Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Lt. Col. George Dixon And Cecil Clutton


gazman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've recently been reading through a lot of old organ magazines, and have been reminded of the number of rebuildings of prestigious organs during the last century where these two gentlemen were appointed as consultants. I wonder why these two were invited to be advisers for these rebuildings. Were reputable organ building firms, and some of the best organists of their time, (both, of course, professionals and very much at the top of their game) really unable to see an organ rebuilding to a satisfactory conclusion without the help of these amateur "self-appointed experts"? How much influence did Dixon and Clutton actually have upon these instruments, or on organ building as a whole? Was their influence good, or harmful? Was their contribution even necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barry Williams
I've recently been reading through a lot of old organ magazines, and have been reminded of the number of rebuildings of presigious organs during the last century where these two gentlemen were appointed as consultants. I wonder why these two were invited to be advisers for these rebuildings. Were reputable organ building firms, and some of the best organists of their time, (both, of course, professionals and very much at the top of their game) really unable to see an organ rebuilding to a satisfactory conclusion without the help of these amateur "self-appointed experts"? How much influence did Dixon and Clutton actually have upon these instruments, or on organ building as a whole? Was their influence good, or harmful? Was their contribution even necessary?

 

I know nothing of Lt Col Dixon's work as an organ'consultant'. However, I have come across a number of examples of the other gentleman's work. All the ones I have seen have been unmitigated disasters, based, apparently, on a preconception of what the neo-baroque organ should sound like when it is generated by modification of a traditional English organ. In one case the only satisfactory remedy was for the whole organ to go into the skip, a major leading organ builder having tried, in vain, to undo the damage done by Mr Clutton's advice. In another instance a whole new organ had to be re-voiced following what I consider to be his suspect advice.

 

Whilst I do not doubt his sincerity, I question his wisdom and knowledge. However, no doubt someone will point out that without such 'pioneering' work we might well be stuck in the 1930s. That is cold comfort for the churches whose organs have been spoiled. As far as I am aware, Mr Clutton had no training as an organ builder whatsoever.

 

Organs are purchased/maintained by churches for the purpose of worship. If the instrument will not fufill that function adequately then sooner or later something has to be done to meet the need for which money has been paid.

 

Mr Clutton's writings about Worcester Cathedral organ (in a book written with Austin Niland) have recently been the subject of the most severe criticism for lack of accuracy in respect of the instrument for which Elgar intended his Organ Sonata.

 

Barry Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See here about G. Dixon:

 

http://www.ondamar.demon.co.uk/schemes/dixon/dixidex.htm

 

But I fear you will need an helmet here, because it seems a bit early

to deal with that matter without passion, at least in the english-speaking

organ world.

 

I will only add a comment.

One may think Dixon was an amateur who self-proclaimed himself

as a reference, but what I do know is that Oscar Walcker, third generation

of a famous dynasty of organ-builders, had quite similar ideas, to the point

of wanting to try a vast synthesis of german, french and british styles.

The french pillar being of course the (german-born!) francophile author

Emil(e) Rupp, the british somewhere between Willis (III), Harrison

(Arthur), and indeed George Dixon (of course, because he influenced

so much the former).

The political situation -to say the least about disasters- in Europe between

1900 and 1948 (Oscar Walcker's period as managing director) prevented

of course this.

Suffice to say, about the organ Oscar Walcker built 1930 in Brussels, that

the Principal 8' on the great is engraved "Diapason", the Bombarde on the Swell

"Horn", the Trompette harmonique "Tuba", and so on...

 

So despite the schrapnells which will, no doubt, follow on this thread, let us summarize here

that yes, there is something interesting there -something after which I'd try two or three

little things in organs -new organs, not existing ones!-

 

OK, back to the Falklands now!

Lord, have mercy upon us,

 

Pierre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting - Dixon has had quite a lot of coverage but not Clutton. I would also be interested in a general evaluation of his work. Wells Cathedral is my nearest example of somewhere that he 'tinkered' and I am afraid that is not an organ I am very fond of. I feel that it doesn't seem to be able to decide what it is about tonally.

 

AJJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barry Williams
This is interesting - Dixon has had quite a lot of coverage but not Clutton. I would also be interested in a general evaluation of his work. Wells Cathedral is my nearest example of somewhere that he 'tinkered' and I am afraid that is not an organ I am very fond of. I feel that it doesn't seem to be able to decide what it is about tonally.

