High esteem for the pipe organ?

[keitha]

I was seeking to demonstrate that (i) what we actually have in our churches does not demonstrate that we really hold the organ (pipe or otherwise) in any great esteem and (ii) that, even where a reasonable amount can be afforded, the spending priorities of Catholics mean that we do not properly support our Church (in the widest sense, not just the building), let alone maintain the organs that we have, or acquire the one ones that we might like to have (assuming that we have sufficient esteem for the organ to want one in the first place!).

Emotionally, I sympathise with the argument that we should spend money on the relief of poverty rather than on an organ, however in 45 years of working in parishes (i) I have never seen a case where, conceptually, money that has not been spent on an organ (or any other similar project) has then been spent on the relief of poverty and (ii) where parishes have successfully raised significant amounts for such projects, they tend to be equally, or more successful at raising funds for the relief of poverty and similar good causes. My point is that a community that has high enough esteem for the organ tends also to have a real care for the church, including its role in apostolic and charitable works.

[Peter Jones]

(i) I have never seen a case where, conceptually, money that has not been spent on an organ (or any other similar project) has then been spent on the relief of poverty

Precisely!!!

A friend and colleague has recently spent getting on for £200,000 on an extension to his parish hall plus new parish office, loos, kitchen etc… "We should have spent this on the poor"??????

[Peter Jones]

I suggest we are seeking a balance of sorts and that the Curé d'Ars might help. He, who lived in poverty and simplicity and who raised great amounts of money for the care of orphans and other charitable activities, also lavished resources on the celebration of the Eucharist.

[Peter Jones]

2011 Wyvern Toccata III in house (to be installed in cathedral during restoration of Lewis organ

"We should spend this money on the poor"???

[Nick Baty]

So tell me then Nick, would you condemn this project? If so, why?

Yes, I would condemn it. The instrument would cost £200,000 to restore.
When restored it could not be used liturgically because of it's position – about as far away from cantor, choir and assembly as it could possibly be and, therefore, with an impossible timelag. (And, yes, I have tried it with me and organist using talkback but even then it was crazy!)

It's replacement cost £11,000, makes a superb sound and few can tell the difference – the console is near the celebrant, cantor and choir.

Or would you condemn the craftsmanship and architectural expertise that went into the new altar in St Chad's Cathedral a few years ago? That altar cost several tens of thousands of pounds.

I know nothing of the altar in St Chad's so I cant comment. However, an altar should be worthy of it's function. But pipes versus digital? There really is no argument here. The job of an organ is to help accompany the singing – do we really care what makes that sound?

[Southern Comfort]

When restored it could not be used liturgically because of it's position – about as far away from cantor, choir and assembly as it could possibly be and, therefore, with an impossible timelag. (And, yes, I have tried it with me and organist using talkback but even then it was crazy!)

No such thing as an impossible timelag with a competent organist who knows how to deal with such things. Not impossible, just difficult.

But pipes versus digital? There really is no argument here. The job of an organ is to help accompany the singing – do we really care what makes that sound?

I take it you'll have no problem, then, with PVC altar cloths, tatty paperback lectionaries and altar missals, electric candles, imitation wine, plastic altarbreads — oh wait a minute.....

[Nick Baty]

I take it you'll have no problem, then, with PVC altar cloths, tatty paperback lectionaries and altar missals, electric candles, imitation wine, plastic altarbreads — oh wait a minute.....

I'd be interested to know how one would digest plastic altarbreads. But when most of us cannot tell the difference in sound between pipes and digital, then I suggest the £190,000 difference is a major consideration.

[Nick Baty]

No such thing as an impossible timelag with a competent organist who knows how to deal with such things. Not impossible, just difficult.

And, in this case, pricey.

(i) I have never seen a case where, conceptually, money that has not been spent on an organ (or any other similar project) has then been spent on the relief of poverty

I have, Keitha. I know (very well) a parish in the south of England with a tiny Victorian church – many people were squashed onto to narrow benches around the walls on a Sunday morning. Being a wealthy parish, they had enough money in the bank to buy a new, bigger church. I was at the parish meeting when this was discussed – one parishioner was furious. How, he asked, could we condone spending so much money on this project so we were slightly more comfortable for an hour on a Sunday morning. Instead, a small proportion of the money was used to renovate the church and the rest given to the mission we supported (can't remember where, must check).

But there was still the problem of space. Then some bright spark – and, no, it wasn't me – noticed the amount of floor space taken up by the pipe organ. So the organ went – to another church in the diocese – and was replaced with a digital instrument. Now there was space for 20-30 more people. (By the way, this was the best singing parish I have ever worked.)

In the parish discussed earlier, had we asked our people for £200,000 to restore the organ, they would have found the money from somewhere – Liverpool people are like that. But how on earth do you ask people who have little, who struggle to feed and clothe their children, who run soup kitchens for the destitute, who give food and toiletries to immigrants, to find so much money for an instrument which will sound exactly like its digital replacement? Is that ethical? No, it isn't.

[alan29]

I always challenge people who play the "we should spend this on the poor" card .......Bit in bold - good grief!

I make no apology for the challenge ........ read the relevant Gospel passage quoted in JP II's letter. (My attitude is somewhat coloured by a plutocratic slug I once came across - who professed to be a Christian - but who wanted to keep the poor at the greatest distance from him as possible. A NIMBY. More than that I cannot say.)

