Likely to be my most unpopular essay

 

See also organstuff

 

There is much justified concern about the fate of church pipe organs.

 

In Australia, there is a society, the Organ_Historical_Trust_of_Australia (OHTA), devoted to preserving pipe organs. A necessary and laudable goal. There is a similar organisation in Britain and probably others elsewhere in the world.

 

I recently attended an OHTA function at my church, which has a lovely, historic and recently restored pipe organ which is used for many Sunday services and for occasional services such as weddings and funerals (and for baptisms, confirmations and ordinations but these take place as part of our regular Sunday services).

 

But I came away from this OHTA function very concerned. Hence this essay. The reason for my concern is the opposition of the OHTA to any modification of pipe organs. They want them all preserved exactly as originally built, indefinitely. I guess that's why they call themselves the Organ Historical Trust of Australia. 

 

Let us put this concern into context. There is no doubt that many valuable pipe organs are at least in danger of neglect and eventual demolition. Some of them it is generally agreed are already doomed. Many are already derelict, some of these neglected in churches which no longer use them, others dismantled and now stored in suburban garages or similarly unsuitable storage sites having been bought for a pittance, with no prospect of ever being restored to playable condition. And that concerns many of us. It is a tragedy that so many of these valuable and historic instruments are in such danger of being lost. 

 

Some of the pipes of at least one, at the former Canterbury Congregational Church, have been sold and reused in a pipe organ in a suburban home in Gordon, which I have seen but not heard. And I have seen one other pipe organ installed in another suburban lounge room. The house containing that second pipe organ, in Brentwood Avenue Turramurra, was for sale when I saw it, with the pipe organ included. That organ was playable according to the real estate agent but he did not offer to demonstrate it, and contrary to what he said the blower was lying on the floor disconnected. I do not know of the previous history or eventual fate of this organ but there is every chance that it was dumped. So again I have seen but not heard this home organ.

 

I think we all knew most of that already. The grave prospects of many valuable church pipe organs was something repeatedly stressed at the function, and by several speakers, and it did not surprise me nor I suspect anyone else present. And I think it fair to say that it was concerning to all of us there, and that we are right to be concerned.

 

But is the OHTA part of the solution, or part of the problem? Who would install a pipe organ... Rebuilt organs Church organs in their context The violin as a comparison What needs to be done Churches that have or would like to have pipe organs need support The obvious solution Perhaps a Pipe Organ Builders Association of Australia? TOSA Church Organ Society of Australia? Other people's money Or am I missing something? This is very much a work in progress, watch this space, and comments welcome whether positive, negative, inquisitive, or otherwise.

 

 

But is the OHTA part of the solution, or part of the problem?

 

Fighting words I know! But the question needs to be addressed, because the evidence is concerning.

 

Pipe organs generally benefit greatly from modification, to the point that it seems to me that, with the possible exception of the drum kit, no other instrument benefits so much from modification to meet the changing requirements of its users as the pipe organ. This is reflected in the histories both of individual instruments and of the instrument as a whole. Many organs have benefited from modification to better serve the requirements of their owner or owners.

 

And this adaptability is nowhere more useful than in a church organ. Because churches are far more liable to change than you might have expected. Let me propose two realistic scenarios...

 

Scenario 1: For example, suppose an organ is installed to serve a large congregation with a strong regular choir which is the primary or even the only use of the organ. But years later, it is serving a smaller but still viable congregation with a smaller choir or even none, and quieter ranks that were once not a priority or even a consideration are now essential. If at least one such rank is not provided, the logical and responsible decision of the church is to spend the funds that would otherwise have been available for maintaining the organ on buying a good piano instead or, worse still, a modern electronic keyboard. 

 

Because either of these options, the piano or the electronic keyboard, will serve the congregation better than the unmodified pipe organ. But if the organ could be modified to meet the changing needs of the congregations, it would serve the congregation even better than either of these other options, and at less cost over time. 

 

It's a no-brainer really. Modify the organ and it remains fit for purpose and an important asset. Or alternatively, fail to modify it and it becomes a liability. And the more the OHTA gets their way, the bigger that liability becomes. (More fighting words and more to come.)

 

And equally serious....

 

Who would install a pipe organ...

 

... if they knew that it would end up being useless to its owners, taking up space and costing money for no benefit to the church?  

 

Scenario 2: Or as another example it may years later be in a church that regularly hosts concerts at which the organ is used, and can afford to expand the original specification with some showier stops such as extra reeds, mixtures and mutations. Those who organise and attend these concerts may be keen to fund such additions... This is exactly what is already happening in the case of the theatre organs owned by the Theatre Organ Society of Australia (TOSA). The TOSA instruments are being actively upgraded, exactly as would have happened had they remained in use in theatres. (Theatre organs were not only used in the silent movie era, but continued to be used and expected by audiences as entertainment before and after films and at intervals in the early years of "talkies".)

