Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Alexandra Palace Organ


Recommended Posts

 

 

I have often spoken to ex members of the Organ Appeal (and there are many), and I have asked them why they lost interest in the project. Their answer is equal to what Brian is saying, and their advice to me is to forget it and find another hobby.

There is no way that I will give up the idea of having the Willis Organ fully restored, until I know that it is hopeless.

There is absolutely no point in the Organ Appeal expecting to raise 1 million pounds, if they will not agree to a tendering process, and that is why our professional contacts withdrew. We know that the Appeal only favours one organ builder, and that builder might well win the contract, but there has to be a choice, otherwise the scheme is dead.

Also donors will insist on a guarantee that the organ is safe and will not be removed. That guarantee cannot be given until the new developers are appointed (probably in 2006). The Great Hall is listed, but not the organ as it is not a permanent fixture.

The organ is costing the Palace money it does not have, and whilst I increased concert attendances to 150 plus, the latest concerts are barely attracting 30 to 40 people. and people have complained to me about the condition of the organ and the programmes offered. After all my efforts this grieves me.

Potential donors will want proof that the organ will be used on a regular basis, and that concerts will attract large numbers of enthusiastic people.

The Trustees of the Palace own the organ and will have the final say as to the future. We can only advise.

It is easy to understand why people say that the restoration will never happen, but the reasons should be directed to the Organ Appeal who have provided the detractors with the ammunition,

In the meantime i am happily working with the Victorian Theatre.Perhaps we could start messages about that, especially as the theatre is safe and listed,

Colin Richell

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Roffensis
I have often spoken to ex members of the Organ Appeal (and there are many), and I have asked them why they lost interest in the project. Their answer is equal to what Brian is saying, and their advice to me is to forget it and find another hobby.

There is no way that I will give up the idea of having the Willis Organ fully restored, until I know that it is hopeless.

There is absolutely no point in the Organ Appeal expecting to raise 1 million pounds, if they will not agree to a tendering process, and that is why our professional contacts withdrew. We know that the Appeal  only favours one organ builder, and that builder might well win the contract, but there has to be a choice, otherwise the scheme is dead.

Also donors will insist on a guarantee that the organ is safe and will not be removed. That guarantee cannot be given until the new developers are appointed (probably in 2006). The Great Hall is listed, but not the organ as it is not a permanent fixture.

The organ is costing the Palace money it does not have, and whilst I increased concert attendances to 150 plus, the latest concerts are barely attracting 30 to 40 people. and people have complained to me about the condition of the organ and the programmes offered. After all my efforts this grieves me.

Potential donors will want proof that the organ will be used on a regular basis, and that concerts will attract large numbers of enthusiastic people.

The Trustees of the Palace own the organ and will have the final say as to the future. We can only advise.

It is easy to understand why people say that the restoration will never happen, but the reasons should be directed to the Organ Appeal who have provided the detractors with the ammunition,

In the meantime i am happily working with the Victorian Theatre.Perhaps we could start messages about that, especially as the theatre is safe and listed,

Colin Richell

 

 

Of course you are quite correct about the tendering process, and I have made my opinions known exactly to that effect when speaking with those in authority concerning the organ. I have given money myself in the past but will not do so again until the organ is put out to tender. Then I will. This is not to favour any builder or to denounce any builder either, but it is simply the way it should go, because people expect it to be so, and it is simply fair to all concerned. There is not anything biased about it, and I have also said that the consultant should be both independant, and unbiased. QED. B);)

I do not know very much of the political reasons why, so far, the organ restoration has not been put out to tender, and what I do know I am not going to repeat here, anymore than I would make it public knowledge. It causes damage. Such issues have to ironed out privately and things have to be seen to be positive. It is well high time that the whole organ issue had a crash meeting, and a decision was finally made, as it has gone on ridiculously long, and the constant arguing does nothing. The organ has become the political football which really is the most sad thing about it all, the whole long sorry saga. I have also to say that I think it not good to add further ranks to the organ, as it has reached the stage now that it should all come down, X builder be awarded the contract, and be done, fully, facade and all. The current frame is not the permanent one, and never was intended to be. What has happened is that there has been a real and well meant desire to get the job going within the constraints of a poor budget.