 

AJJ

 

Thank you. This is an accurate and succinct summary of the problems of every instrument I have come across in which Mr Clutton was involved.

 

Barry Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suppose I'm the only one here whose early interest in the organ was fed and sustained by reading Clutton and Niland (and then, a little later, Williams for the European perspective). And the recording I have of Cecil Clutton's house organ (made by Mander, of course) is still an inspiration - with playing by Hurford and Jackson it would be, naturally.

 

We have to remember that the changes in fashion that have made Dixon and Clutton in turn fall out of favour could also turn against our present view in the future. It is hard to be sure that we have a view that will endure, and of course, like them, we can only do what seems best to us. The opposing ideals of preserving what is (currently) known to be good, and of creating what is new but of unknown staying power, have been at loggerheads for the last century or more - probably for ever - in the field of organs, as in any other field of artistic endeavour. We have to find our own balance between them, while acknowledging that this balance was and will be perceived differently at other times without being in any absolute sense either right or wrong.

 

Our criticism of those of other times should always be tempered with a modicum of humility, even when we currently perceive their actions as disastrous.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't he the Clutton of Clutton's estate egents?

 

 

============================

 

 

Cecil Clutton was rather more than an estate agent; impressive though that side of his life was, with a number of very prestigious offices dealing with the top-end of the market and regularly advertising in "The Times" and "Sunday Times."

 

He was a recognised authority of antique clocks, and wrote a book about them I believe, and which I have never seen.

 

He was also an authority on old cars, and was active as a hill-climb racing car driver well towards the end of his life, and I understand that he had at least one original Bugatti sport/racer: possibly two. (Worth a king's ransom incidentally).

 

His enthusaism for all thing vintage motoring, took him to the highest echelons, as Secretary of long standing to the Vintage Sports Car Club (VSCC), and I recall reading a number of things he wrote about the 1930's glory years.

 

I suspect that tells us something about Cecil Clutton, for in all these interests, he was never a restorer, never an engineer, never a designer and never a particularly gifted musician, but like so many gentleman of his time, he had a great interest in the history of the things in which he expressed interest, and on a personal level, was the perfect gentleman who always meant well and probably always tried to give what he thought to be good advice. I think he and both Dr Jackson and Peter Hurford became something of an organ-mafia in the 1960's and 70's.

 

If he was wrong about many things relating to the organ, he was certainly not alone, and like many of his contemporaries, he sought answers and posed questions.....bless him!

 

I met him a few times, and to my delight, when he wrote about the organ I play at St.Joseph's, Ingrow, Keighley, he was quite moved enough to suggest that "it is probably one of the ten best small organs built in the past century in England."

 

Like Dr Jackson and Peter Hurfurd, one suspects that he always knew what sort of sound he wanted to hear, but actually achieveing it was not within his power or grasp, and it is therefore easy to dismiss him (and they) as well-meaning amateur organ consultants. In reality, he (and they) were children of their time, who were drawn into the white heat of classical reform which was then sweeping across almost the whole of Western Europe and America.

 

In this, I believe they all achieved a great deal, but of course, much was in the nature of experiment, and the disasters were a little too frequent. Add the names of Ralph Downes, John Rowntree and Geraint Jones, and we find a very powerful pro-classical lobby, who certainly changed the style of British organ-building for all time. I'm sure that Noel Mander would have felt the heat, and he too was obliged to address the classical movement.

 

I think it would be a mistake to write Cecil Clutton off, but I'm awfully glad he was never the consultant at my church!

 

As for Lt Col George-Dixon, my views are far more negative. I don't think he had a clue about anything, and with personal knowledge of one of his early disasters, I can vouch for the fact that his recomendations were ludicrous in the extreme.

 

It was Arthur Harrison who created the Arthur Harrison sound, and absolutely no-one else. To be brutally honest, only a lunatic would try and mix Willis with Hope-Jones and Schulze, follow the spurious pomposity of Audsley and come under the spell of the orchestral-organs being built in America. The fact that Arthur Harrison somehow made the concept work, and work rather well, is his lasting testimony.

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

============================

Cecil Clutton was rather more than an estate agent; impressive though that side of his life was, with a number of very prestigious offices dealing with the top-end of the market and regularly advertising in "The Times" and "Sunday Times."

