DACs

[MusingMuso]

Very impressive MM; and I thought I knew a bit about vehicles! Are you a lorry driver? There once was an organist of a prestigeous Abbey in the West country who used to drive buses or lorries (cant remember which) for a living. This was a career change after years of music teaching.

 

Back on topic, thanks for the well=balanced response!

 

Richard

 

 

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

 

 

I don't do it full-time, but I like to get out a couple of days per week in a very large truck and play with the motor-cars.

 

I've loved trucks since I was about 5, and was once discovered having a cup of tea with some Gypsies who were repairing an old ERF at the fair, in spite of the fact that my mother told me they kidnapped little boys.

 

I was probably disappointed that they didn't; I would have enjoyed riding around the country in a truck.

 

I've held an LGV1 licence for ages.

 

Apart from the West Country organist, I once came across an ex-Cambridge "Don" driving a big Scania, and of course, a former "Mastermind" drove underground trains, I believe.

 

My doctor may still drive a steam-train at the weekends. I will have to check with board-member Nick Bennett.

 

 

MM

[MusingMuso]

And if you had a 1920s Aston Martin, which has all these features, would you change it so it's just like your Vauxhall Zafira?

 

I wish I had the time and energy to respond to this thread properly, which raises lots of interesting and complex points. The issues surrounding custodianship of an old organ - whether by a local builder or a major name - are far more complex than giving the organist the console he wants and I'm dissappointed to read some of the arguments so far expressed, which lack many of the wider points that need consideration, or are simply inappropriate and nobody has the nous to challenge them. I can't but help feel that if the people who've contributed above (with the exception of Hecklephone) had been responsible for all the organs in the world, such musical gems as the Alkmaar Choir organ, Spanish Baroque organs, Italian Reinassance organs, early English organs would have long since gone and we'd all have electronic simulation organs and all organ consoles would have been standardised. We would have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in our desire for balenced swell pedals and conformity. Discuss.

 

 

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

 

I don't want to give a great reply, but I don't think this is true. I have a great admiration for early English organs, of which there are not that many. I also have an enormous respect for certain 19th century organs from good provincial builders. The appreciation is for quality of sound, as well as the musical style, and I think most of us would recognise that if we stumbled across it.

 

The Netherlands has a much more solid tradition than the UK, prior to the 19th century, and it would be difficult not to be able to appreciate that.

 

Spain....Granada Cathedral....rather splendid. Yes, I can appreciate that too.

 

It comes down to musical worth, and some instruments have it, and others do not and never could have had.

 

MM

[Guest drd]

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

 

 

I don't do it full-time, but I like to get out a couple of days per week in a very large truck and play with the motor-cars.

 

I've loved trucks since I was about 5, and was once discovered having a cup of tea with some Gypsies who were repairing an old ERF at the fair, in spite of the fact that my mother told me they kidnapped little boys.

 

I was probably disappointed that they didn't; I would have enjoyed riding around the country in a truck.

 

I've held an LGV1 licence for ages.

 

Apart from the West Country organist, I once came across an ex-Cambridge "Don" driving a big Scania, and of course, a former "Mastermind" drove underground trains, I believe.

 

My doctor may still drive a steam-train at the weekends. I will have to check with board-member Nick Bennett.

 

 

MM

 

Snap, LGV1 and PCV1.

[ajsphead]

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

 

You've obviously never driven an original Ford Escort RS1800 as I have. They are now as rare as hen's teeth, and should be restored to the last detail.

 

Absolutely iconic, and more fun per mile than anything built to-day.

 

MM

I was thinking more in terms of a cooking mark 2 1300, chavved up on a South London council estate with a corrosion miracle MOT. The more exotic ones and many of the mark 1's were the implied caveat. I'm so glad you responded like that as it illustrates my point on the similarities in the debate.

 

AJS

[ajsphead]

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

 

I don't want to give a great reply, but I don't think this is true. I have a great admiration for early English organs, of which there are not that many. I also have an enormous respect for certain 19th century organs from good provincial builders. The appreciation is for quality of sound, as well as the musical style, and I think most of us would recognise that if we stumbled across it.

 

The Netherlands has a much more solid tradition than the UK, prior to the 19th century, and it would be difficult not to be able to appreciate that.

 

Spain....Granada Cathedral....rather splendid. Yes, I can appreciate that too.