Let's make no mistake, it is the organ that is the price, and frankly I do not care who does it, as long as it IS done. It is so simple to achieve, and the money will come to do the lot, but there needs to be that tendering process, and here personal prefernces have no place. No single builder can be favoured, and there must be an independant consultant to that end. Finally, the recommendations of the consultant have to be heeded, or it will just never happen. The qualilty of the current voicing is beyond criticism. The rest, albeit as a temporory "lash up" will have convinced everyone that is should be finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you are quite correct about the tendering process, and I have made my opinions known exactly to that effect when speaking with those in authority concerning the organ. I have given money myself in the past but will not do so again until the organ is put out to tender. Then I will. This is not to favour any builder or to denounce any builder either, but it is simply the way it should go, because people expect it to be so, and it is simply fair to all concerned. There is not anything biased about it, and I have also said that the consultant should be both independant, and unbiased. QED.  B)  ;)

I do not know very much of the political reasons why, so far, the organ restoration has not been put out to tender, and what I do know I am not going to repeat here, anymore than I would make it public knowledge. It causes damage. Such issues have to ironed out privately and things have to be seen to be positive. It is well high time that the whole organ issue had a crash meeting, and a decision was finally made, as it has gone on ridiculously long, and the constant arguing does nothing. The organ has become the political football which really is the most sad thing about it all, the whole long sorry saga. I have also to say that I think it not good to add further ranks to the organ, as it has reached the stage now that it should all come down, X builder be awarded the contract, and be done, fully, facade and all. The current frame is not the permanent one, and never was intended to be. What has happened is that there has been a real and well meant desire to get the job going within the constraints of a poor budget.

Let's make no mistake, it is the organ that is the price, and frankly I do not care who does it, as long as it IS done. It is so simple to achieve, and the money will come to do the lot, but there needs to be that tendering process, and here personal prefernces have no place. No single builder can be favoured, and there must be an independant consultant to that end. Finally, the recommendations of the consultant have to be heeded, or it will just never happen. The qualilty of the current voicing is beyond criticism. The rest, albeit as a temporory "lash up" will have convinced everyone that is should be finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I assume that you have read the consultant's report which was originally posted on the unofficial web site.

The report was very detailed , critical and honest, but on a personal basis, I have to admit that if the consultant had offered the opinion that the restoration was a hopeless case, I would have ignored it.

I would, however have taken note of any professional advice relating to the execution of the restoration.

I absolutely agree that no further work should be carried out, on the organ and yet my spies tell me that, at this moment ranks of pipes are being lowered, and that there are plans to reinstate the two ranks of pipes which were removed from the organ sometime ago.This is being carried out with my money as well as others, and yet we are not allowed any say in the matter.

I wonder which Company is carrying out the work !

I wish that I could forsee the future, but of course I cannot.

Colin Richell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I assume that you have read the consultant's report which was originally posted on the unofficial web site.

The report was very detailed , critical and honest, but on a personal basis, I have to admit that if the consultant had offered the opinion that the restoration was a hopeless case, I would have ignored it.

I would, however have taken note of any professional advice relating to the execution of the restoration.

I absolutely agree that no further work should be carried out, on the organ and yet my spies tell me that, at this moment ranks of pipes are being lowered, and that there are plans to reinstate the two ranks of pipes which were removed from the organ sometime ago.This is being carried out with my money as well as others, and yet we are not allowed any say in the matter.

I wonder which Company is carrying out the work !

I wish that I could forsee the future, but of course I cannot.

Colin Richell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
I assume that you have read the consultant's report which was originally posted on the unofficial web site.

The report was very detailed , critical and honest, but on a personal basis, I have to admit that if the consultant had offered the opinion that the restoration was a hopeless case, I would have ignored it.

I would, however have taken note of any professional advice relating to the execution of the restoration.

I absolutely agree that no further work should be carried out, on the organ and yet my spies tell me that, at this moment ranks of pipes are being lowered, and that there are plans to reinstate the two ranks of pipes which were removed from the organ sometime ago.This is being carried out with my money as well as others, and yet we are not allowed any say in the matter.

I wonder which Company is carrying out the work !

I wish that I could forsee the future, but of course I cannot.

Colin Richell.

