It's reassuring to know there are people out there, like Antoni, who have such high regard for significant and historic instruments. I share the sentiment whole-heartedly, and I can tell you that my colleagues at Dobson do, as well. Although the primary goal of our company is the building of new organs (some very fine and successful instruments, I must say), we also take on a good deal of restoration work, which no doubt includes some very unique and historically-significant organs.
http://dobsonorgan.com/html/instruments/resto_rebuild/mankato.htmlhttp://dobsonorgan.com/html/instruments/resto_rebuild/remsen/remsen.htmlhttp://dobsonorgan.com/html/instruments/resto_rebuild/clermont.htmlhttp://dobsonorgan.com/html/instruments/resto_rebuild/sthelena/sthelena.htmlhttp://dobsonorgan.com/html/instruments/resto_rebuild/spillville.html (Played by Antonin Dvorak himself during his stay in Iowa during the summer of 1893.)
And the use of the term "restoration" isn't used lightly. Many organ "builders" and service companies that undertake restoration work end up changing instruments entirely, making them almost unrecognizable tonally, mechanically, and even visually than the original builder had envisioned. That is not how our company operates. We, on the other hand, strive to be as faithful to the original instrument as we possibly can, reusing original materials/components, using period-appropriate materials/methods, not making unjust and unnecessary tonal alterations, and we certainly don't advocate for changing/updating an instrument or it's inner workings just because they are old and out-dated. The way I see it... we wouldn't want a different builder coming along and completely changing or disposing of one of our instruments, and likewise, we wouldn't want to do that to another builder, regardless of whether they are still around or long-gone. Unfortunately, this is not the case at Saint Thomas Church. The fact is, that has already happened in the past, on multiple occasions, to this organ.
Antoni's (shall we say 'constructive') criticism would not be undue if the Aeolian-Skinner at St. Thomas Church was the instrument today that G. Donald Harrison had left it, and even more so if it were the instrument that E.M. Skinner had originally conceptualized. However, that is not the case. This organ has a very sordid history, and through many alterations over the years (original wind chests replaced due to water/construction damage, many rounds of extensive re-voicing, complete ranks of pipework replaced altogether), the organ Antoni played 10 years ago, and the organ that was removed earlier this year, no longer accurately resembles the products of E.M. Skinner or Aeolian-Skinner. I will also add that, while I would have advocated for sampling the instrument before deconstruction, doing so would not have been an accurate representation, either, and doing so would not have saved a historic organ. It would have saved a once-historic organ that has been subsequently altered many times over it's life.
I also find arguments and comments that reference Gerre Hancock to be somewhat invalid. I feel these come from people who have no real connection with the project at Saint Thomas Church and don't know the history. I certainly can't speak on behalf of him, nor can anyone else, but I've also heard on numerous occasions that anyone who knew Gerre in any close regard knew that he, himself, was not satisfied with the instrument, always having to work around it's shortcomings, just as John Scott did and subsequent organists have done up until this date.
Please know that I don't mean to cause argument or to say "I'm right, you're wrong." Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and certainly everyone has their own tastes for what makes an organ "superb." Obviously, the folks at Saint Thomas Church did not share the opinion that their organ was superb, and yes, they made the ultimate decision to replace it with an instrument that suits their needs, and no one can deny them their right to make that decision. This project is many years in the making, and such decisions were not carried out on a whim, but were given very careful forethought and consideration, as has every detail of the the new instrument.
I must also say that this response isn't coming from Dobson Pipe Organ Builders on any formal behalf, but my own personal feelings. I won't idly sit by and let anyone paint the picture that some "new" organ company is coming along and destroying an instrument. This just isn't the case. In fact, the company's history of many successful instruments, careful attention to detail and design, and high quality of craftsmanship in all aspects is the reason for being chosen to build the new instrument.
I'd invite anyone to come and listen to (perhaps even play if opportunities arise) the new Dobson organ at Saint Thomas Church once it's completed. Sure, you may not like it (again, everyone has their tastes), but you also just might find that it's a vast improvement over the previous instrument.
Mon Aug 29, 2016 4:09 pm