 

It comes down to musical worth, and some instruments have it, and others do not and never could have had.

 

MM

I do think Colin is being unnecessarily bleak here. There is an element of retrospective regret that such things have happened in the past but we have moved on, and the quality of most English organ building has moved on, so these instances, thank goodness, are very few and far between. There are instances of changes to some prominent good quality instruments that I would like to see reversed, and there are some which really struggle with the challenges they and their custodians are faced with, and could really do with modification to meet them. It's not an ideal world but entrenched attitudes help no one as an important argument is destroyed. This is the point at which we say whether nothing can be changed, ie preservation, or whether we can use some part of the continuum entitled restoration. I do think many commentators and advisors get these muddled, with negative consequences for others, but a clarity of conscience for them. The good organs, from whoever made them, are musical, and the bad ones, bluntly, are not, regardless of how old, 'unique' (which is often part of the problem), or indeed loved, they are. The last one is often a particularly bitter pill for custodians to swallow.

 

When we comment, I think we each can have a different vision of the organs we are relating our comments to. A balanced approach considers the best of the best all the way to the worst of the worst. Only a misguided judge would treat them the same way.

 

AJS

[bazuin]

The key problem here, once again, is the lack of statutory protection for organs in the UK. As a direct result of not having independent, government appointed, organ advisors whose advice the church is obliged to follow, and direct funding from the government to restore and preserve the organs of genuine value (in Dutch terms these would even include the organs of Grant, Degens and Bradbeer today), the UK has the blackest record on organ conservation of any country with an organ culture in the world (except perhaps the USA, and, strangely enough, France). It is enormously frustrating that the mistakes of the past are still being made (who would be a BIOS case-study officer? I woudn't be able to sleep...). If there really is no consistency from the DACs, then isn't it time that a national conservation standard was introduced?

 

What is it about the British array of church denominations which makes organists more desperate than anywhere else to alter their supposedly (in some cases of course truly) inadequate organs (which have nevertheless been adequate for 100 years or more?).

 

"some part of the continuum entitled restoration"

 

But, as the Dutch always say, every restoration, no matter how good, removes something of the organ's original character.

 

Bazuin

[john carter]

The key problem here, once again, is the lack of statutory protection for organs in the UK. As a direct result of not having independent, government appointed, organ advisors whose advice the church is obliged to follow, and direct funding from the government to restore and preserve the organs of genuine value

In case you had not noticed, the government does not have any money - only taxpayers provide money. I hardly think many of them would be happy to have a quango of organ advisors splashing their money around whilst people are dying from cancer for lack of drugs. I am afraid if people really want to preserve organs of genuine value, they will have to be prepared to find the money themselves.

JC

[bazuin]

"In case you had not noticed, the government does not have any money - only taxpayers provide money. I hardly think many of them would be happy to have a quango of organ advisors splashing their money around whilst people are dying from cancer for lack of drugs. I am afraid if people really want to preserve organs of genuine value, they will have to be prepared to find the money themselves. "

 

Yes but once again, this is a situation unique to the UK. English Heritage has access to significant quantities of govenment money. In Holland organs are the responsibility of the Department of Monuments, a not entirely dissimilar organisation. Admittedly goverment grants for historic organs in Holland seem to be declining (and were seldom for 100% of the total restoration costs) but the "quango of organ advisors splashing their money" is alive and well. (They also have the best hospitals in Europe incidentally). It may seem Utopian, but it's worth stressing again, we are in the smallest of minorities here. It seems to me a great shame that BIOS, despite all their efforts, has yet to attain statutory status.

 

Bazuin

[pcnd5584]

"In case you had not noticed, the government does not have any money - only taxpayers provide money. I hardly think many of them would be happy to have a quango of organ advisors splashing their money around whilst people are dying from cancer for lack of drugs. I am afraid if people really want to preserve organs of genuine value, they will have to be prepared to find the money themselves. "

 

Yes but once again, this is a situation unique to the UK. English Heritage has access to significant quantities of govenment money. In Holland organs are the responsibility of the Department of Monuments, a not entirely dissimilar organisation. Admittedly goverment grants for historic organs in Holland seem to be declining (and were seldom for 100% of the total restoration costs) but the "quango of organ advisors splashing their money" is alive and well. (They also have the best hospitals in Europe incidentally). It may seem Utopian, but it's worth stressing again, we are in the smallest of minorities here. It seems to me a great shame that BIOS, despite all their efforts, has yet to attain statutory status.