 

But in either of these scenarios, the original specification is no longer ideal. And in either case, if the organ is not updated, it will be less used, and possibly even disused. On the other hand, if ranks can be added or substituted to better serve its new functions, the instrument receives a new life and will be used and maintained.  

 

And in either case, if the OHTA hears of any proposal to modify the organ, they will organise determined opposition to it. That is their agenda. 

 

And if they succeed, it will needlessly doom the organ in question to irrelevance and eventual neglect. Which is a risk even without the help of the OHTA, but in my opinion their campaign makes it far more likely. By frustrating attempts to keep the organ useful in the changing circumstances, they change this risk into a near certainty.  

 

Rebuilt organs

 

See https://www.sydneyorgan.com/SAC1.html

 

Note that this instrument is now played not only in regular church services, but also in weekly recitals. The decision to modify the several organs that preceded it was a very good one. 

 

And I hope more such projects will follow. But that depends on either keeping such proposals secret from the OHTA, or alternatively bracing and organising for a determined fight with a formidable opponent. Which is nothing short of tragic, in my opinion.

 

Because if the OHTA had been able to prevent it, the current St Andrews organ would certainly not exist, and it is doubtful that its predecessors, which would probably still exist, would ever be played again. Those who decided to spend a considerable sum on amalgamating several inadequate organs in order to build the current instrument took this decision for very good reasons, and the point must be stressed that time has shown it to be a very good decision.  

 

Church organs in their context

Three very relevant things about church organs.

 

Firstly, they were and are paid for by the members of the church. They belong to the churches in which they have been built.

 

Secondly, they are intended for the support of the worship of the congregation. Those who raised the funds to build these instruments intended them to be maintained and used for worship, rather than frozen in time for the benefit of those whose hobby is the music of past years.

 

Thirdly, they are not the only instrument that benefits from maintenance that includes revising some of the original specification. The most spectacular example of this is probably the violin.

 

The violin as a comparison

When Stradivarius, the Amatis, and other famous violin makers of history were active, standard orchestral pitch was significantly lower.  

 

Hundreds of these instruments are still in use, by soloists and orchestra members worldwide. But not one of these is unmodified. Each has had its sound_post and bass_bar replaced so that they can now be tuned to the modern pitch. Without these simple modifications, they could not be tuned to the modern pitch.

 

The owners and players of these instruments are happy for them to have been modified in this way, and the consensus of violinists and luthiers is that these modifications can be performed by any competent violin maker, and that this will not in any way compromise either their tone or their value.

 

Thankfully there is (so far as I know) no Historic Violin Trust of the World dedicated to preventing the continued use and relevance of these precious instruments. Or if there is such a group, then equally thankfully it seems to be an utter failure. Were such a group to succeed, these instruments would largely disappear from use.

 

And in similar fashion, the antics of HOTA seriously threaten the future of the pipe organ. Which is ironic and very, very sad. And if they succeed in making modifying pipe organs so difficult that maintaining and installing them is just not worth the effort, that will be sadder still. 

 

What needs to be done

 

Churches that have or would like to have pipe organs need support

Perhaps we need a Church Organ Trust of Australia to support the maintenance and, dare I say it, the building of pipe organs in churches. And dare I say it, these new organs would mostly or perhaps all be hybrids, with lots of electronics and a few highly extended ranks.

 

The pipe organ should be a very good investment for many churches. Many if not most churches need an instrument that can play a bridal march at weddings in the way that the couple and their connections want to hear it. There are three instruments capable of this:

• A pipe organ.
• An electronic keyboard.
• A "pipeless organ" which is sales jargon for an electronic keyboard packaged so as to look, sound and play somewhat like a pipe organ. 

 

There are also as mentioned above hybrids from one manufacturer in particular which combine electronics and real pipes... these are my personal favourites in fact! I particularly love the concept of using extension ranks (as they do) and resolving borrowing collisions by seamlessly adding the missing pipes electronically (all of which are I imagine anathema to the OHTA). And the use of electronics even in a pure pipe organ makes them far more usable. Rather than having a complex process for programming thumbstops and foot pistons in a purely traditional action, and typically and understandably forbidding any student or visitor from tampering with the settings, electronics enable an organist to have an inexpensive personal card on which to store their personal settings and registrations without making any changes that affect other players.  

 

But those three are currently the main contenders... to restate them:

 

• pure pipe
• pure electronic
• pure electronic but limited to pipe sounds (described as a "pipeless organ" by its salespersons)

 

(I must give a plug here to one particular electronic keyboard which looks very much like a baby grand piano, has a fully weighted keyboard so feels like a piano, but also has double touch sensitivity aka "aftertouch" so it can mimic the "bebung" and other clavichord effects and provide some great human voice samples, allows layering of organ and piano or other sounds... I am not naming the manufacturer as probably several manufacturers offer such instruments but I have only run across one.) 