 

He was a recognised authority of antique clocks, and wrote a book about them I believe, and which I have never seen.

 

He was also an authority on old cars, and was active as a hill-climb racing car driver well towards the end of his life, and I understand that he had at least one original Bugatti sport/racer: possibly two. (Worth a king's ransom incidentally).

 

His enthusaism for all thing vintage motoring, took him to the highest echelons, as Secretary of long standing to the Vintage Sports Car Club (VSCC), and I recall reading a number of things he wrote about the 1930's glory years.

 

I suspect that tells us something about Cecil Clutton, for in all these interests, he was never a restorer, never an engineer, never a designer and never a particularly gifted musician, but like so many gentleman of his time, he had a great interest in the history of the things in which he expressed interest, and on a personal level, was the perfect gentleman who always meant well and probably always tried to give what he thought to be good advice. I think he and both Dr Jackson and Peter Hurford became something of an organ-mafia in the 1960's and 70's.

 

If he was wrong about many things relating to the organ, he was certainly not alone, and like many of his contemporaries, he sought answers and posed questions.....bless him!

 

I met him a few times, and to my delight, when he wrote about the organ I play at St.Joseph's, Ingrow, Keighley, he was quite moved enough to suggest that "it is probably one of the ten best small organs built in the past century in England."

 

Like Dr Jackson and Peter Hurfurd, one suspects that he always knew what sort of sound he wanted to hear, but actually achieveing it was not within his power or grasp, and it is therefore easy to dismiss him (and they) as well-meaning amateur organ consultants. In reality, he (and they) were children of their time, who were drawn into the white heat of classical reform which was then sweeping across almost the whole of Western Europe and America.

 

In this, I believe they all achieved a great deal, but of course, much was in the nature of experiment, and the disasters were a little too frequent. Add the names of Ralph Downes, John Rowntree and Geraint Jones, and we find a very powerful pro-classical lobby, who certainly changed the style of British organ-building for all time. I'm sure that Noel Mander would have felt the heat, and he too was obliged to address the classical movement.

 

I think it would be a mistake to write Cecil Clutton off, but I'm awfully glad he was never the consultant at my church!

 

As for Lt Col George-Dixon, my views are far more negative. I don't think he had a clue about anything, and with personal knowledge of one of his early disasters, I can vouch for the fact that his recomendations were ludicrous in the extreme.

 

It was Arthur Harrison who created the Arthur Harrison sound, and absolutely no-one else. To be brutally honest, only a lunatic would try and mix Willis with Hope-Jones and Schulze, follow the spurious pomposity of Audsley and come under the spell of the orchestral-organs being built in America. The fact that Arthur Harrison somehow made the concept work, and work rather well, is his lasting testimony.

 

MM

 

Sorry, MM, but I find some of the above unecessarily unkind, notably to Peter Hurford and Francis Jackson. They (at the very, very least) qualify as top UK players, so have a perfectly good reason to be consulted and listened to when organs were rebuilt. Although Jackson once or twice spoke against preservation of an existing organ (he certainly did in the case of the Anneessens at Bridington Priory) I have not come across a Jackson-designed organ that does not make musical sense.

 

I don't think Peter Hurford actually designed many organs. He was certainly involved with the redesign of the H&H in the Concert Hall at The RCM, St.Alban's Abbey, and the [HN&B] rebuilt organ at The RCO. In each case, I am sure that he collaborated rather than pontificated. In case this sounds like I carry a particular torch, I do not.

 

I accept all you say about 'the typical English gent with money' and the way that some experts are self-appointed. For all that, where would we be without patrons? From time immemorial, folks with money have steered art and not always to its own disadvantage. In the field of organs, one that comes to my mind speedily is John Courage. Without him there would be fewer (now venerated) Lewis organs, and no Westminster Cathedral organ in the form we know it. The Willis III at Liverpool Cathedral was a gift, designed by a young relative of the donor, not the Willis family at all. John Christie kept HN&B afloat during a period in which they built some first-rate instruments.

 

I think the most dangerous thing about the two subjects of this topic (Dixon and Clutton) is the degree to which they were listened to without question. This is probably down to the fact that both were excellent writers, amongst the best on this subject in English. Mind you, Clutton was master of the grandiose sweeping statement, and his comment about Keighley is typical!