 

Bazuin

 

Bazuin - have you ever had dealings with English Heritage? If you have, then you may have some idea of exactly how difficult and obstructive they can be in some circumstances. For the record, I am not referring to a situation where an organist wished to dispense with an older instrument, or rebuild it in 1960's neo-Classical style - simply of a church where the authorities wished to replace old and slightly dangerous lighting in the crypt (which is used twice daily as a chapel). As a result of the absurd intransigence of English Heritage, we ended up with partially unsheathed wiring hanging at little more than head height, with bare sixty watt bulbs attached to the ends, for about three years. For the last three years or so, we have had ugly floor-standing uplighters home-converted from halogen spotlights, with the bases weighted down using storage heater bricks. In addition, an unsightly surface mounted ring main with multiple metal sockets and PVC sheathing was installed just below the ridge of the stone seating which runs around three sides. The entire set-up is an eyesore. *

 

Give me some self-regulation any day.

 

 

 

* They rejected at least four carefully-considered schemes proposed by our professional and sensitive architect.

[john carter]

Yes but once again, this is a situation unique to the UK. English Heritage has access to significant quantities of govenment money.

And if it was my choice, it would be the first source for small but significant savings. I am prepared to be corrected, but I am unaware of anything worthwhile that English Heritage has achieved to date.

 

As to your quote about Dutch hospitals being the best in Europe, I have no doubt they are good, but I would be keen to know the basis on which you make the sweeping claim that they are the best.

JC

[bazuin]

I make no comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of English Heritage and doubtless everyone will have a different take on this anyway. Likewise the goverment agencies in Europe responsible for organs - it doesn't always (in some countries seldom) work as it should. But, in general, those countries have more historic material preserved than the UK as a direct consequence of organs being treated as monuments. It's a question of principle - should organs be classified as part of a country's 'Cultural Inheritance' (to use the Dutch phrase) or not? I believe they should.

 

"As to your quote about Dutch hospitals being the best in Europe, I have no doubt they are good, but I would be keen to know the basis on which you make the sweeping claim that they are the best."

 

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news...rope_56753.html

 

The Dutch themselves tend to make the distinction between GP care (which they often find to be insufficient - it's harder there seemingly to be referred to a specialist) and hospital care which, in my experience, they all agree is excellent.

 

Bazuin

[pcnd5584]

The key problem here, once again, is the lack of statutory protection for organs in the UK. As a direct result of not having independent, government appointed, organ advisors whose advice the church is obliged to follow, and direct funding from the government to restore and preserve the organs of genuine value (in Dutch terms these would even include the organs of Grant, Degens and Bradbeer today), the UK has the blackest record on organ conservation of any country with an organ culture in the world (except perhaps the USA, and, strangely enough, France). It is enormously frustrating that the mistakes of the past are still being made (who would be a BIOS case-study officer? I woudn't be able to sleep...). If there really is no consistency from the DACs, then isn't it time that a national conservation standard was introduced?

 

What is it about the British array of church denominations which makes organists more desperate than anywhere else to alter their supposedly (in some cases of course truly) inadequate organs (which have nevertheless been adequate for 100 years or more?).

 

"some part of the continuum entitled restoration"

 

But, as the Dutch always say, every restoration, no matter how good, removes something of the organ's original character.

 

Bazuin

The problem with this argument is that it fails to answer the simple question "Why now?" By this I mean, do you wish to see such a scheme implemented as a matter of urgency, in order to save those historic organs which remain to us - or do you take the view that many (if not all) of the organs in the UK should be preserved in their present state?

 

If so - why the somewhat arbitrary date? On what authority would one decide that an organ voiced by Arthur Harrison was more worthy of preservation than its predecessor - why should it not be restored to something approaching its previous incarnation - prehaps, for the sake of argument, three claviers, twenty-five stops and two octaves of pedals (with a solitary open wood rank)?

 

On the other hand, if the organ in my own church was to be restored as near as possible to the state in which it existed prior to 1963, it would be at least as inadequate now as it was judged to be then. In this case, it was almost certainly not a matter of the organist wishing to increase greatly the size of the instrument, but rather, desiring to re-configure the layout of the departments, in order that more of the sound could travel further down the church. In the process, the scheme was enlarged - but in a superbly thought-out manner, which sought to enhance the somewhat smaller instrument which had previously existed. For the record, the present instrument can barely cope with a full congregation. Certainly those at the west end have complained about a lack of support from time to time.

