Anthony Poole

I've not looked at the news section on the website for a long time and I had no idea about the new organ in St Alban's. At last a significant new instrument in Britain for you, rather than having to export. Let's hope this is a turning point in the choice of organ builders for new organ requirements in Britain. How would you describe the style of this instrument, given that it obviously has a liturgical role to play first and foremost, in addition to being a competition/recital instrument? The disposition looks interesting from the drawing. Where does the Great sit in relation to the Swell and the Choir and Pedals for that matter?

Not only was an organ not envisaged at the Barbican, but I don't think music was given much consideration. To my mind, the only satisfacgtory solution to the Barbican Hall is several thousand pounds of high explosives and start all over again. Use the opportunity to build a world class concert hall with accoustics to match and with all the modern staging and lighting facilities that a modern concert hall demands, crowned with an outstanding pipe organ by a British builder. If we can get orchestral and organ playing accepted as an Olympic sport, then maybe London could have just such a concert hall by 2012.

I think the most useful feature of the Klais at St John's Smith Sq is the 'off' switch. And I prefer Westminster Cathedral's grand Willis III to St Paul's Cathedral, but that's just my personal opinion. But, on a more serious note, as a capital city, London is found wanting when it comes to the provision of concert halls. John Mander is right on the mark here. Of course, had it not have been for the Luftwaffe, we would still have the Queen's Hall in London, said to be an accoustic marvel and one of the finest condert hall accoustics in Europe. It is a shame that one of the London orchestras does not have a principal conductor and artistic director with the charisma of Simon Rattle. It was during his tenure at Birmingham that he banged enough drums and political heads together to get Symphony Hall built. And Symphony Hall, along with the ICC, forms an integral part of the redevelopment and rehabilitation of Birmingham.

I only ever heard the GD&B at New College on Peter Hurfor'ds Bach recordings, which I've not listened to for at least 20 years. I remember it coming over as being in a fairly dead accoustic and it crying out for something warmer and more sympathetic. I have only encountered two GD&B instruments in the flesh: St Paul's Girls School, Hammersmith; and St Mary's South Woodford. I remember being very impressed with the St Paul's Girl's School instrument, more so than the Mander in St Paul's Boy's School, which was in a tiny room and had a lot of organ for such a small chapel. But I thought St Mary's was a real gem. It was 25 years old when I first heard and played it and it sounded as fresh as a daisy. I think the tonal finishing on it was meticulous, which was not always the case with other builders in the neo-classical mode. And the organ fills the accoustic well, without being over powering, and has some soft stops to provide a satisfying dynamic range. The church has a small, warm but quite lively accoustic - one in which choirs and instrumentalists have to work hard at to achieve a real pianissimo. It's easy to achieve a mezzo forte without any effort. One of the things that impressed me was that the Pedal Bourdon 16ft was soft enough to use agains Swell strings, and yet had enough foundational tone to use against bigger manual registrations. I have heard the instrument in concert, recitals and in services, but I've never heard a recording. And I have turned pages for somebody who played, very effectively, the first movement of Elgar's G Major Sonata on it. And I've even heard it give a reasonable account of some Howells. The St Mary's Woodford instrument seemed to have the flexibility to fulfil its primary role of leading hymn singing, accompanying the choir and being a versatile recital instrument - a feat which not many builders in this style achieved. And the tuning stability was remarkable. Despite a lot of upper work and quite a few reeds, I was told the organ was only tuned once a year. I heard it at different times of the year in all four seasons. Only once, on a really baking hot day, did I ever hear a note or two on a reed complain. And in winter, the church is generally only heated on Sundays. This is not the instrument that this thread was about, but I cannot imagine anything that could be done to St Mary's Woodford to improve it tonally. I wouldn't be surprised if that also applied to all of the other instruments from this builder. St Mary's could possibly do with a few more pistons, as there are only three to each manual department, although I've heard plenty of people manage well enough with the existing registration aids. In short, I think the builder achieved everything that the church wanted in a pipe organ. When I was last there - in around 1998 - it was serving the church very well indeed. This is perhaps an unfair comparison, but I believe the GD&B organ at St Mary's fulfils its role as a parish church organ far more successfully than the Downes/H&H insrtrument does as a concert organ at the Royal Festival Hall. Maybe that will change when the improvements to the RFH accoustic has been completed, and the organ has been rebalanced. Perhaps then we will hear, for the first time ever, what the RFH organ is supposed to sound like.