 

 

Yes I have read the various bits and pieces on the website, but I cannot and would not comment. The way forward is quite clear. We all know this. I am, however, saddened by the unofficial website content, as it does nothing positive, and does not really do itself any good being so controversial and frankly outspoken. Your references to "spies".... B) amuses me as there has been no secrecy whatever about the two ranks being put into the organ or who is doing the work, or of the solo division being lowered because of temperature etc. If the organ were complete and basically enclosed this would not be such a consideration, and I personally consider this current exercise wasteful. But, the appeal has been very forthcoming about it all, and also explained everything well. Hatchets should be buried, and things should move on now. The time has come to halt further additions, as it has reached a stage where money will actually be wasted. The lot will simply have to come down in the future and the new proper frame built. Far better to concentrate on that now. Far better actually to concentrate on funding the lot!, and that is only going to happen with the T word. There are no winners in this "game". Plersonal preference has no place, and the good of the organ has to be the only priority. Nothing ese should matter in the least. A little care, common sense, and prudent help can facilitate a great deal.

All best,

Richard Astridge

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I have read the various bits and pieces on the website, but I cannot and would not comment. The way forward is quite clear. We all know this. I am, however, saddened by the unofficial website content, as it does nothing positive, and does not really do itself any good being so controversial and frankly outspoken. Your references to "spies".... B) amuses me as there has been no secrecy whatever about the two ranks being put into the organ or who is doing the work, or of the solo division being lowered because of temperature etc. If the organ were complete and basically enclosed this would not be such a consideration, and I personally consider this current exercise wasteful. But, the appeal has been very forthcoming about it all, and also explained everything well. Hatchets should be buried, and things should move on now. The time has come to halt further additions, as it has reached a stage where money will actually be wasted. The lot will simply have to come down in the future and the new proper frame built. Far better to concentrate on that now. Far better actually to concentrate on funding the lot!, and that is only going to happen with the T word. There are no winners in this "game". Plersonal preference has no place, and the good of the organ has to be the only priority. Nothing ese should matter in the least. A little care, common sense, and prudent help can facilitate a great deal.

All best,

Richard Astridge

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Richard

It would have nice to have been told directly what work was being carried out as a large donor and former official rather than hearing it from an outsider.,bearing in mind that I am not allowed to be a Friend of the organ and am not welcome at concerts.

Who is being childish.?

I am disappointed that you do not approve of the unofficial web site.

It was set up after we found we could not continue to be part of the activities of the Appeal Committee.

You have often accused me of "deserting a sinking ship" but our web site will inform you why I am no longer "officially involved", and although I accept that you are a supporter of the Appeal rather than us. no fair minded person could fail to be shocked at how a registered charity conducts its business,In all honesty we could not condone it, and frankly the 5 who resigned or were discarded are glad to be out of it.

Please read our web site with an open mind, and I would be happy to contact you on a private basis,as I do have your address in Liverpool.

I hope that you will be pleased that the 5 people continue to work behind the scenes, and that the organ has not lost their talent and commitment.

sincerely

Colin Richell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
Richard

It would have nice to have been told directly what work was being carried out as a large donor and former official rather than hearing it from an outsider.,bearing in mind that I am not allowed to be a Friend of the organ and am not welcome at concerts.

Who is being childish.?

I am disappointed that you do not approve of the unofficial web site.

It was set up after we found we could not continue to be part of the activities of the Appeal Committee.

You have often accused me of "deserting a sinking ship" but our web site will inform you why I am no longer "officially involved", and although I accept that you are a supporter of the Appeal rather than us. no fair minded person could fail to be shocked at how a registered charity conducts its business,In all honesty we could not condone it, and frankly the 5 who resigned or were discarded are glad to be out of it.

Please read our web site with an open mind, and I would be happy to contact you on a private basis,as I do have your address in Liverpool.

I hope that you will be pleased that the 5 people continue to work behind the scenes, and that the organ has not lost their talent and commitment.

sincerely

Colin Richell.

 

 

Dear Colin,

All of the work concerning the organ is on the official website for all to see, and so there are no outsiders surely? Anyone can put a website on the internet and it is a free country, so I am told B) but my point is still the same, there should always be caution when dealing with sensitive issues such as the organ of the Alexandra Palace, and one needs to look at the wider implications of "outing" letters and so on that really should be private, and really fuel unhelpful gossip. The organ world is full of that already. It has only ever been my policy in life to tell people what they need to know. What they WANT to know is a different matter, and there are ways to go about things and achieve more in the long term, rather than get peoples backs up. I did however find the Bell report very interesting and constructive indeed.

All best,

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Dear Colin,

All of the work concerning the organ is on the official website for all to see, and so there are no outsiders surely? Anyone can put a website on the internet and it is a free country, so I am told  :lol: but my point is still the same, there should always be caution when dealing with sensitive issues such as the organ of the Alexandra Palace, and one needs to look at the wider implications of "outing" letters and so on that really should be private, and really fuel unhelpful gossip. The organ world is full of that already. It has only ever been my policy in life to tell people what they need to know. What they WANT to know is a different matter, and there are ways to go about things and achieve more in the long term, rather than get peoples backs up. I did however find the Bell report very interesting and constructive indeed.

