was indeed a very faint (to my ears) tone immersed in the quiet night time background sounds of the breeze, distant fox barks and similar acoustic artefacts that one might expect, though I have to say that if he had not forewarned me, I probably would not have noticed it at all. However a computer analysis confirmed (as it had to him) that a steady tone was certainly there at 220 Hz, an octave below A440 concert pitch. I don't think he ever resolved the matter, despite several heroic sorties in the small hours trying to locate the source! If one multiplies up all this material by the number of others he must have similarly interacted with, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to describe Francis as a polymath, and modest with it. To say that he was merely 'gifted' would be an understatement. He will be missed by many.

PLI has to be taken seriously for those who are self-employed. I don't give music lessons in church but organ consultancy, which I have undertaken, is a similar situation in the sense one obviously has to enter a church building and often the interior of the organ as well. I was glad to have it on occasions such as when hearing the sound of creaking and cracking wood when high up on a rotten passage board on top of some Great Organ pipework! (Fortunately I was able to retreat quickly enough ... ). It never struck me as particularly cheap though, and the broker through whom I took out the insurance explained that was probably because I mentioned 'soldering' as an activity which I might get involved in (as I sometimes did), presumably with the implied fire risk. But I don't think the matter should be dismissed merely as 'red tape' as geigen suggested, in this litigious day and age. Even if the church itself didn't come after you personally in the event of a claim, their insurers almost certainly would if they got involved. I mean, it would not be beyond imagination that you might carelessly leave the organ blower running all night after leaving the building. The ancient motors in some of these can get dangerously hot and catch fire because of the state of their sleeve bearings from which the white metal has long since run out. If you lost a subsequent court case, you could conceivably lose your house as well ... As mentioned above, although I've never undertaken tuition in a church, I did inform my house insurers that I would be undertaking such activities at home. They asked a number of penetrating questions such as how many pupil sessions per week (on which they placed an upper limit), the duration of each session and the precise nature of the tuition. However it was a pleasant surprise that they then accepted the additional risk without increasing the premium, provided I stayed within their limits.

But does it matter? Prior to the pandemic I would have been inclined to agree, and much of what I saw then of our national way of life struck me as little more than trying to turn the place into some sort of gigantic heritage theme park. But having witnessed the human and economic devastation wrought on the tourism industry in 2020 I've revised my views having seen (as we all have) its importance. Much the same probably applies to other countries with enough history to make them tourist magnets. I'm not necessarily convinced by the various figures bandied around by those with vested interests supporting one side of the argument or the other, but one version suggests that the monarchy costs each adult 62p per annum, equating perhaps to a total of around £35M - plus about £100M this year for the Coronation presumably. This can be set against the billions which the tourism industry generates (again, only if the figures are to be believed). I know you weren't focusing on the monarchy per se in your post, but if things like the Coronation liturgy start to get watered down to the level of CofE Common Worship, it could be the thin end of a wedge that could have unintended consequences. Something of intrinsic beauty will disappear as well. OK - so this forum is not about the monarchy or even the liturgy, but the point is that a similar situation applies to organs, though here I'm not so sure the financial arguments in its favour are as robust. Let's look at some examples. Over the last 20 years or so we've seen several large organs built or rebuilt with twin consoles, one tracker and the other electric and moveable. The evidence I have suggests that the en fenetre ones can get relatively little use. In one case I mounted the stairs to try it and was dismayed by the amount of dust it had collected, showing that not only was it not played but that nobody could even be bothered to clean up there. (Actually, things got worse when I discovered that one division wasn't tracker at all but electric). Why is this happening? Anecdotes suggest that certain funding bodies insist on mechanical action, so the extra console is just shoved in presumably to get the money, though no doubt other reasons might be forthcoming. Then there is that type of very old instrument which is brought back to life with things like a short compass swell, antique blowing equipment such as a restored water engine (which will never be used for eco reasons), an unequal temperament unsuited to its intended function, and/or a ridiculous pitch standard which means it cannot be used as part of an instrumental ensemble or even to accompany singers without the player having to transpose (which can of course make the temperament problem even worse). That such things can happen to an instrument facing extinction in the round, as some forum members argue, seems nothing more than a triumph of antiquarianism over common sense. It doesn't make the situation more comfortable to point out that similar things happen elsewhere, such as at Arnstadt where Wender's 'Bach organ' was carefully recreated in 1999, yet it sits resplendent on top of an electrified Steinmeyer discreetly hidden behind grilles and with a swish detached console replete with all the latest electronic gadgetry. Guess which instrument gets the most use. This sort of thing surely must matter for an instrument with an uncertain future? There aren't too many tourists beating their way into our churches just to listen to the organs these days, or if there are, then I've obviously blinked and missed them. It's not like the attraction of the monarchy because few of the tourists would even know or care what a pipe organ is. So why are we wasting some of a dwindling pot of money on preserving museum pieces or building unsuitable instruments when the bigger question of sheer survival is looming ever closer? Retention of historic or anachronistic aspects of the monarchy or liturgy makes sense because it is self-financing and turns a profit for the nation, but the same cannot be said of the organ world.