 

Of these three, the cost of ownership over time is greatest for the "pipeless organ" and least for the pipe organ. The lifetime of the electronic instrument (whether honest or "pipeless") is about ten years (after which it becomes more cost effective and often outright cheaper to replace it than to maintain it), while the pipe organ can be maintained indefinitely. (As can a good piano.)

 

Two churches of which I have been a member have installed "pipeless" organs. The cost in each case was tens of thousands of dollars. This bought some keyboards, processors, amplifiers and loudspeakers which would have cost a few thousand at most if bought separately (such as in a package that any good music shop can provide). The rest of the cost was for woodwork and salesmanship. (I'm obviously not a fan but was outvoted.) As I write, neither of these instruments is in use. One of them was. less than ten years after installation, replaced by an electronic keyboard as maintaining the "pipeless" organ had become both uneconomic and problematic at any price owing to its already obsolete technology (it was essentially a personal computer system unit with some specialised I/O cards). The other was lost in a fire, and there was no suggestion of installing a new "pipeless" organ, it was recognised from experience that the combination of a small electronic keyboard plus a good piano would both give better results and cost far less.      

 

But a pipe organ does need to be maintained. And that ideally includes ongoing modification to suit the ongoing needs of the congregation. If this maintenance is not performed, the pipe organ is a very poor investment for a church, and an honest electronic keyboard or a good piano, or preferably and realistically both, is a far better decision. This combination both gives a better initial result and comes at a far cheaper initial price.

 

And we can count on OHTA to provide well-organised resistance to this maintenance of a pipe organ. Again, I am obviously not a fan of this. If the OHTA has their way, then a new pipe organ is very poor investment for any church. 

 

And I am sure that those responsible for spending the money on new instruments for churches are noticing this. Having been in this position, I can report that the members of the OHTA strongly resisted the proposal to move a historic HNB organ from the church we were selling to the new church we were building. The end result is that the HNB is now derelict in the old church building, and it is most unlikely that the church will ever install a pipe organ in the section of the new building (now long completed) still reserved for it. There have been no realistic proposals to do so.

 

The obvious solution

Perhaps a Pipe Organ Builders Association of Australia?

 

It may not be called that. It may even already exist. There is an International Society of Organbuilders based in Belgium, but it does not appear to have an Australian chapter, and membership is in any case restricted to organ builders.

 

What is needed is an organisation to support Australian pipe organ builders. Many of them seem to be members of the OHTA, and that is up to them. Perhaps they can eventually persuade that Trust to change its current policy, which has the inevitable result if successful of putting all organ builders out of business. 

 

Organ builders have two lines of business... Building pipe organs, and maintaining them. But most of their business is in maintaining them. Those who support the current OHTA agenda do not seem to have noticed this.

 

An Organ Builders Association should encourage the building and maintenance of pipe organs. And that maintenance may include upgrading existing instruments to best meet the ongoing needs of the owners of these instruments, particularly churches. As noted above, the choice for these instruments is not preservation or alternatively modification, as the OHTA would like to think.

 

The choice is between maintenance and preservation, or destruction. A few pipe organs, such as the Sharp organs at Knox Grammar School and the Sydney Opera House, have non-church supporters who will pay for their ongoing maintenance, probably without further modification (the Sharp in the Opera House has already had its action replaced several times).

 

But nearly all pipe organs are in churches. The exceptions are mainly theatre organs, and their future is not in any doubt. And why this is so is a very informative comparison.

 

TOSA

There are a few pipe organs maintained by the Theatre Organ Society of Australia (TOSA), see https://www.tosa.net.au/. The activities of TOSA, while commendable, require such extensive and prioritised use of the building that they are not generally compatible with the activities of a church.

 

It should also be noted that TOSA is actively maintaining and improving all of their organs, continually expanding them. There is no suggestion that they should be frozen in time as museum exhibits, rather they are being maintained and developed as working musical instruments, preserving that tradition of pipe organs. Even as I write they have just recently added a new stop to one of their instruments (well, it's a cymbal roll, but in terms of this discussion it is a stop, just as the Zimbelstern on the Sharp organ in the Knox Grammar School chapel is a stop).

 

Church Organ Society of Australia?

So maybe a Church Organ Society of Australia?

(But not COSA for short as that name is already taken by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, see https://www.cosa.org.au/.) 

 

Other people's money

The OHTA like many lobby groups have made it their business to spend other people's money. And they are getting away with it to some extent. Churches are striving to maintain their historic instruments, which are are in some cases still perfect for the needs of the congregation.

 

But in most cases, if the organ is to maintain its relevance, it will eventually benefit from at least a little modification. And if this cannot be done, the losers will be both

• The churches who fail to maintain their pipe organs to meet the changing needs of their congregations, and eventually abandon this significant asset and investment (that's the inevitable and predictable result), and
• The organ builders who are denied or even persuaded to abandon the upgrade work that, (dare I say) historically, has been a large part or their business.       

 

Or am I missing something?

This is very much a work in progress, watch this space, and comments welcome whether positive, negative, inquisitive, or otherwise.