 

Clearly there are documented cases of organists unceremoniously discarding perfectly adequate instruments and having them replaced with a nice, glittery largely new organ, with lots of mutations and mixtures. I would not dispute this. In fact, though it is known here that I am no ardent devotee of vintage Harrison organs, I still regret the dreadful butchery performed on the H&H organ of Newcastle Cathedral - and, to add insult to injury, it was claimed at the time that this was an attempt to return the instrument to its Lewis roots. A visit to Southwark Cathedral, or Saint John's, Upper Norwood would surely pour scorn on such tenuous pretense.

 

However, the question remains - "Why now?" There is, in any case, enough anecdotal evidence to reinforce your observation that there is a distinct lack of consistency amongst the various DACs.

 

I do wonder how practical it would be to set up a national conservation standard; non-conformist churches would need either serious convincing - or strict legislation, in order to agree to be overseen in this way. With regard to Anglican churches, I doubt that it would be possible for any committee to agree on what was worthwhile, what parameters should be set - or even on what authority (or criteria) judgements of wortiness should be made.

 

As I am sure you are aware, organists are often rather an emotive group, who will fiercely guard and defend their particular favourite style of instrument. I suppose that the committe could be made up of organ builders or non-players - but this would simply create yet another raft of problems. Organ builders can be 'influenced' as can organists. Arguably, everyone could have something to lose - or to gain. A committe of non-playing or building government officials (who would simply rely on advice from consultants) is a non-starter - for obvious reasons.

 

I do not think that this is a remotely simple matter. The choosing of a committe acceptable to a majority could, in itself, take years.

[MusingMuso]

"In case you had not noticed, the government does not have any money - only taxpayers provide money. I hardly think many of them would be happy to have a quango of organ advisors splashing their money around whilst people are dying from cancer for lack of drugs. I am afraid if people really want to preserve organs of genuine value, they will have to be prepared to find the money themselves. "

 

Yes but once again, this is a situation unique to the UK. English Heritage has access to significant quantities of govenment money. In Holland organs are the responsibility of the Department of Monuments, a not entirely dissimilar organisation. Admittedly goverment grants for historic organs in Holland seem to be declining (and were seldom for 100% of the total restoration costs) but the "quango of organ advisors splashing their money" is alive and well. (They also have the best hospitals in Europe incidentally). It may seem Utopian, but it's worth stressing again, we are in the smallest of minorities here. It seems to me a great shame that BIOS, despite all their efforts, has yet to attain statutory status.

 

Bazuin

 

 

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

 

 

The attitudes in England are quite moronic compared to countries such as the Netherlands. It isn't just organs. We have priceless country churches in a terrible state, ruined stately homes, decaying parks, blighted buildings "protected" but left to rot....the list is endless.

 

Only India seems to have similar contempt for heritage, but at least they have a good excuse.

 

Unfortunately, "English Heritage" are something of a nightmare; to the extent that anything "restored" has to be identifiable as such. We therefore get Victorian buildings with new stone, against old stone which can't be cleaned because grime is heritage, presumably.

 

Imagine a restored organ, with a few shiny, new pipes in the case, and the remainder black.....it's just plain silly.

 

MM

[Philip J Wells]

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

 

............Imagine a restored organ, with a few shiny, new pipes in the case, and the remainder black.....it's just plain silly.

MM

 

We don't have to imagine what this would look like we already have an example at Appleby.

http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/PSearch.cgi...N01610&no=2

PJW

[bazuin]

"As I am sure you are aware, organists are often rather an emotive group, who will fiercely guard and defend their particular favourite style of instrument. I suppose that the committe could be made up of organ builders or non-players - but this would simply create yet another raft of problems. Organ builders can be 'influenced' as can organists. Arguably, everyone could have something to lose - or to gain. A committe of non-playing or building government officials (who would simply rely on advice from consultants) is a non-starter - for obvious reasons."

 

I agree (shock, horror) with a lot of what pncd writes here. I think now that the BIOS HOCS scheme as is has been implemented since 2002 is very good and if I were elected PM on Thursday (don't worry...) this would form a very sound basis of what would and wouldn't receive English Heritage-style protection.