Thank you - it struck me as very beautiful, exactly the sort of thing that poetry can convey whereas prose cannot. Poetry, like music, seems to be able to connect directly with the mind. So different from a GCSE-level school poetry book I was reading the other day which, eventually, I had to close. Virtually every single poem up to that point had been about death, war, disaster, accidents (including one where a boy accidentally sawed his arm off with a chainsaw - poetry buffs will know which one) - and so on. It certainly explained why poets are often seen as miserable! But to present young minds with such an unleavened diet rather shocked me and left me wondering what motivates those shadowy, but no doubt trendy, educationalists who design school syllabuses.

I suppose it rather depends on how one defines 'best organist'. If it means 'most enjoyable occasion' then I agree with Tony that Carlo Curley pretty much tops the bill for me. I went to a number of his concerts; all were very well attended and one which still stands out was at Canford School in Dorset in the early 1990s. He was playing his Allen touring organ as he often did, and I was struck not only by the absolute precision of his (perhaps rather fast) playing, mostly from memory, but what an informal and generally nice person he was. Some of the numbers featured singers from the school, whom he accompanied sensitively and then offered some appreciative and encouraging words afterwards to much applause. During the interval he spotted me looking at the console, and said "if you play, by all means do so". So I did, and thereafter one or two others did the same. For its day I thought it was a most impressive piece of musical and audio engineering, if only because it enabled a reasonable-sounding instrument to be taken to the people rather than the other way round. Such events can only help to demystify and heighten the appeal of the organ. For what it's worth, I think he was a good ambassador for the instrument during his lifetime. A close second was when GTB came to Worcester cathedral in the 1970s in Christopher Robinson's day (I was living in Malvern at the time). His playing, too, was immaculately precise and because I was sitting fairly close to the instrument in the crossing its sounds were not swamped by the acoustic. However, at that time some of the Hope-Jones pipework remaining from the rather circumscribed H&H rebuild in the 1920s was still there, contributing to the sheer power of the thing at such short range being almost overwhelming. The only disappointment was that GTB himself only put in the briefest of appearances at the beginning and end, when he appeared for a few seconds only to give a bow before scuttling away. He never said a word!

Yes, I remember that correspondence - it was his 'Minuet and Musette'. One of those pieces that look deceptively simple at first glance but require a fair bit more practice in reality than one might think (at least, for mortals of my finite abilities). Thank you for the info about Damin Spritzer's CD which I was unaware of. Amazon are currently doing an mp3 version for a few £ which will be a nice way to spend some of my gift card balance (they don't seem to offer the CD itself at present). However I don't think it includes the piece just mentioned. Having made the purchase and done a quick appraisal of the tracks, I thought the 'Reverie on the hymn tune "University"' was quite beautiful. If I had to describe it succinctly I'd say it was almost Thalben-Ball-esque. But there's a lot more on the disc which would no doubt be equally attractive in a church setting, such as the 'In-Voluntary' and several candidates for postludes, such as 'Epilogue'. But as I hinted above, while much of it sounds straightforward and direct to the listener, I wouldn't be surprised if it's rather a challenge to bring off successfully. Damin Spritzer's technique is well up to it though, and the Albion organ is an inspired match to the music and its era. Some of the pieces are on IMSLP.