All best,

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dear Richard

I am glad that you found the consultant's report interesting. Having employed him, it would have been crazy to have ignored the comments, advice, and recommendations, but that is what the Appeal did, obviously now to their deep regret.

You cannot fool all of the public all of the time, and at last this has been recognised.

We need to wipe the slate clean and start again, and I hope that you and the thousands of Ally Pally organ supporters will join us.

Please read www.alexandrapalace. organ.com or ask any questions on this site,

sincerely

Colin Richell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Barry Oakley

Like the Worcester Cathedral organ saga I believe that many are now fed up with the Ally Pally organ ramblings, some of it defamatory and some of it no more than what appears internecine squabbling. I don't think this site is really the vehicle for such postings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like the Worcester Cathedral organ saga I believe that many are now fed up with the Ally Pally organ ramblings, some of it defamatory and some of it no more than what appears internecine squabbling. I don't think this site is really the vehicle for such postings.

 

 

As I have requested before, please send your comments, questions et al, to the two web sites. The web masters of both web sites will be happy to answer your questions. The unofficial site will even post, if you should wish it, your comments.

 

But Barry, why read the postings on this topic if it upsets you to do so?

 

The topic has been accessed over 7,000 times, so not all would appear to agree with you.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I have requested before, please send your comments, questions et al, to the two web sites. The web masters of both web sites will be happy to answer your questions. The unofficial site will even post, if you should wish it, your comments.

 

But Barry, why read the postings on this topic if it upsets you to do so?

 

The topic has been accessed over 7,000 times, so not all would appear to agree with you.

 

Alan

 

I would not presume to speak for Barry who is fully capable of giving his own reasons but it does seem to me that you cannot deduce people's attitudes to what they read from the fact that they read it. The approach of ignoring any thing or any information which is unpleasant, disturbing or downright offensive to you is commonly associated with the ostrich, along with the adoption of a posture which presents your enemies with a target that is difficult to resist.

 

Therefore the fact that there have been 7,000 hits on the site provides very little information about how those readers reacted to what they read. Some, perhaps even many, may share Barry's reaction to what they read but still have a great interest in seeing the restoration of the AP Organ and therefore be anxious to know what is going on, in the same way that many who are deeply distressed (upset) at witnessing the destruction wrought by Nature in Kashmir or Man in Iraq

nevertheless continue to watch the TV news bulletins because they prefer information to ignorance.

 

My own reaction to what I have read is one of considerable sadness that so much energy on both sides has been diverted from productive activity in support of an objective that both sides appear to value equally highly to activity which is of no discernible direct benefit to that objective. Indeed, its influence is much more likely to be negative, if others react in the same way as I have done, that is to say, deciding that there is no point in giving financial support to a project so beset with difficulties, especially with so many competing calls on one's generosity after all the disasters of late.

 

Brian Childs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
I would not presume to speak for Barry who is fully capable of giving his own reasons but it does seem to me that you cannot deduce people's attitudes to what they read from the fact that they read it. The approach  of ignoring any thing or any  information which is unpleasant, disturbing or downright offensive to you is commonly associated with the ostrich, along with the adoption of a posture which presents your enemies with a target that is difficult to resist.

 

Therefore the fact that there have been 7,000 hits on the site provides very little information about how those readers reacted to what they read. Some, perhaps even many, may share Barry's reaction to what they read but still have a great interest in seeing the restoration of the AP Organ and therefore  be anxious to know what is going on, in the same way that many who are deeply distressed (upset) at witnessing the destruction wrought by Nature in Kashmir or Man in Iraq

nevertheless continue to watch the TV news bulletins because they prefer information to ignorance.

 

My own reaction to what I have read is one of considerable sadness that so much energy on both sides has been diverted from productive activity in support of an objective that both sides appear to value equally highly to activity which is of no discernible direct benefit to that objective. Indeed, its influence is much more likely to be negative, if others react in the same way as I have done, that is to say, deciding that there is no point in giving financial support to a project so beset with difficulties, especially with so many competing calls on one's generosity after all the disasters of late.

