Thank you, David.
I certainly appreciate the thoughts in your very constructive and informative reply. It is difficult for me, reading from this distance, not to sit dumbfounded as I have read some postings. It is also easy for me to write an opinion whilst not understanding all the facts. I suspect, however, that contained in your reply, whether by accident or design, are the answers to so much else of what I have read earlier on this and other topics.
I cannot, howver, really accept that a nation so busily engaged in restoring and preserving everything in sight so beautifully to how it was, would just shut the door on pipe organs. On e only has to look around such diverse locations as Covent Garden, The Foreign and Commonwealth offices, the reconstruction at Windsor Castle, evn to the Crich Tram Museum and HMS Victory to know there is a great pride running through the whole of the UK. The Cathedrals, Greenwich, the stately homes, along with the myriads of tiny establishments and private properties, do not enjoy their current pride in ownership and breath-taking condition as a result of apathy.
Why, then, the organ. My immediate reaction is to consider the endless correspondence in organ magazines and wonder what is the point beyond grand-standing? Why not actually let the wider community know of your concerns? Consider the successful outcome in the movie 'The Choir'. I appreciate, that from an English perspective, we Australians are considered crass, but in Sydney, the topic of the RAH facade pipes would by now have reached such proportions, via the talk-back radio, current affairs television reporting and letters to the editor, in the daily papers, that the powers-that-be at RAH would long ago have gone scurrying for their chequebooks, just to stop the phone-calls.
Why, in a country so renowned through history for standing up for its rights, has the organ dropped off the agenda? To me, the answer may lie in the fact that the organ is probably never spoken of in the real world, only the organ publications, read by organists and organ-lovers.
Given the state of apparent apathy as you describe, have you not possibly given up your right to expect a British organ at RCO?
The English organ periodicals are full of organ-builders' advertisements and details of what would appear to be a very active industry. Am I mistaken? Like you, David, I grieve for some of the things that happen in organ building in the name of restoration. I have not yet heard the RAH organ post restoration, but was alerted by your comments and concerns for this instrument. I have absolutely no doubt as to the quality and detail of the work that JPM and his team have lavished on it; my doubts are with the details of the overall plan and whoever was at the the helm in deciding what and what not would be undertaken, and why. Many earlier postings raised questions in my mind. Why does it always seem necessary to fiddle with the integrity of something. I have made my point clear on that topic in this country and am certainly not expecting to be heard in the UK. Much of what is carried out previously in some organs, in the name of improvemnt, was ill-conceived; and so the exercise continues, on and on, merely stamping someone else's personality on the hapless instrument. I have copies of 'The Organ' that scream absolute indignation at the ruination of the RAH organ following its first rebuild. I wasn't around then and I don't know, but it seems the die was cast more than 80 years ago.
I guess that I won't ever understand how anybody is prepared to condone the dull drabness of huge organ pipes in surroundings so 'pavillioned in splendour' and so breath-taking. Had the RAH restored the facade and pipes as part of the room and ignored the organ inside, I could have well understood; and that, surely, would have been a more typical bureaucratic move. The current situation is impossible for me to fathom.
Thank you again.