Any interest here for you? https://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/17410 The comments found here might well be more useful than the performance itself. Mike Cutler gets a mention. Achieving that degree of registrational variety in those days would probably have required the assistance of more than one registrant, all rushing around the console like things demented towards the end. (Did they actually do such things then?). Thanks for introducing me to this interesting new piece. It reminds me of S S Wesley, though doubtless he'd have preferred it played on an organ tuned in meantone ... Joking apart, both he and Attwood were early 'pedallists' in Britain, weren't they?

@Nic DAVIDSON PORTER There's an interesting snippet or two in the following link, which you might have come across yourself: https://allsoulsorgan.com/2015/02/17/more-research/ The comment on the same page from Ms Garnsworthy might be helpful as well. NPOR has some basic info if you do an organ builder search for Nelson. As you said yourself, searching for addresses turns up a lot of hits, though I haven't combed through them all by any means. I might take this opportunity to say, though, that the recent revamp of NPOR has made it much easier and slicker to search, and the presentation of results is second to none. Unless one wishes to contribute, for a free resource it's pretty impressive. Personally I think it deserves to be behind a paywall, though I understand BIOS is constrained by its charitable status from doing anything which might inhibit 'outreach'. The family firm seems to have been one of the many smaller organ builders from that general era (mid-19th to mid-20th centuries) who were prolific in their region, and about whom there might be a lot of information in the possession of diverse people, yet it doesn't seem to have been gathered together and made accessible in one place. It's frustrating when one comes across this sort of situation. So this post is not very helpful I'm afraid.

Reading Philip Larkin's beautiful (to me) poem with its ambiguous title 'Church Going' just now, I was struck by some lines which seem relevant to this thread and the way it has developed: When churches fall completely out of use What shall we turn them into, if we shall keep A few cathedrals chronically on show, Their parchment, plate and pyx in locked cases, And let the rest rent free to rain and sheep. And their organs get a couple of mentions as well! 'St Mark's, Cheetham Hill' by Tony Connor is edgier still but conveys much the same message.

A relatively recent (November 2022) article highlighting Andrew Scott of Harrison & Harrison in the Church Times made interesting reading. It was a candid view of where things stand in British organ building today. It's not for me to summarise all the points he made as you can read it for yourself, but he seems to be pinning his long term view on (quote) 'glimmers of hope' rather than on unrealistic extrapolations of the current situation where he has a secure order book up to the end of 2024. A point that has exercised me for some time concerns the future workforce in organ building - where are the future skilled crafts-people going to come from? How many parents of children who will have to earn a living would encourage them to go into organ building today? Yet without this essential replenishment at the base of the pyramid, might not the whole edifice collapse at some point in the future? Mr Scott acknowledges this (quote) 'new blood' problem as real and important both for the craft and the instrument itself, and he seems to offer little beyond hope that there is a long term solution. He worries about where the larger firms such as his will be in the future, and implies that the outlook for smaller ones and for organs at parish level is significantly less robust. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/25-november/features/features/harrison-harrison-the-craft-of-organ-building-thoroughly-organised