 

Brian Childs

 

I think many are sad about the continuing lack of a tendering process, and I think a lot will be simply voting with their feet. Certainly if the current state of things continues it is going to struggle. A return to the "adopt a pipe" scheme may help, but adding pipes is not the answer either, as has been said before. There needs to be a thorough revision of the whole issue. People ARE certainly interested in this instrument, as was proved by the reopening. I would be interested to know why there has been no tendering process, and the appeal may wish to comment on this.

I was unable to attend Stephen Disley's recital at AP recently, but wonder if anyone on here did attend, and it would be interesting to learn what the attendance was. Clearly, if it was poor then people by now should be taking note and learning from it. To sling away an organ because things are not how they could be, or should be, is wrong. I think most are tired of the whole sorry saga, which looks set to continue for another 50 years. When is the proper frame being built? when IS the job proposed to be finished? these are issues that should be set out clearly. The lot has to come down anyway. People want to know that there is a definite scheme. It is high time to have it restored under a tendering process, as would happen anywhere. I applaude the appeal for it's efforts, but not always for the way things are being done. It desperately needs revision, and should have been long finished. It is true to say that those of differing opinions should join forces in a common effort to achieve it's completion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think many are sad about the continuing lack of a tendering process, and I think a lot will be simply voting with their feet. Certainly if the current state of things continues it is going to struggle. A return to the "adopt a pipe" scheme may help, but adding pipes is not the answer either, as has been said before. There needs to be a thorough revision of the whole issue. People ARE certainly interested in this instrument, as was proved by the reopening. I would be interested to know why there has been no tendering process, and the appeal may wish to comment on this.

I was unable to attend Stephen Disley's recital at AP recently, but wonder if anyone on here did attend, and it would be interesting to learn what the attendance was. Clearly, if it was poor then people by now should be taking note and learning from it. To sling away an organ because things are not how they could be, or should be, is wrong. I think most are tired of the whole sorry saga, which looks set to continue for another 50 years. When is the proper frame being built? when IS the job proposed to be finished? these are issues that should be set out clearly. The lot has to come down anyway. People want to know that there is a definite scheme. It is high time to have it restored under a tendering process, as would happen anywhere. I applaude the appeal for it's efforts, but not always for the way things are being done. It desperately needs revision, and should have been long finished. It is true to say that those of differing opinions should join forces in a common effort to achieve it's completion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe that I have already stated that I was at the Palace on Wednesday for a meeting, and I managed to look through the Great Hall windows, and I would have said that barely 30 people were in attendance, for Stephen Disley's concert a far cry from the 150 plus who attended the concerts. which I organised .The concert finished at 9-15pm,hardly value for money.

At present the organ builders are undertaking unneccessary work on the organ resulting in even less stops being operative, and as water damage has been discovered, would it not be better to suspend concerts for the time being, thus saving the cash strapped Palace considerable expense.?

In 2006 hopefully you will all see dramatic changes,

Incidentally I spoke to A Palace Trustee this evening, who assured me that the Willis organ would not be sold.

Colin Richell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis

One is intrigued to know what dramatic changes are to take place? Why on earth did you not go into the building and hear the organ for yourself? I see that the Contra Viola 16 ft. has been restored to the Choir Organ and was used that day by Stephen Disley, so it would be good to hear comments about that. It would also be good to see one or two photographs of the pipework on the official site. I am delighted to "learn" that the organ is not being sold, and have to say it is no surprise to me! As to the water damage, it seems that this is being dealt with and the roof above has been repaired. These things can and do happen anywhere. I think it good to continue use of the organ until it is taken down fully for rebuild. No instrument gains from not being used, and Ally Pally organ is used more frequently for recitals than St Georges Hall here in Liverpool.

All best,

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites
One is intrigued to know what dramatic changes are to take place? Why on earth did you not go into the building and hear the organ for yourself? I see that the Contra Viola 16 ft. has been restored to the Choir Organ and was used that day by Stephen Disley, so it would be good to hear comments about that. It would also be good to see one or two photographs of the pipework on the official site. I am delighted to "learn" that the organ is not being sold, and  have to say it is no  surprise to me! As to the water damage, it seems that this is being dealt with and the roof above has been repaired. These things can and do happen anywhere. I think it good to continue use of the organ until it is taken down fully for rebuild. No instrument gains from not being used, and Ally Pally organ is used more frequently for recitals than St Georges Hall here in Liverpool.

All best,

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard

I have already told you in a private e-mail, the changes I hope to see next year.

If I stated these on this message board in public view, you and others would criticise me !

