Rowland Wateridge Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 There has been some duplication of this subject, so I will follow bam’s lead by repeating here the post I made in response to his on the ‘Nuts and Bolts’ thread “Albert HallI inaccuracies - again”: One can’t say that the original work of Henry Willis was totally expunged by the first re-build and massive enlargement by H&H. The present appearance of the case is entirely due to him. How much, if any, of the original pipe work remained without re-voicing by H&H is unknown by me. John Mander equally considers it to be a Harrison organ (see the “Tuning at the RAH” thread) and, very modestly I felt, did not add Mander’s name to the builder’s plate. This may be entirely apocryphal, but I have some vague recollection that Willis (which by then would have been HW III) ‘disowned’ the organ after the H&H work. Agreed that the BBC and the RAH descriptions are misleading. In my local cathedral (not difficult to guess which) the builder’s plate states: Henry Willis 1851/4, Henry Willis & Sons 1897, Additions Hele & Co 1905, Harrison & Harrison 1938 and 1988. I would have thought that something similar to this would have been appropriate at the RAH, and I would definitely include Mander’s name. After their work on the organ (however conservative John Mander claimed it to be), it was immediately obvious that they achieved a significant and dramatic improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now