I was simultaneously amused and impressed by the link below describing an AGO event designed to promote deliberately the 'scary and spooky' image of the pipe organ: https://www.ctpublic.org/news/2021-10-27/why-is-the-pipe-organ-so-scary What an excellent idea! I wonder whether there might be mileage in putting on something similar at Warrington to showcase the instrument and bring it closer to public awareness in the area? The idea came to mind last night while I was listening to Roger Fisher's CD of the instrument which I mentioned above. At the time I was listening to Franck's Fantaisie in A, a solid 14 minutes' worth of music that might well be described as scary (or gloomy or boring?) by some listeners, regardless of what we organ nuts might think about it. I've said previously that, if we want to sell the organ to the public, we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that we are selling it to ourselves. It's no good preaching to the choir. The public out there should be regarded as customers for a product, who need to be attracted by presenting it in ways which we ourselves might well find surprising and possibly distasteful. In the Warrington context, and particularly in the context of this topic, perhaps a battle-of-the-organs type of event could be staged when the new sample set becomes available, in which the electronic and real versions of the instrument are compared and contrasted. One can envisage some sort of competition in which the audience (or those among them who want to participate) are either blindfolded or asked to turn round while pieces are played on both instruments. They then assign marks which are later totted up and announced as the 'winner'. It's been done before of course, and it usually goes down well and in some cases has attracted news media attention. Of course, I guess the problem with this idea would arise if the winner was the electronic version ...

If you want to hear the real thing, the late Roger Fisher issued an enjoyable CD recorded from sessions in 1984 and 2011. Wealden Studios WS 221. Their website suggests that it's still available. The Wikipedia article about the organ says that other recordings were also made but I don't know about their availability, nor have I heard them.

It's a shame that you haven't had a reply to your query, apart from perhaps a personal one which I know nothing about. However it's such an interesting one that I'd put money on it that more than a few forum members will have spent time combing the web on your behalf - as you will doubtless have done yourself. I've had a few attempts, though without turning up a direct answer. However there were a couple of interesting ones which conceivably might lead to something: http://www.voxhumanajournal.com/ericsson2018.html In this one Hans-Ola Ericsson suggests that Messiaen might not always have played Bach very well if I understood his anecdotes correctly! (He actually heard him playing Bach in Paris). https://www.oliviermessiaen.org/media Scroll down to find the bit about the 1973 English Bach Festival in London, during which Messiaen and Yvonne Loriod gave a recital at the Queen Elizabeth Hall. There's also a hilarious video where Messiaen apologises for his excessively informal appearance, owing to his taxi having driven off before he could retrieve his luggage! However, is it possible that the BBC sound clip you mentioned might have been recorded during that festival?

I've experienced this also. A similar occasion concerned a cathedral near the south coast where I had arranged a practice slot one afternoon through the good offices of the local organists' association, and on arriving found that I had to wait in line at the admission desk with all the other visitors who were paying an admission fee. I fully expected that I would have to pay it as well, not that it bothered me, but when I said I would be playing the organ the dear lady at the desk said "really, how wonderful" and waved me through! I then encountered another member of staff, possibly a verger, with whom I confirmed that it would be OK to proceed upstairs to the console, and he too just waved me on with a smile. He did, however, say that it might be best not to play too loudly for too long at a time. But there were no checks of any sort. It's also worth mentioning that the then-DoM took the view that the instrument was regarded both by himself and the cathedral as part of the wider cultural property of the area. Outreach of the best sort was obviously in operation at that cathedral. That was definitely not the case at a famous Parisian church, where I once asked whether I might just have a look at the Cavaille-Coll console. The official in question looked visibly shocked and replied "non, non, c'est interdit"! Again, I can confirm things can be like this for cinema organs. I once arranged to record a sample set of a 3/10 Wurlitzer in a public concert venue and encountered little difficulty in doing so, provided I was prepared to pay the princely sum of £30. In the event the gentleman who had been deputed to supervise me was so interested that he acted, most helpfully, as the key holder and at the end of the session even refused to take the money - which I didn't let him get away with of course! The moral? There's never any harm in asking to play any organ - if you don't ask you'll never get anything in life - but at a public venue it doesn't seem unreasonable that you should have to pay the normal hire cost. (In reply to carrick I don't think £275 is at all extortionate to hire a venue like the Blackpool Tower Ballroom especially when the organ is thrown in as well).