This is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post, but I've wondered for some time where the term organ voluntary comes from? A church where I occasionally stood in for the organist when he was on holiday had another standby organist who used to describe his playing of organ voluntaries as "organ compulsories". Was it simply something that the organist volunteered at the end of a service, or does it have another origin? Posting this also reminds me of an organ voluntary nightmare. I once played a voluntary on an instrument in need of some real tender loving care, cipher upon cipher ensued, but I managed to coax the organ through until we were all finally put out of our misery when the blower decided to pack-up with only about half a dozen measures to go. But the electric action didn't cut out. Suddenly there was this awful sag in pitch as the bellows were emptied of their wind, without being replenished. The organ gave one last deathly wheeze and rattle and then there was a wonderful, stunned silence, as everyone was convinced the organ had given up the ghost as a result of my playing. What a critic, I thought. This was followed by a lone, solitary, slow hand clap, with the culprit uttering the words, "Nice job Anthony." That dying wheeze was quite an extraordinary noise. I could recount one other nightmare about this particular organ, but enough for now.

This is truly a sad and sorry tale of spectacular incompetence and negligence. I hope the accounts of the fund stand up to scrutiny, quite apart from anything else. But this almost sounds like the plot of a movie. If somebody could get a film studio interested in making the film, as part of the process they would need an organ to film and might pay for it to be rebuilt, with a competent committee, consultant and the whole thing put out to competitive and artistic tender.

I don't know the organ at Ste Clothilde, either in its present form, or what it was like in Fanck's day, so I can't do a comparison. All I can say is that at St Ignatius, you are right in that the solo qualities of the Bassoon-Hautbois/Trompette combination are certainly exploited, especially with a foundation. And the reeds of the Petit Récit do also work well with the foundations on the Grande Orgue. The Director of Music, Kent Tritle, makes reference to using the combination of Hautbois/Trompette on this division in a recording that features Frank, among other composers. Of course, that begs the question as to why that might not have been incorporated in the larger Récit division, and I'm not sure I am qualified to answer that question. But having a second division under expression also enabled a lot of the organ's solo elements to be placed in this division. All I can say is that it works very effectively. The box that houses the Petit Récit is high up in the organ above the Grande Orgue division and at the top of the central tower. Looking at the main case, immediately above the console is the main Récit, above that is the Grande Orgue and above that is the Petit Récit. The shutters are on both sides of the box, rather than the front, and are vertical, opening out towards the nave. With both of the divisions that are under expression, the effect is big in the church. It seems like the further you are from the instrument, the more effective the swell effect is on both of these divisions. Part of the reason is the organ being above the main door and speaking down the entire length of the church. John Mander once explained (if I understood him correctly) that part of the reason is also down to the amount of pipework inside the box, which forces the sound out when it is opened. There is nowhere inside the box for sound to get trapped. I think the three divisions that are under expression in Westminster Cathedral have as strong a swell effect as at St Ignatius. Again, this organ is above the main door, Continental style, but we are talking about two entirely different instruments. Sorry that doesn't answer your specific question about what the aims of the Petit Récit division at St Ignatius are. Hopefully, John Mander will be able to reply before long.

The more I think about this, the less I'm able to get my brain around it. Looking again at Cavaillé-Coll's original drawing, I can see some logic to the layout you describe. I thought his drawing was merely referring to the disposition of the stops and not just the manual keyboards. Although if you look at what the drawing is called, it does say clearly that it shows the disposition of the manual keyboards and stops. I must have mis-read what CC described in his drawing. But having the Récit such a long way from the Grande Orgue and the Grande Choeur must have presented a challenge. So if the lateration was made in 1903, it must have been at the instigation of Widor. Maybe that is when the two pedal stops were added as well. I will have to recheck his biography.