 

Dixon was already being consulted about organ schemes while he was still up at Cambridge and I have not played enough of his designs to pass judgement. I do remember reading that in more than one organ certain stops were his gift - the IV Quint Mixture on the Great at Ely for example. Since all they would have had otherwise was a V Harmonics, this seems both wise and generous. If I understand his writings correctly, he aimed to give each organ proper choruswork and held as his musical ideal the Schulze at Doncaster and the Father Willis at St.Bees. If his influence in anything was poor, I believe it might have been that he favoured one builder (H&H). I'm afraid, the tendency of advisers to nominate one builder more-or-less exclusively is still with us.....! [i end this paragraph early in case I follow this opinion with libellous remarks]

 

Clutton's weakness I find much easier to see and describe. He could actually play (a very little!) and travelled extensively, so his imagined ideal was not easily realised in rebuilds of UK organs.... he loved, above everything else, the Classical French organ. Because of this, where he was involved one expects to find Cornets or Cornets Separe (very useful actually) Chimney Flutes with pronounced chiffs (much less useful), additional 'non-native' Mixtures and coarse Krummhorns/Cromornes. These were introduced in all his large organ schemes - St.Paul's, Ely, Wells etc. regardless of whether they were in keeping with the style of the existing instrument. Not surprisingly, a number of these organs have been 'de-Cluttoned' since his death. The idea that one can sprinkle some high pitches (probably with open foot voicing) over the top of an Arthur Harrison (as at Wells) and expect them to turn the instrument into a Schnitger are (fortunately) mostly in the past.

 

It is so, so easy to speak with hindsight. When recordings of continental organs started to appear over here and those accustomed to Harold Darke's style of Bach playing heard Helmut Walcha (for instance) many, many UK organists wished to have something more exciting, more authentic at their fingertips, forgetting that the instruments over which they presided had evolved as perfect 'accompaniment machines'. My problem with the whole genre of organ consultants is that in tinkering with some of the best creations of the past they spoiled them almost beyond repair. The English Organ was forgotten in the mad rush to imitate tonalities from abroad - incidentally, tonalities which are not always pleasant when heard in more-intimate UK acoustics. I find, for example, the Reiger at Christ Church Oxford and the Klais at St.John's Smith Square almost impossible to bear as a listener when the volume goes above forte.

 

Because cathedral organists rarely had the time or money to travel extensively, they tended to reply on others for advice. I know, for instance, that when the Gloucester Cathedral organ was nearing the end of its mechanical life in the late 60's, John Sanders opted out of being involved in the redesign and suggested that The Dean and Chapter approach a well-known expert. The rest is history.

 

It amuses me to think of the progression of Presidents of the USA. During my lifetime we have seen every possible kind and each time one thinks that a particular strand/style cannot be worse, another appears. Who could be more of a puppet than Reagan? Who could be more dishonest than Nixon? Well they manage to find someone.....

 

In the same way, I look at organ advisers. We have progressed from eminent non-players, through those who do not occupy any church appointment to advisers who have never played and do not even attend church. There are failed (and now much-discredited) organ-builders who are put in the position where they can choose which remaining firms they will patronise. We have advisers who promote electronic organs, we have advisers who favour historicism over any kind of convenience, we have advisers who actively and repeatedly discriminate against firms based in this country. What a state things are in.....for preference, give me Dixon, or even Clutton!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the same way, I look at organ advisers. We have progressed from eminent non-players, through those who do not occupy any church appointment to advisers who have never played and do not even attend church. There are failed (and now much-discredited) organ-builders who are put in the position where they can choose which remaining firms they will patronise. We have advisers who promote electronic organs, we have advisers who favour historicism over any kind of convenience, we have advisers who actively and repeatedly discriminate against firms based in this country. What a state things are in.....for preference, give me Dixon, or even Clutton!!!

 

Yet situations also arise where a scheme is acceptable for the resident team (who know their liturgical and repertoire needs) and adviser but pressure is put on by other authorities who have opposing views. A marvellous, large instrument near here was the subject of much discussion some ten years ago - the church and advisor (a noted recitalist and former liturgical practitioner) were as one but other forces were not such a help. The organ did arrive in the form that the resident team wanted and has been a huge success. The dangers seem to come from 'resident teams' with odd ideas (se a recent thread on a digital 'up north'), recitalist/advisors with no idea of liturgical needs and also the seeming divergence in diocesan advice. In one place an instrument has been recently rebuilt with 3/4 of it digital and the remainder pipe in a most over the top and rather dodgy looking scheme yet in another a rather non descript Victorian 1 manual has to be left as it is complete with odd pedal compass, crippling lever swell and entombed position. I don't know about Dixon but I have a feeling that were Clutton still around today he would probably be taking his place in the whole perspective but maybe with less popularity what with those around (Nicholas Thistlethwaite, John Rowntree, Ian Bell, Paul Hale, William McVicker etc.) with a generally more informed approach to things.