Perhaps I should apologise for my part in inadvertently steering the discussion off-topic, without being able to answer the OP's original question. Instead I might mention that I too linked (equally innocently) to a performance on an electronic organ of a piece that I wished to identify only a few weeks ago. On that occasion I was fortunate to get a quick response, and can therefore hope that someone will be able to respond more usefully in due course.

With apologies, I can't help. But doesn't it sound so, well, ELECTRONIC?

I tend to agree. With a mechanical action organ I feel I am playing a real, respectable musical instrument which can also justify its existence to a violinist, say. There is a sort of satisfactory psychological link going back to the earliest days of the organ in that they, too, have always worked like that. It just feels right aesthetically. With electric actions, and particularly those using electronics, that satisfaction isn't there - for me. I'm not sure that violinists would want their instruments to work via electric action. But these are personal opinions of little value. However, writing this reminds me of one of the best and least biased articles I have come across regarding electronic transmissions. It was issued by the American Institute of Organbuilders, although the date is not quoted. From its content I would say it's about 10 - 15 years old now, so some of the detail is out of date (e.g. many of the CMOS 4000 series logic chips are becoming difficult to obtain now, despite the varying statements in the article). Nevertheless in my opinion it makes exactly the right points: https://www.pipeorgan.org/wp-content/uploads/protected-files/Solid_State_Switching.pdf I think this was quite a brave attempt by the AIO at addressing a difficult question, considering that it represents (and is funded by) both organ builders and by the manufacturers of electronic transmissions in the US. The article also confirms how sensitive the matter is within the trade, in that it was written anonymously. This aspect is something I have encountered myself over the 24 years since I first began writing about it, with some well known correspondents scarcely ably to contain their annoyance that the topic was being raised.

I doubt it but would like to think so, if only to confound those who know me probably confirming that it still fits. When I was the said oik, toiling over my PhD research, it was indeed c. 55 years ago. So your timescale fits as well. How fascinating in terms of social history. But as to Stowe I do not knowe, so cannot natter 'bout the matter. This is also an interesting throwback. I'm not sure what a sewer-box might have been, other than a particularly unsatisfactory swell box perhaps in terms of the sounds which emanated from it, but your reminiscence reminded me of a letter W T Best wrote in 1895 (I can't immediately recall to whom) about the Hope-Jones organ then under construction in Worcester cathedral: protest shd be made regarding that impudent charlatan's doings at Worcester; as you know, he has only been a kind of sewer-maker between 'pipe' and 'key' So here we have another reference to sewage in the organ world from around the same time. Perhaps an early manifestation of British lavatory humour? It's fair to say, however, that one whom I'm sure we both respect was unhappy about the term 'charlatan'. He wrote: whatever else he might have been, he was certainly no charlatan (W C (Billy) Jones, voicer employed by H-J, no relation)

I won't be the only one here who writhes around on the carpet foaming at the mouth at the mention of honorary doctorates doled out to the vacuous undeserving, being one of the mere oiks who spent over three years getting mine (not in music but it doesn't affect the argument) by doing research and then defending it at examination.

Yet just look at the list of recently-retired senior civil servants and military officers, among others in the public sector. They get K's and lesser awards automatically, the actual award depending on the pay grade they retired at. It's the surest way for someone previously outside the public sector to get an honour - so former captains of industry queue up in middle age to get short-term appointments in the civil service and 10 years later retire with a K provided they didn't blot their copy book too badly.