The manual layout of Cavaillé-Coll's grande orgue at St Sulpice could still be the subject of some debate. On the organ's website, there are some detailed drawings of vertical elevations of the organ and a detailed layout drawing of the disposition stops on the console, dated 29th April, 1862, but the resolution is not good enough to determine which manual connects with what. Moreover, the location of soundboards for a particular manual is not clear or labelled. One can take a guess as to what they are. The only things that are obvious are the 16ft and 32ft Pedal reed pipes, the fake 'en chemade' and the position of the console. However, a clue may be found in a biography of Widor: The Life and Times of Charles Marie Widor (I can't remember tha author's name), it's out of print and I lent it to somebody a few months ago. It refers to two stops (Principal 16 ft and Principal 8ft) being added to the pedal department, late in Widor's career. If I remember rightly from the book, it was to celebrate his 60th anniversary at St Sulpice in 1930. There was already a 32ft Principal Base but, surprisingly, nothing in the way of a principal chorus in the pedals from Cavaillé-Coll's scheme. Cavaillé´-Coll's pedal deparment at St Sulpice was surprisingly minimalist for an organ of this size. What is interesting from the drawings on the website is the original layout and disposition of the stops on the console in Cavaillé-Coll's drawing of 29th April 1862, which is very different from the disposition of today, also shown on the website. Incidentally, on Cavaillé-Coll's drawing, what we now know as the 'Solo' division, was referred to as the 'Bombarde' division. Another clue from the biography maybe seen from a photograph of Widor improvising at St Sulpice, where he looks like a relatively young man, certainly a lot younger than in photographs we often see of him that were taken much later in his life. The resolution on this photograph is not good, but it maybe possible to determine whether it was taken before the stop layout on the console was changed, simply by counting the stops on different levels and comparing it with the original and the existing. Of course, the staff at St Sulpice are adamant that nothing as radical as changing the order of the manual keyboards has ever occurred since Cavaillé-Coll's day. Somehow, I think the biography of Widor might have made reference to it had a change been instigated by Widor. And another clue may also have come from Notre Dame (another five manual CC), had the Cavaillé-Coll console and action not been brutally ripped out. So whether Mutin did change the manual keyboard layouts in 1903 is, to my mind, still open to debate. It is possible that the 1903 work was limited to cleaning, overhauling and the change in stop layouts only. As always, I am sure there are more eminently-qualified people out there who can cast more light on this than me.

It is difficult to suggest the direction for a possible solution without knowing all the facts. Are we talking about what were once two distinct instruments at either end of the church? Or was there one large organ origianally, that was split and altered? Is there an organ loft at the west end of the church where the 'west end' organ is sited. Did the choir once sing from that loft? If so, that might explain why the choir division is in the west end of the church, rather than the east end. Was the east end division added because the church preferred to bring the focus of the musical liturgy closer to the altar? Or was it the other way round? I'm curious about the underwhelming pedal division in the west end. That could be a problem of where the instrument is sited, or where individual departments are sited, or could be something to do with the accoustic of the church. Can you describe the accoustic of the building and the kind of materials inside. Is there carpeting or other sound absorbing material? If so, its removal might solve a lot of the problems. Sorry if this sounds like stating the obvious. While the amalgamation of digital and pipes maybe worth researching, it would be best to bear in mind that the digital solutions of other churches may not necessarily suit your church. If you have a very dry and unforgiving accoustic, I suspect the blending of pipes with digital may be very difficult. I don't know how large the funds are. Is it possible that work on the pipe organs might help? It sounds like you may want to talk to some experienced consultants and form a committee before making any major capital commitments.

Another thing to consider is the use of the Grande Oruge 8ft foundations without the Montre 8. Messiean calls for it in one of the variations in the second movement of L'Ascension Suite, starting with just the Gambe, then he asks for the Bourdon to be added and then the Flûte Harmonique. The effect is very interesting when played on an organ with these foundations that are voiced along the lines I described. I think a more accurate composition of a not untypical Cavaillé-Coll G.O. Bourdon 8ft stop is the one described by Barry Jordan, with wooden stopped basses in the bottom octave, a tenor octave of metal stopped pipes and then metal chimney flutes from the middle octave upwards. I saw a photograph of one over the weekend on the web somewhere.

