Partners in Preservation
          by Jonathan Ortloff

The mention of oral history usually conjures up images of native peoples, smoky, fire-lit nighttime scenes, and tales filled with mythic creatures and legendary human figures. The world of the fluorescent-lit organ chamber seems so diametrically removed from images such as these that oral history appears to have nothing to do with it. But in reality, much of the history of pipe organs, and theatre pipe organs specifically, is maintained in an oral tradition, passed along to each new generation. Oral history, however, has the inevitable attribute of altering the story it preserves. In the passing of information, memories can be hazy and details can be confused, ending with the kind of result we’re all familiar with after a long game of ‘telephone’ in which what comes out at one end bears little or no resemblance to what went in at the other. While in the game, this is of little consequence and is the whole amusing point, in history, this is a perilous example of degradation which confounds historians in the future, searching for vital details in a written primary document that doesn’t exist.

For four days beginning on October 11, the Eastman School of Music along with the American Organ Archives of the Organ Historical Society presented a festival in Rochester, New York which, among other aims, sought answers to the issue of lack of organic primary documentation. The festival, entitled New Dimensions in Organ Documentation and Conservation, featured as much playing as lecturing and brought into sharp focus the threats facing the pipe organ in the United States and the rest of the world, from arson and hurricane, to changing liturgical fashions and the growing proliferation of cheap electronic substitutes. More than simply pointing out the threats to this particular musical heritage, however, the lectures revealed the myriad steps being taken to preserve examples of the organ builder’s art.

With speakers from five different countries and from many different organological backgrounds, be it 17th-century Spanish organs or those by Skinner, all discussing the grave importance of respecting the very few instruments remaining as their builder intended, it quickly became apparent how universal the matter is. Sadly, none of the lectures focused specifically on the theatre pipe organ, when, in reality, that genre is one of the most threatened, be it by loss of audience, or the ever-changing tastes of players that dictate changing organs. In an article appearing in the July/August issue of Theatre Organ, the current author presented the current status of what could be called ‘preserved examples,’ ending up with a total of 44 instruments remaining in original condition.

But this is all so soporifically old hat. There isn’t much of a horse left to beat here anymore. What was novel, and in the end, every bit as important, if not more so, than the originality question, was the emphasis on documentation. As fewer and fewer original examples remain, what becomes more and more important is the documentation of steps taken in the years since their construction. Whether these steps are part of a strict restoration or a complete rebuild, what speakers at the conference stressed was the import of recording them as part of the instrument’s permanent record to inform future observers and stewards of the organ.

In this way, the question stops having anything to do with originality (the same practices were stressed for work done any organ, regardless of originality) and starts being about legacy and history, and is directly applicable to the theatre organ. Much of the work done on theatre pipe organs in the past fifty years is quite laudable, and yet untraceable: just another project on a Tuesday night for the crew. The keeping of records not only reveals how the organs have changed since originally built, but gives future generations clues about changing tastes in playing, and changing technical and maintenance practices.

In addition to this historical aspect, record keeping will surely prove to be more and more valuable as the generation that saved, moved, and maintained the 300 or so remaining theatre pipe organ over the past fifty years begins pass the torch to its successor. If the theatre organ is to survive into the future, its success depends on the continued understanding of the instruments from a technical point of view, leading to proper maintenance and functionality. Changes that were made thirty years ago may have a great effect on a current project to change or repair an organ. In the past, we have relied on the older members of the crew who were around when the changes were made to inform our decisions of how to proceed; without them to relate the details, we must turn to documentation. In the absence of documentation, especially in instruments as complex as the unit orchestra, modern day technicians can easily become confused and in the worst case, do something to an organ that clashes drastically with an earlier alteration.

Additionally, with most work being done on theatre pipe organs by local volunteers, the massive body of knowledge of the innumerable acts of maintenance lies in an oral tradition. Part of the documentation stressed at the Rochester conference was that of practical technical skills. That same work crew that has been working every Tuesday night for the past forty-three years has, collectively, honed its skill in maintaining and repairing a certain instrument, and to have all those skills described in one place, along with the rest of the organ’s history will again prove invaluable to future members of the crew.

As many of the organ builders and restorers at the festival pointed out, this sounds all well and good in practice, but in execution, it sounds like a bundle of extra work. By the end of the festival however, most agreed that while we will most likely not reap the fruits of the seeds we plant in documentation, it becomes more and more important as another tool against the threats of destruction facing pipe organs today. Making it part of the normal routine, whether in a computer program or a log book with details of what work was done, when, why, and by whom, and, importantly, how it was done, will ensure a record for an instrument that will assist its future stewards in ensuring it continues to play and draw audiences and players. And for the theatre organ crowd, proper documentation is just another way to demonstrate that even though our work is done by volunteers on those Tuesday nights, we take the work we do just as seriously.

While we can only hope that in another generation’s time there will be those around who care enough about the theatre pipe organ to be reading the record of our labors, we can assuredly say that if these records exist, our progeny will be better equipped not only to relate the rich history of these unique instruments, but also to ensure that they continue to make history.
 

© 2009 Jonathan Ortloff