 

AJJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet situations also arise where a scheme is acceptable for the resident team (who know their liturgical and repertoire needs) and adviser but pressure is put on by other authorities who have opposing views. A marvellous, large instrument near here was the subject of much discussion some ten years ago - the church and advisor (a noted recitalist and former liturgical practitioner) were as one but other forces were not such a help. The organ did arrive in the form that the resident team wanted and has been a huge success. The dangers seem to come from 'resident teams' with odd ideas (se a recent thread on a digital 'up north'), recitalist/advisors with no idea of liturgical needs and also the seeming divergence in diocesan advice. In one place an instrument has been recently rebuilt with 3/4 of it digital and the remainder pipe in a most over the top and rather dodgy looking scheme yet in another a rather non descript Victorian 1 manual has to be left as it is complete with odd pedal compass, crippling lever swell and entombed position. I don't know about Dixon but I have a feeling that were Clutton still around today he would probably be taking his place in the whole perspective but maybe with less popularity what with those around (Nicholas Thistlethwaite, John Rowntree, Ian Bell, Paul Hale, William McVicker etc.) with a generally more informed approach to things.

 

AJJ

 

 

Golly! I was not saying that things always go smoothly, or always go badly. IMHO Three of the advisers you list (two maybe) have a string of successes behind them. It is probably worth saying that I would not want to have the responsibility of being an adviser. Mistakes happen for a variety of reasons....

so I could list you some problems associated with even some of the (let us be honest, 'better') advisers you name.

 

It is easier to name new instruments where planning and execution have gone without a hitch, and where changes have never been found necessary. Given time, I reckon I could come up with a fair list here. Time, alas is not available now. Not least, it would be a little invidious. I cover the ground fairly well, but do not have close knowledge of the work of certain firms so I would be bound to leave out some wonderful instruments simply out of ignorance. For obvious reasons, you cannot expect me to enumerate publicly the problems to which I refer above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By pure coincidence in my "gap year" I had a job workng in Cluttons' HQ in London, just around the corner from Westminster Abbey. They administered property on behalf of the Church Commissioners and the Crown, and were also architects. I knew that the firm designed at least one church. Actually Cluttons were a good firm to work for, although I think a bit Victorian in their ethos. And in case you wanted to know, I earned £37.00 per week + luncheon vouchers!

 

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golly! I was not saying that things always go smoothly, or always go badly. IMHO Three of the advisers you list (two maybe) have a string of successes behind them. It is probably worth saying that I would not want to have the responsibility of being an adviser. Mistakes happen for a variety of reasons....

so I could list you some problems associated with even some of the (let us be honest, 'better') advisers you name.

 

It is easier to name new instruments where planning and execution have gone without a hitch, and where changes have never been found necessary. Given time, I reckon I could come up with a fair list here. Time, alas is not available now. Not least, it would be a little invidious. I cover the ground fairly well, but do not have close knowledge of the work of certain firms so I would be bound to leave out some wonderful instruments simply out of ignorance. For obvious reasons, you cannot expect me to enumerate publicly the problems to which I refer above.

 

I take your point here - and you have undoubtedly have come across more intruments 'in the flesh' than I am able to talk about from a theoretical POV.

 

AJJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrick Coleman
This may throw some light on Cecil Clutton's ideas.

 

What do you folks think?

 

From a non-expert point of view, these seem to be 'of a period' and certainly you could play much Bach on them. I think he's right to say that you ought to be able to serve every possible musical requirement in a 30-stop organ.

 

I am not so convinced by the multum in parvo thinking. Personally, I am happy with an organ that is 'of a piece' with itself, where all the stops work together, and I accept any limits a small organ may have in this respect - the organist is an artist who should be able to make an instrument sing with its own voice.