The French Bourdon 8 to which you refer is a stopped flute stop, but somewhat different in character from an English stopped diapason or a German Gedact. Montre 8 and Bourdon 8 do not equate to the large and small Open Diapason found on and English romantic Great division. I believe Cavaillé-Coll often used metal pipes for the 8ft Bourdon on the Grande-Orgue division. They were voiced to work and blend with Montre 8, an 8ft string stop and the 8ft Flûte Harmonique, which is how you broaden the sound of the 8ft foundation, drawn in various combinations. When done properly, the four stops can be drawn and, provided they are all in tune, sound like a single pipe producing this well-rounded and broad tone. The 8ft string played an important part in this, but the 8ft Flûte Harmonique actually provided a lot of the harmonics and frequencies to make this work. I think I am right in saying that the addition of a Diapason at 8ft pitch on a Grande Orgue division by Cavaillé-Coll was confined to his larger and later instruments. Two that come to mind, which have the 8ft Diapason as part of the 8ft line up on the Grande Orgue division are St Sulpice in Paris and his last instrument in Rouen (1898). By having a single principal rank at 8ft pitch, it removed any conundrum as to what to voice, scale and balance the rest of the principal chorus with. I think this has been discussed elsewhere on the message board under the title Diapasons vs Principals, or something along those lines. I think a Bourdon 16 was not that common on a Cavaillé–Coll Grande Orgue division, and was again more a feature of his larger and later instruments. A more typical stop line up at 16 and 8ft pitches would have been: Montre 16 Montre 8 Bourdon 8 Viole da Gambe 8 (or some sort of string) Flûte Harmonique 8 That said, I don't know whether the additional Diapason 8ft on some Cavaille-Coll Grande Orgue divisions euates to an English Great small Open Diapason. I think it takes the name Diapason because it is not one of the display pipes in the case, whereas the Montre which, I think, translates into display would have been part of the display pipes on the casework. Now I know there are more informed people who participate on the message board who can probably give a better explantion than me. And Stephen Bicknell writes about the foundation stops of French romantic organs and Cavaillé-Coll very eloquently on his website. Try the following link: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~oneskull/3.6.03.htm

I have a recollection that Father Willis had an interesting, if not unique, method of planting pipework in organs where the swell division was placed behind the great. Am I right in thinking that in the swell division, he used to put the C# side on the left and the C side on the right, while on the Great organ he placed the C side on the more customary left and the C# side on the right? I believe the reason was to improve egress of tone into the room, rather than Father Willis wanting to be a contrarion. If I am right in this, was the idea carried through to Willis III, and do other organ builders use it? Thanks in advance for any replies. Anthony

Could Jonathan Thorne elaborate a little more on the aluminium squares? Is this in reference to the swell shutters? I'm intrigued because I have more than a passing interest in Auguste Gern, and I'm always keen to know more about Cavillé Coll. Many thanks Anthony

I can understand you saying that it is hard to put into a few words what is the current British style of organ building, because there probably is not one that stands out as being a defining, contemporary style. With all due respect, I think you missed the point about the description of Englishness at St Ignatius. The comment about it "really being an English organ" was made by one of the organists, because he found it entirely suitable for that particular piece he was preparing. It may even have been tongue in cheek. It is, after all, an exceptionally versatile organ without being eclectic. But people seem to find it just as suitable when registering Frank, Widor, Vierne, Dupré, Messiaen, Couperin, Eben, Paulus, Hidemith, Buxtehude, Elgar, Vaughan Williams or Bach. But the comment does not get away from the clear influences behind the overall scheme, described very articulately on this site, which makes some sense of the stop nomenclature. Personally, I believe that for the most part, the language used for naming stops is irrelevant. Some contracts have the customer making the choice about stop nomenclature, rather than having anything imposed by a builder. Maybe at a future date the names on stop knobs will be electronically generated and an organist can choose the language he or she is most comfortable with. Personally, I don't believe that British organ builders have an identity crisis. If anything, it might be the people that make the decisions about which builders to employ for major new contracts in Britain that have the identity crisis. They seem to want a bit of everything. And maybe they are too easily swayed by some builders who want to, or are determined, to impose a particular scheme. It is hard to avoid the influences of other countries in a world of easy travel and the widespread availability of recordings. So whatever the contemporary British style is, it will inevitably draw on influences from elsewhere. It seems to me that British builders seem to be going down the road of enhancing the blending qualities of different registers. So perhaps, it is not surprising that the French influence is apparent in, for instance, foundation stops. It seems in America, that British builders are getting a reputation for flexibility. And people really do know what to expect. It is a quality that has yet to be appreciated by those decision makers in Britain.