I told you that I had a meeting with Palace officials on the same evening, which finished at 9-15. By the time I had reached the Great Hall, the last notes were sounding. I have not attended a concert since my "retirement", and I do not intend to because at the age of 64 I cannot contend with threats.

My contention is, that as the organ is deteriorating

, would it not be better to suspend concerts rather than have discontented concert goers vowing not to return because of the condition of the instrument ?

The truth is that concerts are obviously losing money, and therefore not contributing anything to the funds.

The AP Trustees must know that the Appeal have lost as many as 120 people attending concerts, and concerts were suspended in my time for 12 months.

Richard, knowing how you feel about piecemeal work being carried out, I am surprised that you are so excited about the 16ft Viola being returned, Perhaps you know where it went ?

I hope that I have explained myself satisfactorily.

Best wishes

Colin Richell,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Richard

I am unable to reply to you personally because my outlook express is down again !

With reference to the Contra viola 16ft, is this not part of the choir organ, and was the choir organ not fully paid for by the Foundation for Sports and Arts?

Why was this missing for so long and is our money paying for its restoration ?

Are there not other ranks missing from their previous installation ?

Its all very nice to give the organ builder much needed work, but I also wonder whether the organ builder and curator should be one and the same person.

Thanks for your continuing interest in the Willis organ.

sincerely

Colin Richell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Contra Viola (16ft) has only 14 new pipes: the bottom octave (12 notes) was made new by this Company when the Choir organ was put into its present position and has remained there since. All pipes from middle d are the original 1875 pipes, restored. Only the 14 pipes from tenor c to middle c# (the 8ft orctave) are new.

Mr. Richell is and always has been completely aware of the circumstances surrounding the removal of the temporary part of this stop, he is named in the minutes as being present at the AP Organ Appeal Committee meeting when this was fully discussed and agreed, several years ago.

And since you ask, No, the Choir Organ was not 'fully paid for' foy the FSA, which only made a donation of £30,000 (approx. 25%) towards the completion of that division .

 

As to this 'Organbuilder' being given 'much needed work', I am sure that any representative of the Appeal - or which I am not a member - will aver that they have had to nag us almost incessantly over the past 18 months to fit this work into our schedule.

 

The Organbuilder is not 'THE' Curator but merely one of a team of people which attempts to keep this instrument in a workeable condition notwithstanding the difficulties which obtain. I'm sure that other, better informed, members of this list will know of the American practise of having the resident organ 'technician' as a 'Curator' - this is not so unusual.

 

Mr. Richell's earlier posting this week in which he comments on the attendance at Stephen Disley's excellent concert is equally distorted: There were 64 paid addmissions with a total number present of 78. On his way out of the Palace Mr. Richell spoke to a member of Stephen Disley's party, requesting him to relay a rather offensive message to members of the Appeal Committee - which he did.

 

In response to the wildly exciting information regarding Mr. Richell's Outlook Express, I think a more appropriate description of his outlook would be 'Tedious'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of this list are able to read the actual letters pertaining to the "completion" of the choir organ on the web site www.alexandrapalaceorgan.com you might also like to note who the signatory to these letters was.The letters can be found at the start of the "Brief History 1990 to date" section.

 

Please don't rehearse the augments on this web site. All of the information needed to give you an overview on the project can be found on the two web sites. And, as I have already said, the web masters of both sites will be happy to answer your questions and post your comments and suggestions.

 

Alan Taylor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roffensis
The Contra Viola (16ft) has only 14 new pipes: the bottom octave (12 notes) was made new by this Company when the Choir organ was put into its present position and has remained there since. All pipes from middle d are the original 1875 pipes, restored. Only the 14 pipes from tenor c to middle c# (the 8ft orctave) are new.

 

Very interesting about the provenance of the Contra Viola pipework. Actually a very encouraging amount of new pipework. There seem to be tensions still however, and clarity is always helpful. I would however, in a totally unbiased way, like to throw the gauntlet down and ask **IS the organ is going to put out to tender?**. If yes, then fine, good. If not, then WHY not? This is the crux of the matter, not nit picking about curators and so on. This lack of tendering is the single question that has caused so much controversy and much bad feeling, and has to stop. It is high time that palace officials accept a common policy that will be fair and unbiased. The truth is that there are other firms who could restore the organ, and they should be given the chance to put forward their scheme. May the best man win. QED. Donaters want to see fair play. It simply has to be that way. We either want the organ or we don't, and the organ is the priority, restored for the future. The whole issue currently remains stagnant and frankly very boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...