Perhaps think of last Sunday's second reading from St James. It's the same challenge.

No, Peter. Its the idea that people with strong feelings about prioritising the poor are playing some sort of a card. Really won't do, you know.

[Dom Perignon]

This 'prioritising funding' diversion has now moved too far away from the topic and almost become an argument in itself. I think all 'angles' on this have had a decent airing and we should go back to the core question - the arguments for or against whether the [pipe] organ is, or should be held in high esteem.

[Nick Baty]

I would say the pipe organ is held in high esteem by some. I'm one of those who loves the sound of the pipe organ but I'm not a purist and am more than happy for that sound to be produced digitally. However, I agree with Peter that organs currently in decent condition should be maintained – that's good stewardship.

[Peter Jones]

No, Peter. Its the idea that people with strong feelings about prioritising the poor are playing some sort of a card. Really won't do, you know.

Are you now being deliberately obtuse? My point is that which keitha raised above. Those who say "we should spend this money on the poor" might not then spend any money on the poor at all. That's the point St James was making last Sunday and it is the point I am making.(and I am certainly NOT suggesting that any money for the poor be diverted into organ projects)

In your seeming moral outrage, may HallamPhil's cathedral both provide for the poor and refurbish its organ? Is that gravely sinful? Answer the question and justify your answer please.

You also seem to have confused discussion about your organ and the current project in Newcastle under Lyme. The Newcastle project does include a small "sanctuary" division for the accompaniment of cantors at or near the ambo. It is also costing a lot, lot less than £200,000. But even if it did cost that much, could that parish - in your way of thinking - continue its charitable activities and also pay for the organ? What about another cathedral that is showing high esteem for a pipe organ? See here on the new Tickell instrument in Newcastle upon Tyne: http://www.tickell-organs.co.uk/StMaryscathedralNewcastle.htm I should think that instrument is costing getting on for a million. What about the recent Leeds Cathedral/Klais project? http://www.dioceseofleedsmusic.org.uk/organs/leeds_cathedral.php Should that have been undertaken?

And please do not presume to lecture me about soup kitchens. For the five years I was in a city centre church, I hosted one every night on the church car park (and sometimes swept up after it). I also made sure that the church pipe organ was tuned and maintained.

My apologies to the moderators.

[Nick Baty]

Peter, that is unfair. Alan has not lectured you about soup kitchens. I think this is getting rather out of hand. We profess to be Catholics. Let's not start sounding like a bunch of Daily Mail readers.

[Dom Perignon]

I think that will do. Can someone please contribute something new on the original topic. Otherwise, I will lock this thread on the basis that it has run its course.

[Southern Comfort]

The flaw in Nick's argument about electronics is that he thinks the sound is identical. Actually it isn't.

While today's instruments are extremely good imitators of pipe organs, there are several reasons why even digital electronics, good as they are, will always take second place to a decent pipe organ.

Though digital electronics have now succeeded in matching the sonic characteristics oi ranks of pipes very closely (but see below), they have not yet solved the problem of attack and release. Attack is now very good. Release is the big give-away. Much more difficult, and actually digital reverberation exacerbates the problem. You can always tell the electronic because of the release characteristics.

Even the best sampled-sound digital instruments make use of short cuts. They do not use a different sample for each individual note, but work them in clusters, at least a few notes and often a whole octave of notes from a single sample.

The most compelling reason why digital instruments cannot reproduce exactly the sound of a pipe organ is physical. A few loudspeakers, or even a battery of them as Copeman Hart used to use, can still not reproduce what happens physically with pipes. The final chord of a big piece on full organ can have as many as 250 or more pipes, some of them very large, producing the sound. The electronic equivalent might be a half a dozen loudspeakers at most. A moment's thought will show that the amount of air moved by those few loudspeaker cones is miniscule compared with the columns of air moving inside those pipes. There is no way that the electronic can begin to move as much air as the pipe organ, and in order to produce the same volume the characteristics of the sound have to change. You can hear this even more clearly with electronic carillons, where the volume boosting is magnified even further. Listening to even the best digital electronic organ will always be like listening to a digital CD or broadcast of a pipe organ — close, but not identical.

The fact is that many electronic instruments have inadequate loudspeakers, compounding the problem. Many of them also have inadequate amplifiers, ditto ditto. It's not just the sound reproduction that's important, it's the sound diffusion. As a rule of thumb, the purchaser of an electronic instruments is advised to ask for an upgraded amplification system and as many high-quality speakers as s/he can afford. That, of course, increases the price more than somewhat.


Apart from the acoustic arguments, there are the financial ones. Yes, restoring a sizeable pipe organ for £200,000 is expensive. A new digital equivalent will cost the parish £30-35,000 — every fifteen to twenty years if not rather more frequently (think of the average lifespan of your computer). The financial arguments need to take into account long-term value for money, not short-term instant gratification.


Finally, there is an ecclesial argument. In 1938 the Congregation for Rites was asked to approve for liturgical use artificial tone generation instruments (Hammond organs). It declined to give approval, pending further investigation, and then along came World War II which put paid to that. As far as I am aware, that refusal to approve has not yet been superseded.