 

Bazuin

[MusingMuso]

"As I am sure you are aware, organists are often rather an emotive group, who will fiercely guard and defend their particular favourite style of instrument. I suppose that the committe could be made up of organ builders or non-players - but this would simply create yet another raft of problems. Organ builders can be 'influenced' as can organists. Arguably, everyone could have something to lose - or to gain. A committe of non-playing or building government officials (who would simply rely on advice from consultants) is a non-starter - for obvious reasons."

 

I agree (shock, horror) with a lot of what pncd writes here. I think now that the BIOS HOCS scheme as is has been implemented since 2002 is very good and if I were elected PM on Thursday (don't worry...) this would form a very sound basis of what would and wouldn't receive English Heritage-style protection.

 

Bazuin

 

 

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

 

 

I'm sure that we all know of instruments worthy of exact preservation, but how many?

 

I can think of very few instruments within a 50 mile radius which have not been substantially altered.

 

Let's consider a few examples:-

 

Leeds PC - Bits of Schulze, bits of Hill, bits of Abbott & Smith, a lot of Harrison, a lot of new pipework, a revamped console and a rather superb instrument of its type.

 

York Minster - hacked about for over a century, with the original changed beyond recognition. Lots of re-voicing/new pipes.

 

Doncaster PC - Close to the original concept, but nevertheless altered by Norman & Beard, Abbot & Smith, Carter and various other people. Still remarkably authentic in many ways, and something of an excpetional case.

 

Blackburn - Enlarged, but still a glorious sound, true to the original Walker in most respects.

 

With the larger organs, the list goes on; most of the original character of these instruments totally altered. If anyone is brave enough to discuss the Schulze at Armley, let them have a go at real controversy.

 

Some of the less well-known instruments are worthier of preservation.

 

A small Anneessens organ in more or less original state. (2 manual. Halifax area)

 

A superb Issac Abbott instrument with only tiny tonal changes (to the pedal organ), and with the original tracker action.

 

Others have been lost, moved or wilfully destroyed; the most important of which was the Schulze "copy" at Dewsbury Centenary Methodist church, by Charles Brindley (possibly with the help of an ex-Schulze voicer).

 

Where do we start, who has the money, and musically speaking, for what reason?

 

England has a culture of organ re-building rather than preservation.

 

Does anyone actually play an "original" instrument?

 

MM

[Guest Patrick Coleman]

'Exact preservation' is an illusion. Not only are 'experts' seldom agreed on what an artefact was actually like when created, but to understand and appreciate an artefact as originally intended requires a perfectly preserved context.

 

The constant arguments on this Board concerning such matters as Tierce Mixtures and 'Bach' organs are witness to the former.

 

The fact that we listen and play with 21st century eyes, ears and brains is proof of the latter.

 

The best that can be wished for is an approximation.

 

I would dare to suggest that no organ was designed to be preserved in aspic, and such preservation is then a betrayal of its purpose. No doubt there have been as many motivations in installing organs in churches and other places as there were people paying for them. Can we preserve the motivations (and would we want to?) Can we supply the worshipping congregations (including their objectionable aspects) and the types of choral work many organ were built to accompany? Would we want to? In every aspect?

 

The fact is that 'preservation' and 'authenticity' are as much fashions as were the much-maligned Victorian and Edwardian octopods.

[Guest drd]

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

 

England has a culture of organ re-building rather than preservation.

 

MM

 

Exactly. This is the point I'm trying to make to my colleagues regarding a medium sized instrument in my ken. It has an original case, and some original pipework from the eighteenth century. However, it has been much altered since, though that remaining pipework stands more or less intact.

 

Who is to say that the later additions and alterations are not worthy of preservation. I, and others, feel that some of them have been less than totally felicitous, but they are still representative of the evolutionary characteristics of English organs - as MM's statement could imply.

 

My own feeling in a case such as this where the instrument is already the sum of its alterations, and is in fairly heavy demand (see below) is that we should do nothing to damage the remaining work of earlier builders which resides intact in the instrument. However, we should restore its action, etc., preserve its features as they stand, and, in a spirit of evolution make such small changes as are possible to increase its utility for its primary, secondary, and tertiary functions (Primary=liturgical use, Secondary=concert and recital use, Tertiary=teaching). In other words, careful renovation - rather than restrictive restoration.