I would be interested to know whether CT Worcester has actually heard the St Ignatius organ in the flesh. If you heard it in English repertoire, either solo or in accompanying choirs, the name Cavaillé-Coll actually does not sit with what you hear. The same is also true when listening to Bach, Buxtehude or Pachalbell. But if you listen or play French Romantique repertoire, there is no doubting the influence behind the scheme, although it would be quite wrong to describe it as a slavish copy. The en chemades sound nothing like anything Cavaillé Coll produced, and neither do they sound like the buzzing, shrill efforts of some modern instruments, but they certainly add a crowning glory to a tutti and a lot of character to the organ. One of the organists at the church, recently told me: "It really is an English organ" when preparing the Parry Bridal March recently. Mander has succeeded in producing one of the most versatile instruments I have ever encountered, but with a core style throughout - no ecclecticism at all. Don't be fooled by some aspects of the stop list, because the voicing sticks with that core style. I can't imagine a single piece in the repertoire that you couldn't play on it without it sounding convincing. In some respects, it is the equivalent of a modern symphony orchestra, but does not fall into the trap of being a jack of all trades, and neither does a good orchestra. Maybe this is what will eventually evolve into a new 'British' style. It seems to me that such instruments serve the repertoire better and provide sufficient resources and tonal colour pallets to attract composers to write for the instrument, much more so than a new-classical or eclectic organ, which inevitably ends up spreading itself too thinly in any period of the repertoire it tries, with the possible exception of the very substantial instruments that have been built in concert halls in America; the Meyerson hall in Dallas comes to mind. For all we know, maybe the RCO instrument will turn out to be an equally as versatile instrument as St Ignatius. Personally, speaking, I would have liked to have seen it go to a British builder, being an Englishman. And being a parioshioner at St Ignatius and hearing and seeing the organ there makes me proud of my fellow country folk's achievements.

This is a really interesting discussion. And I've always wondered why it is that some of Britain's best organ builders get more opportunities overseas than in the home market. I've no idea of the decision-making process at the RCO so I won't even begin to comment there, but will make a few general observations. I think that not enough eminent British organists with real influence get to play some of the fine instruments that British builders have built overseas and, therefore, cannot take a positive feedback to their colleagues back home. And, unfortunately, you do get a case where an eminent recitalist, with significant influence, will play one such instrument once, find something on it they don't like and disproportionately blow it out of all proportions and give a bad account of the organ, in effect, writing off the entire output of the builder concerned. The problem here is that they come to the instrument with a particular, historical bias against a builder, not necessarily based on fact, and look for something they don't like. The fact that what they might not like could be a genuine misgiving, they overlook the fact that A.) it can probably be fixed; b.) they only practice on the instrument for a few days, give a recital and disappear with fee in hand. And they have no appreciation of how a particular instrument works liturgically within the church and throughout its many varied uses during the course of the year. And they probably never even get to hear anyone else play it. Too late, the damage is done, and they go home and rubbish the builder concerned. Somebody in an entirely different walk of life once told me: "A good reputation takes years to make, but it can be destroyed in seconds." I think that is very true.

I've always been under the impression that, the 4ft rank in the composition of a Cornet was usually a principal and everything else was flute, although I can't say I've ever looked at one closely enough to observe this. Is it a case where there are no hard and fast rules, as such?

I think Barry Oakley is mistaken in saying that total grant funding is available for the maintenance of the fabric of a church, otherwise every congregation would be paying for the upkeep of their vicar or parish priest and the electricity and heating bill, 'safe in the knowledge' that the money will automatically appear to fix a hole in the roof. I think this is somewhat wishful thinking. Every church in England I've ever been associated with, RC and C of E, has had a fabric fund, used only for the purposes of maintaining the building, including major capital projects. And that is also true of listed buildings. Some churches maintain their pipe organs out of that fund, others have an entirely separate fund. I think you would find that if a church wanted to restore its stained glass windows, for instance, it may be able to apply for a grant to fund the major part of it, but it would also have to raise at least 25% of the cost by its own means.

