Pipe Vs Digital Cost Of Ownership

[Graham Powell]

Edited blank

[Malcolm Kemp]

Nigel makes a very good point about the advantages going back to mediaeval use of parish churches (as he says, often the biggest building in the parish). I heard Sir Roy Strong say just that in a lecture he gave two years ago in Brighton's finest church architecturally (St Michael's) and which also happens to be amongst the top 100 in Simon Jenkins' book 1,000 best churches. I also have a book by Sir Roy strong where he makes the same comment. I can't find the book to give its title at the moment because all my books are stacked up ready for the decorator tomorrow!

 

The added, side effect of this is that by using church buildings for appropriate secular purposes you help to ensure that the place is better maintained and, more importantly these days, it can give the church very valuable and necessary extra income to help them pay their way. If you use your church for 2 or even 3 services on a Sunday and perhaps one in the week and keep it locked and unused the rest of the time your church is unlikely to survive. Let outsiders hire the church for a reasonable fee at other times and the likelihood is that is will survive. It also gets people in the building for the first time; they might just come again for a service! You may even find your pipe organ being used and appreciated by more people in more contexts.

 

Malcolm

[pcnd5584]

Nigel makes a very good point about the advantages going back to mediaeval use of parish churches (as he says, often the biggest building in the parish). ...

 

Malcolm

 

Except that, as Rev. Newnham has already re-iterated, that which applies to an Anglican parish church is largely irrelevant in this case.

[ajsphead]

I have found that some pipeless organ specialists are more considerate to their surroundings. One I recall turning down a job because they wanted to install a custom 2&26 when the church wanted an all singing off the shelf 3&50 odd. The problem is that often, the off the shelf models are considerably cheaper than the custom ones IRO 20-25K for a stonking great thing, and people think they are getting value for money. It's rather like 'Fill up your plate for a fiver from the local pub' It's bland, its dry, and some part of it definitely came out of the microwave - forgive the allusion, it's ended up being more accurate than I first realised.

 

A good custom installation can cost a similar amount to moving a good quality redundant small 2 manual mechanical action organ, but as for rebuilding what you have, that becomes a piece of string argument, and I suspect the digital alternative will more often be cheaper. I am not against digital instruments, and have often recommended them when faced with a church who want an organ, can't afford much, and are faced with a decaying heap of junk.

 

Different arguments exist at different levels. The solution needs to be tailored to that. We should remember that we are predominantly collectively drawn from one sphere of the argument, and that most people involved in the decision making are not, hence what is obvious to us is not always so obvious to them, and, dare I say it, vice versa sometimes too.

 

In terms of the cost of ownership, until you start to talk about specifics it's impossible to really answer it. I like 2 manual mechanical action organs with about 10-15 stops, and no reed. Once a year tuning, and should otherwise be bombproof if installed properly. Much beyond this, and you can't really compare the 2 sides of the argument. A pipe organ will cost more, on a yearly basis, to run. I don't generally find that talking about whole life costs is of much interest. Many churches struggle to survive financially from year to year, and that is what clergy and treasurers are most concerned with. Hence digitals win hands down, unless there is a movement in the church to keep the pipe organ for whatever reason. Much of this does come down to PCC arguments, and hopefully good common sense from the DoA, and a willingness for the parish to listen.

 

AJS

[Buxtehude]

I haven't seen many examples of costs of rehousing organs on this thread so far, though plenty of ideas circulating about the relative cost of new pipe and new digital. Do any members have figures that could be shared to help balance the discussion a bit? It always strikes me as a bit of a pity that some lucky churches seem to manage to find hundreds of thousands on a new organ when there are plenty of fine reduncant organs floating around, whilst other churches just go for the digital option. Without wanting to take new business away from our very fne organ builders, I wonder whether rehoused organs are considered often enough in the churches that have recently had brand new instruments installed? Is it really that despite the organs available, none were considered suitable for a transplant? In these eco-aware days, we should all be doing our part to encourage recycling...

 

My church is seriously considering redundant instruments as a first choice for various reasons, some cited above. The costs (we have discovered) are enormously variable and some of the following variables have arisen:

1) Most obviously, the condition of the instrument; is full restoration required, or can it be simply moved?

2) The shape of the instrument; we have a particular space - how does the instrument physically fit that. This can have an effect on casework and action.

3) Casework: If a new case is needed, either because the previous doesn't fit or because it can't be moved for whatever reason, or because there isn't any.

 

The other question where cost is concerned is about affordability. If a church raises say £150,000, that could translate into £300,000 if matched funding can be found. But only if you have the right instrument to do this with and can play your cards right.

 

And of course all this comes into play only when one can find a tonal match!

 

I can see why it might be easier to start from scratch...

[innate]

And of course all this comes into play only when one can find a tonal match!

 

I can see why it might be easier to start from scratch...

I've been thinking about this. We read so much about how the great organ builders design, build and voice instruments for a particular space. I can imagine an organ built for one place sounding well in another, but this would seem to be a rare fluke, rather than a likely outcome.

[Contrabombarde]

I've been thinking about this. We read so much about how the great organ builders design, build and voice instruments for a particular space. I can imagine an organ built for one place sounding well in another, but this would seem to be a rare fluke, rather than a likely outcome.

 

Hmmm, reminds me of an ecentric Victorian businessman from Leeds who built an enormous wooden shed in his garden and asked a German organ builder to come up with something to fill it. Said organ was apparently not considered especially noteworthy in its wooden shed, nor was its reputation much enhanced following a transplant a few years later to a church in Harrogate. Only when transplated a second time into the outstanding acoustics of Armley did the Schulze finally achieve the recognition that it deserved...

[Nigel Allcoat]

Hmmm, reminds me of an ecentric Victorian businessman from Leeds who built an enormous wooden shed in his garden and asked a German organ builder to come up with something to fill it. Said organ was apparently not considered especially noteworthy in its wooden shed, nor was its reputation much enhanced following a transplant a few years later to a church in Harrogate. Only when transplated a second time into the outstanding acoustics of Armley did the Schulze finally achieve the recognition that it deserved...

 

I fully concur. A miracle.

For me the grandest organ transplant must surely be the Cavaillé-Coll (one of his very last 1898 in the year before he died) into the château of the Baron l'Espée in Biarritz and then installed by Mutin in 1914/19 with a new case into the newly constructed Sacré-Coeur in the 18th Arrondissement. It is one of the most splendid of all Paris instruments (with the same 'eccentric' combination system still found at St-Sulpice) and sporting bazooka-like Tuba chamades on top of the case. And within our own shores we have the instrument in the Temple Church from Scotland after the destruction of WW2. A very strong organ off Fleet Street that I am sure that can be still heard North of the border under certain conditions! And these were originally for houses!!!!

But to return to the original topic and its off-shoots, I think most places will look upon snapping up for pennies a used organ and then installing it in their own church as cheaply as possible - with dire results more often than not. I know of two such instruments close to me and I see nothing particularly wonderful in either. In fact one church wishes to destroy its purchase from the latter part of the last century because its transplant was botched. I think if a reputable firm were engaged you would find it just as costly as purchasing a new instrument that is tailor made. When you take an old organ apart it is possible that so much work needs to be attended to. Installing a second hand organ needs to be approached with care and a reasonable amount of money, even if the new church is allowed to come with any number of lorries for free to transport it away from the old. Caution and professional advice is absolutely necessary.

All the best,

Nigel