 

Can anyone enlighten me on exactly what a 'Waldhorn' is? I can see why an oboe might not be adequate in his first, but haven't a clue why a Waldhorn might be better - louder? softer? gruffer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone enlighten me on exactly what a 'Waldhorn' is? I can see why an oboe might not be adequate in his first, but haven't a clue why a Waldhorn might be better - louder? softer? gruffer?

 

I thought he played David Horton in The Vicar of Dibly :)

 

(Sorry Patrick!)

 

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone enlighten me on exactly what a 'Waldhorn' is? I can see why an oboe might not be adequate in his first, but haven't a clue why a Waldhorn might be better - louder? softer? gruffer?

 

Willis III used them as a Swell 16' reed - it looks as if new Willis organs are getting them too. I used to play on one as a student here - 'fairly mellow toned Fagotto effect.

 

AJJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willis III used them as a Swell 16' reed - it looks as if new Willis organs are getting them too. I used to play on one as a student here - 'fairly mellow toned Fagotto effect.

That is a good description of the few I have come across. A fagotto, but smoother. I have come across a couple of Skinner examples which are similar: at St Paul's, Winston-Salem Skinner decided to borrow the Swell 16' Waldhorn on the Pedals so that it could function like a Violone - which it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patrick Coleman
Willis III used them as a Swell 16' reed - it looks as if new Willis organs are getting them too. I used to play on one as a student here - 'fairly mellow toned Fagotto effect.

 

AJJ

 

So you mean fuller and less sharp than an Oboe/Fagotto/Contrafag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willis III used them as a Swell 16' reed - it looks as if new Willis organs are getting them too. I used to play on one as a student here - 'fairly mellow toned Fagotto effect.

 

AJJ

 

 

==================================

 

 

Are Willis just making retro-organs these days?

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, MM, but I find some of the above unecessarily unkind, notably to Peter Hurford and Francis Jackson. They (at the very, very least) qualify as top UK players, so have a perfectly good reason to be consulted and listened to when organs were rebuilt. Although Jackson once or twice spoke against preservation of an existing organ (he certainly did in the case of the Anneessens at Bridington Priory) I have not come across a Jackson-designed organ that does not make musical sense.

 

 

========================

 

 

As a musician, I have infinite respect for both Dr Jackson and Peter Hurford.

 

I certainly would not regard my criticism as 'unecessarily unkind,' because I did go on to qualify my comments in respect of the "white heat" of classical revival.

 

It was that same "white heat" which destroyed many treasures, and Bridlington was one such example. Another is the Jackson re-casting of St.Margaret's, Ilkley, which looks good on paper, but which is now actually a much less musical instrument as a result, in spite of the fact that Bach can now be played with a second-chorus on something which passes for a positive. From an accompanimental point of view, the organ lost every bit of Hill subtelty, with the result that it is one of the most difficult organs I know of on which to accompany choral music.

 

It is now much more a recital instrument designed to satisfy organists.

 

That is not an unkind observation, but one which recognises the folly of all organ "movements," when a master organ-builder often knows better.

 

I can just about remember the Annessens at Bridlington as left by John Compton, and it was a unique sound. The same is true of the organ of St.Joseph's, Packington Street, Bradford: now residing in that heavenly organ-gallery in the sky.

 

Both were disacrded in favour of "improvent;" though in fairness, the Bradford instrument was falling apart, and would have cost a fortune to restore. However, it doesn't alter the fact that a unique Belgian organ was thrown out in favour of yet another jobbing Yorkshire Binns instrument.

 

So if I appeared 'unecessarily unkind' that was not the intention, for that to which I allude was probably more to do with the blindness of fashion, which often fails to recognise the goodness and rightness of older, different things. I would also suggest that the great Netherlands heritage is only so because of neglect and financial constraints. It was only when great wealth returned, that Holland fully appreciated its own treasures, and whereas a previous age would have swept the old organs away in favour of pneumatic-action Adema organs, a younger generation chose the path of meticulous restoration.

 

It is the broader view which tries to get things in perspective, and far too many truly great English instruments were chopped around, thrown-out or simply not appreciated for what they were.

 

Forget not, that I am very much the baroque-enthusiast, but the last thing I want to see is the destruction of good romantic instruments. On the other hand, I am quite capable of enthusiastically endorsing the quite superlative tonal result achieved at Blackburn, in which Dr Jackson had a major hand. Credit, I hope, where it is due!

 

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...