There is no direct tax funding for organ projects, new or restorations, generally in the US - at least not from the Federal government, although indirect funding is available in the form of tax relief, which I will explain later. It is not inconceivable that a hall owned by a city or state government that possess a pipe organ might be well cared for out of public funds, but such examples are probably rare, and I can't think of any off the top of my head. The fact is that most pipe organs are owned by churches or commercial concert halls. Churches close here in the US too and organs become redndant. New organs are often the result of a legacy making up the largest percentage of the expenditure, with a fund-raising effort by the congregation making up the rest, as happened at St Ignatius Loyola in New York in 1993, although the legacy in this case was made by an anonymous donor who is still very much alive. This happened before I moved to New York, but the congregation does feel a sense of pride and ownership with this instrument, which probably explains why the concert season, including the recitals, are very well attended, and masses with music are also well attended and a lot stay to listen to voluntaries. Speaking of which, the 2004/05 concert programme opens this Sunday with Kent Tritle playing Widor VII and works by Dupre - sorry for the unashamed plug - and we have Martin Baker of Westminster Cathedral making his New York debut next month. I have to admit that as the St Ignatius organ was built in my home town of London, it makes me proud to be an Englishman in New York every time I go to church, and it is great that so many eminent British and international organists are invited to give recitals here. As for the tax relief, if you are a parishioner in a church that wants to build a new organ, or restore an existing one and you contribute to the fund-raising, you can offset that against your tax liabilities in the tax year that you make the donation, whether the donation is $5 or $5,000 or more, provided that the church has tax exempt status, which it inevitably will have. For instance, if you own shares in a company, or various companies, and sell them and make a $5,000 profit, if you donate that to the fund-raising programme, you can use that whole $5,000 contribution to offset any capital gains you made on the sale of the shares. A more efficient way to do it would be to donate owrnership of the shares to the fund-raising programme, which you can also use to offset against your income tax. With a church, it would have tax exempt status and would be able to realise the full value of any donated shares with no tax liabilities. This is how many capital projects of tax exempt organisations are funded, no matter what they are: it could be a shelter for the homeless; an activity centre for underprivileged children; or it could be a new pipe organ in a church, or a restoration.

I don't think it is true to make a generalisation that restoration costs as much as building new. Take for instance, the cost of restoring the Royal Albert Hall organ of £1.7m ($3.05m approx.). Despite the extensive work, involving many new soundboards, restoration of existing ones, extensive cleaning, revised internal layout requiring detailed design, leather work, console restoration, rewiring and fitting of a multi-level capture and sequencer system, plus restoration of pipework, conveyancing, pnuematic tubing, meticulous tonal finishing, etc, etc. I would be astounded if a new organ of this size could be built for £1.7m without bankrupting the organ builder concerned. There maybe exceptions, however, where a lot of pipework has to be remade or replaced, and where extensive lead tubing has to be renewed in pnuematic actions that might be very expensive, but I suspect these are the exceptions, rather than the rule. But my point is that the various providers of grants for such restoration projects would be mistaken in believing as a generalisation that restoration costs the same as building new. Moreover, there are some providers of grants that specify restorations of organs of historical importance, especially in listed buildings, where the instrument is an integral part of the building's fabric and archictecture. They come with strict criteria. When they say restoration, that is precisely what they mean, rather than rebuild or tonal modifications, or new consoles etc. Generally speaking, several projects successfully have grants, involving national lottery funding, approved, but they fail to get off the ground because the church or venue involved fails to meet its own funding requirements. National Lottery money will not provide 100% grants. Often the project has to come up with around 15% to 20% of its own funding. When you consider the failings of many parishes to be able to come up with such funding, especially in more affluent parts of the country, one has to ask questions of how commited is the congregation to the future viability of the parish. And, while such sums of money in the self-funding requirement may seem large, if one considers the amount of money the average person spends in the pub each week, or buying chocolate or other frivilous things, there are a lot of small self sacrifices that people can make if they are involved in a parish that is planning to restore a pipe organ. Maybe one or two fewer pints of beer a week and one packet of chocolate biscuits a week instead of two. Maybe one week in the month, cutting out the weekly trip to the local Tahj Mahal, etc, etc. and putting all that money into the organ fund. If there are 100 people in a parish church and each one of them puts away an average of £5 a week to donate towards a capital project in the church, such as an organ restoration, in a single year, there would be a total of £26,000, and that does not take into account any interest earned or any covenented giving schemes whereby tax emoney could be claimed from the Treasury. Such a sum would meet the self-funding requirements under many grant programmes. Now part of the problem is that many churches probably don't have 100 people in their parish and are operating on the basis that the church will only remain open until the incumbent parish priest or vicar finally retires or falls off his/her pulpit, whichever comes first. Church closures are a real problem. The only way to preserve them, if they close, is for them to be bought and used as concert venues and museums, with the organs inside them being restored and maintained. It would be good to see grants for such purposes, otherwise a fine church could just as easily turn into a block of flats, a night club or a new Sainsbury's, Tesco, Safeway, or petrol station. And if churches that become concert halls or museumns fail, then you have to ask whether the community really wants them. Maybe there is scope for the National Trust to step in, if the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church would donate redundant churches to the nation, rather than sell them to a property shark. But it is wrong to expect grant programmes to provide 100% financing for restorations. If churches or halls care enough about the fabrics of their buildings, which includes pipe organs, it is only right that they should pay something towards their upkeep and restoration. And for a viable parish that is lucky enough to have an organ worth restoring, those members of the parish that contribute to it can rightly feel a sense of ownership. The same applies to the construction of a new organ. Take for example the way that Symphony Hall funded the construction of its new pipe organ. Whether you like the instrument or not, you have to admire the ICC for its approach towards funding this project and the ownership that the people that contributed feel.