[AJJ]

I would dare to suggest that no organ was designed to be preserved in aspic, and such preservation is then a betrayal of its purpose. No doubt there have been as many motivations in installing organs in churches and other places as there were people paying for them. Can we preserve the motivations (and would we want to?) Can we supply the worshipping congregations (including their objectionable aspects) and the types of choral work many organ were built to accompany? Would we want to? In every aspect?

 

I like this!

 

A

[Jonathan Lane]

I would dare to suggest that no organ was designed to be preserved in aspic, and such preservation is then a betrayal of its purpose. No doubt there have been as many motivations in installing organs in churches and other places as there were people paying for them.

 

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this. At the end of the day, organs in places of worship are principally to lead and enhance worship, and as soon as they are unable to do that they lose their meaning altogether, it is fine to have historical instruments, but historical should never prevent their proper and valued use to lead worship.

 

Jonathan

[innate]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this. At the end of the day, organs in places of worship are principally to lead and enhance worship, and as soon as they are unable to do that they lose their meaning altogether, it is fine to have historical instruments, but historical should never prevent their proper and valued use to lead worship.

Just my opinion but the almost total lack of historic instruments in the UK is something I find extremely sad. Liturgical reform is probably one of the main reasons for this; I'm thinking of the Commonwealth and the Oxford Movement, particularly. I wonder if the human voice will ever be considered unable to lead and enhance worship.

[pcnd5584]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this. At the end of the day, organs in places of worship are principally to lead and enhance worship, and as soon as they are unable to do that they lose their meaning altogether, it is fine to have historical instruments, but historical should never prevent their proper and valued use to lead worship.

 

Jonathan

On the other hand, who is to judge that these instruments have become unfit for their intended purpose?

 

Yesterday I accompanied two choral services on my own church instrument. It includes eight ranks which probably date from 1664 and a further five from 1764. It made a perfectly good job of accompanying the choir and leading around two hundred people in the singing of hymns. Yes, of course I used other, newer ranks too - and the older stops alone would not support a full church; but they made a perfectly creditable job of coping with the demands I made of them yesterday.

[pcnd5584]

I agree (shock, horror) with a lot of what pncd writes here. I think now that the BIOS HOCS scheme as is has been implemented since 2002 is very good and if I were elected PM on Thursday (don't worry...) this would form a very sound basis of what would and wouldn't receive English Heritage-style protection.

 

Bazuin

I am unsure whether your first comment (in parentheses) is to be taken as a compliment - or not.... For the record - do not worry, I would not be voting for you on Thurdsday, Bazuin.

 

The idea of 'English Heritage-style protection' fills me with deep misgivings. With the record of experiences ar my own church (already cited), I doubt that one would be able even to replace the blower switch, should it fail.

[Jonathan Lane]

On the other hand, who is to judge that these instruments have become unfit for their intended purpose?

 

Yesterday I accompanied two choral services on my own church instrument. It includes eight ranks which probably date from 1664 and a further five from 1764. It made a perfectly good job of accompanying the choir and leading around two hundred people in the singing of hymns. Yes, of course I used other, newer ranks too - and the older stops alone would not support a full church; but they made a perfectly creditable job of coping with the demands I made of them yesterday.

 

I'll try this again, as I just typed a very concise response which the machine managed to delete before I posted it!

 

I think the point here is, would you have been able to accompany the congregation or the choral repertoire on the 1664 stops? Indeed if the further five stops were added a century later they may well have been done out of necessity not the whim of the organist or organ builder. The fact that liturgy has developed is part of life and progress, if the organ doesn't try to keep up or indeed lead, it has lost the battle with the more modern and dare I say less desirable traits in modern church music!

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the wholesale destruction of our organ heritage, but if an organ is failing through mechanical obscelence or condition but the pipework is both good and historic, is it right to insist it is maintained in a condition in which we cannot benefit from the pleasure of hearing it because of an English Heritage attitude?

 

To quote an English Herirtage example, the bell frame at Malvern Priory is becoming unserviceable, but EH have said it cannot be replaced. Essentially meaning the bells will be permanently silenced. I am a member of English Heritage, but feel it is better to try to change attitudes from within!

 

Jonathan

[Guest Patrick Coleman]

On the other hand, who is to judge that these instruments have become unfit for their intended purpose?.

 

QED