NERD ALERT - let me apologise first of all for banging on about this, as I fully understand that many members might feel the forum is being hijacked. My excuse is that this sort of information is difficult or impossible to get hold of elsewhere, and my experience over many years is that there are also those who need or want it. So here goes. ---------------------- Each system is indeed bespoke, customised to a particular organ, but the installation (labour) costs are significant. Each contact in the console (keys, pedals, stops, pistons, swell pedals) has to be physically wired to a local multiplexer in or near the console which scans the contacts. The number of connections in the form of soldered joints is therefore large (typically several hundred). The multiplexer then sends signals down a small cable using MIDI or some other data transmission protocol to the computer, which might be some distance away and nearer to the pipes. After the computer has done its thing (see *** below), there is then a similar demultiplexer arrangement, implementing the reverse operation to console scanning. This is connected to the computer using, again, another small cable connection. The demultiplexer decodes and then fans out the signals from the computer into a large wiring array connected to all the chest magnets, swell engines, slider solenoids and drawstop/stop key magnets to move the stops back at the console when the pistons are pressed (two magnets per stop). Here there is a requirement for a separate magnet driving circuit for each and every magnet, either built into the demultiplexer unit or existing as a separate sub-assembly somewhere else in the setup. Magnet drivers are required because of the significant current demanded by each magnet. The driver circuits might each consist of a small circuit incorporating a separate small transistor, or several of them might be integrated into a series of small driver IC packages for economy and footprint reduction. But, again, the numbers of connections to be made at the demultiplexing end will be at least in the hundreds, or thousands for a fully unified theatre organ of any size, and the number of magnet driver circuits will also be in the hundreds or thousands. The systems from different manufacturers are proprietary and therefore different, so the above is only a highly condensed description of what they do at a basic level. For instance, in some systems the combination system might be separate to the scanning system rather than being combined with it as suggested above. But ultimately all systems have to perform the same operations in one way or another. So besides the computer itself, quite a lot of interface hardware is required (particularly at the demultiplexer end) and A LOT of wiring has to be done. The cost figures bandied around are therefore those to install the complete system, not just to purchase it, and this has to include a significant labour charge. ------- *** But exactly what advantages does computer control offer over old fashioned electromechanical actions and (to some extent) diode keying? There are two main ones: 1. Instead of unwieldy fat cables an inch or more in diameter connecting the console to the organ, containing hundreds of separate wires, only a small flexible data transmission cable is required (or even just a wi-fi connection in some recent systems). 2. Instead of needing vast numbers of large ladder relays to implement coupling, extension and borrowing, all interconnected with fearsome fat cable harnesses, the computer does these jobs instead. So if you press a key, it will work out for itself instantaneously which pipe(s) have to sound depending on which stops are drawn, including couplers. These advantages are particularly compelling in the case of organs with lots of unification (extension) such as theatre organs, which in their heyday needed an entire room to house all the relay work. But it's stating the obvious that the advantages are only realised as long as the system keeps working. If it goes wrong it's a serious matter and that's when the fun begins ...

It is essential for the organ's survival that it engages the interest of the public at large. The issue is similar to 'identifying your customer' in business, where it is surprising how many businesses don't have a firm idea of who their customers are. This is why management consultants are so thick on the ground and continue to give so many seminars on the subject. As Robert Bowles said above, the customer for the organ in this country obviously includes, but cannot be limited to, the likes of members of this forum. Unless the wider public can be sufficiently enthused, then the organ - as a product with not enough customers - will die (a fate which plainly will embrace electronic organs as well in the long run despite the complacency of some in that business). I use 'customer' in the widest sense: not merely to describe the few who buy an organ, but to include the far greater number who need to become interested in it to the same degree that they are currently interested in other musical instruments. Unfortunately the wider public are not sufficiently enthused at present, and as Martin Renshaw said in the programme, the organ currently attracts mainly a minority middle class demographic. I would go further and point out the uncomfortable fact that those of the middle class who are attracted to it are mainly of middle age or beyond, so when they die in the not too distant future, so will the organ unless something is done soon. Even more uncomfortably, the majority of this demographic is male (otherwise we would not need the Society of Women Organists to campaign for a better gender balance), and an even greater proportion is white. It would therefore be difficult to invent a worse societal mix than that reflected by the current 'customer base' for the organ within the population at large. It was therefore heartening to see in the programme glimpses of the way things have developed in that Seventh Day Adventist church, as well as the endearing vignettes of the pipe organ installed in that enthusiast's house. However, far more of the same will have to happen unless the organ of the future will be found only within the walls of a few museums.