I wondered whether any of the participants in this forum have listened to or played the new Walt Disney Hall organ. I've not heard or seen it yet, so probably shouldn't really comment as my only impressions of it are the photographs I've seen and one review I've read. But when I first saw a schematic of it, my first thought was that it could have been something conjoured by the Sorcerer's Apprentice. I find the debate about the concert hall pipe organ fascinating. On the one hand I understand and even sympathise with those who have hang ups for all sorts of legitimate reasons and associate the organ with the church. But I wish people could consider it first as a musical instrument, which is what it was before it went into the church in the first place. Unlike any other musical instrument, the organ is so large that it becomes a part of the fabric of the building and becomes an architectural feature of it, whether it is in a concert hall or a church. Even the consoles of the 'Might' Wurlitzer's were a visual asset to a building, even if you couldn't see the rest of the organ. Personally I'm against the idea of hiding organs behind a screen, especially in a concert hall, as it negates the purpose of going to experience live music. The live performance experience is just as much visual as it is aural, and that does not even take account the aural aspect of front display pipes. I've only heard one good organ behind a screen, which is at Westminster Cathedral, although that is a remarkable and exceptional instrument for a variety of reasons. So back to my original question, does the Walt Disney Hall organ sound like it looks? And do people think this visual and tonal eclectic approach is right for a concert hall, as opposed to a church, given the huge demands of a concert hall instrument as opposed to the equally large, but different, demands of a church instrument? I should say that what I have read about the organ describes the sound as powerful, bucking the trend of more recent thin toned concert hall instruments. And the review I read describesthe tonal approach as eclectic. My impression of the visual approach is that it is unconventional, which is stating the obvious, against what looks like a relatively conventional concert hall backdrop - again, judging by photographs, rather than seeing the beast in the flesh. I've just had an idea for a cartoon, with the music especially composed for the organ. It's a shame I can't draw.

Well, for the most part, it seems as though I was talking rubbish in this thread. A little knowledge is dangerous. I'm surprised at there being such a high tin content in the facade pipes, especially the 32fts. I thought tin would be too soft, but I guess it's not as soft as lead. Anyway, I still think the highly polished front would look odd in the RAH, but look forward to seeing it when it is all finished. And I'm looking forward to actually hearing the RAH organ next time in England, whenever that will be.

Whether or not the pipes would need to be removed to clean them, I wonder whether cleaning them in situ would not deposit a layer of dust inside the organ, which would be highly undesirable. The scaffolding to restore the casework, I suspect would be much less than if the froint pipes had to be removed, as you would not need the heavy lifting gear, so the disruption to the hall would not be as great. I would be surprised if the metal content allowed for a highly burnished finish. I don't think the tin content can be too high, especially in the larger pipes, otherwise they would collapse. I still think the burnished approach would be inappropriate. Although this approach is widely favoured in modern instruments and usually looks stunning in a church or a modern concert hall, it was not generally a feature of Father Willis organs. The only example of burnished display pipes on a Father Willis I can think of is Blenheim Palace, which is stunning visually and aurally. We are, after all, talking about restoration, not redesign or makeover. I was not suggesting that modern lighting effects are, or should be, used to hide blemishes in the physical appearance of the organ, I was merely pointing out there are a variety of lighting effects that are used in such a multi-functional hall. Highly reflective burninshed organ pipes would make a lighting designer's task even more difficult to light a non concert hall type of event, and the RAH has plenty of them. And the dullness of the pipes as they are now offers what I think are attractive, diffused reflections of colours from various lighting effects. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the pipes do not have to be removed to be cleaned, then it strikes me that the cost of cleaning them insitu would be much cheaper than if they had to be removed. If that is the case, maybe it would be better to wait a bit longer until the money is there to pay for both the case restoration and pipe cleaning can be done at the same time. Call me a cynic, but I would be really suprised if cleaning them made a huge impact on their overall physical appearance in the hall from anything beyond the front of the stage, although I take your point that some of the pipes inside now look bright, although I've not yet seen them for myself. In contast, the case restoration might make a huge visual impact, especially with all that gold leaf work. And even that might be a headache for some lighting designers. But most of what I write is speculative, so maybe Mr Mander could give us an informed view about what visual impact cleaning the pipes would have and whether cleaning them insitu would deposit dust inside the organ.

I suspect the opportunity has been missed to 'restore' the physical appearance of the front display pipes, because their removal might deposit a layer of dust inside the newly restored organ, which would be self-defeating. The next opportunity may not be until the organ is next due to be cleaned, which might be 20 years down the road. Also bear in mind the large amount of scaffolding that would need to be put up and the equipment necessary to remove the big 32ft pipes and the dirsruption to the hall's events. And there is the fact that those pipes would be out of use during the restoration, it may be necessary to cover the rest of the organ to protect it from dust, and then, of course, there is the cost. A large number of choir seats might be out of commission, affecting audiences and performing choirs. Given that there was a point when it looked as though the funds for a full organ restoration may not have been available, which would have left part of the instrument silent, I think the right decision was made on mechanical and tonal restoration as the main priority. I must admit, that I never thought the pipes had been painted, but were that colour because of the composition of the metal. It never occurred to me that a layer of grime might have changed the colour. However, I think that the relatively dull appearance of them has certain advantages. They do not harshly reflect coloured and white light, which would cause a real distraction to audiences and performers. Instead, they give back a rather warm, difused and mellow reflection. They pick up blues beautifully and other special lighting effects. If the front was of highly polished and burnished tin, you would see direct reflections of lighting instruments, the angle and severity of which would vary on what lights were being used and whereabouts in the hall you were sitting. It would probably be a real problem for TV cameras in certain events, such as sporting or the Festival of Rememberance and anything that was not a straight orchestral/choral concert or organ recital. And such strong and harsh reflections would be a real headache for lighting designers for non music events, or for things like semi-staged opera, or opera in the round in the arena. In an ideal world, it would have been nice to clean the pipes, although I don't know whether it would have had a great impact on their overall appearance, except at close quarters. Bearing in mind the diversity of events that are staged at the RAH, I think that having a highy polished, burnished array of display pipes would be inappropriate. While it may please a very small few that attend some events at the RAH, I suspect it would actually be an eyesore for the vast majority of RAH audiences. The RAH is no ordinary concert hall venue and the RAH organ is no ordinary concert hall organ. Personally, I think its present appearance is as much a part of the character of the organ as is the sound of the instrument. That is not to say that I would not like to see the cas restored. One other thing to bear in mind, is that English Heritage may have something to say about the RAH organ having burnished front pipes, given that the RAH is a listed building.