Documentation of Restorations

Christoph E. Hänggi studied musicology, arts and history in Basel and Zürich (Ph.D.), later obtaining his Executive Master in Corporate Management. He is a member of the Swiss Musicology Society and was from 1990 to 1992 Head of Music for a classical radio station in Switzerland. From 1993 to 2003 he worked for the Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG), where he became Director International of a BMG Classics label in Munich. In June 2003 he was appointed Director of the Museum der Musikautomaten in Seewen SO, which is under the aegis of the Swiss Federal Office for Culture.
David Rumsey studied organ in Australia, Denmark, France and Austria. He rose to a senior lectureship in the Australian university system from 1969–1998, also pursuing an international teaching, concert and consulting career as an organist. He worked in various cross-disciplinary fields, especially linking broadcasting, drama and music, arranging a number of major presentations and seminars. In 1998, after mounting a 14-hour spectacle on the life of Bach with actors in period dress and musicians playing historic instruments, he left Australia and settled around 2002 in Basel, Switzerland, where he continues to work as an organist and consultant.

Background
The Welte Company was a German firm, first established in 1832 at Vöhrenbach (in the Black Forest) by automata manufacturer Michael Welte (1807–1880). About 1865 he moved to Freiburg im Breisgau and registered there as M. Welte & Söhne. During the remainder of the 19th century, the firm expanded considerably and became particularly noted for its orchestrions. In 1904 Edwin Welte (1876–1958, grandson of the founder) invented the Vorsetzer, and from that By 1909 a recording organ had been built for Welte’s studios in Freiburg. The Philharmonie was displayed in November 1911 at the Turin Exhibition in Italy. Welte successfully went on to market player organs, cinema organs, cinema player organs and, later, when that market contracted during the 1930s, church organs. They issued punched paper roll recordings dated between 1912 and 1930 of performances by the great organists of the day, and sold them with considerable commercial success. From 1865–1917 they also ran a branch in New York (M. Welte & Sons) under Emil Welte (1841–1923, eldest son of the founder), but it was closed during World War I as an “alien enterprise.” Edwin Welte’s sister, Frieda, married Karl Bockisch (1874–1952), who was active in the firm from 1893 onwards. He later assumed a leading role and became a partner.
Player organs became status symbols of the rich. They were the epitome of home entertainment in their day and, along with orchestrions, were manufactured in both Europe and the USA by a number of specialist firms. Welte instruments were installed in homes, palaces, schools, department stores and one was apparently even in a luxurious “house of pleasure” (the Atlantic Garden orchestrion). Apart from Europe and the USA, Welte’s market is known to have extended to Turkey, Russia, China and Sumatra. The Sumatran instrument was broken up and lost in 1985.
Around 1926 Welte began to be threatened by a rapidly growing radio and recording industry. Business declined so much that in 1932 the firm only narrowly escaped bankruptcy. At this time they were also engaged in a collaboration with the Telefunken Company involving the development of electronic organs, using analog sampling, glass plates and photo-cells. It was a prophetic development for that time. The collaboration had to be terminated because Edwin Welte’s first wife, Betty Dreyfuss, was Jewish. Had Welte been successful, they might well have eliminated the Hammond organ from the pages of history.
World War II finally precipitated the total demise of the firm. Apart from being blacklisted by the Nazis, the Freiburg premises—all but a few scraps of stock, instruments and historical documents—were annihilated by Allied bombing in November 1944. The ruined Welte factory was something of a landmark next to the Freiburg railway station until the mid-1950s. No trace of it remains today—a housing estate replaced it.

Time lines

1902–3
Olympic and Titanic were first planned. Orchestrions and other mechanical musical instruments had long been available.

1908
December 16: Olympic’s keel was laid.

1909
Welte’s first Philharmonie recording organ was built in their Freiburg studios.
March 31: Titanic’s keel was laid.

1910
October 20: Olympic was launched.

1911
May 31: Titanic was launched; Olympic was delivered to the White Star Line.
November: the Philharmonie was publicly demonstrated at the Turin exhibition and the company’s order book opened.
November 30: Britannic’s keel was laid.

1912
April 1: Titanic’s trials first were scheduled.
April 15: Titanic’s sinking.
Work ceased on Britannic pending the Titanic inquiry, after which some changes to design were made, mainly safety items.
Welte first made their Philharmonie available in a range of specific models.

1913
Welte consolidated their organ designs, including modifications to their 1909 Freiburg recording organ, possibly on advice from Edwin Lemare (Kurt Binninger, 1987). Variant models became available in the same year, including the largest, as represented by the Seewen instrument, whose specification well matches the Freiburg recording organ of 1909. Manufacture began in earnest. This gave ample time to build Britannic’s organ. Since work on the ship was delayed, even more time became available.

1914
February 26: Britannic was launched and her fitting-out begun.
July 28: beginning of World War I.
August: the ship became subject to requisitioning by the Admiralty; work was again “slowed.”

1915
May: mooring trials were undertaken; Britannic was on standby for military service.
November 13: Britannic was officially requisitioned as a hospital ship and fitted out accordingly.
December 11: Britannic sailed to England and entered service on the 23rd.

1916
November 21: Britannic hit a German mine and sank off the Greek island of Kea (Tzia) in the Aegean Sea.

The Seewen Britannic organ
Until recently it was unclear exactly when the organ now preserved at the Museum für Musikautomaten was originally built. The museum contains a major collection dedicated to mechanical musical instruments and musical automata, and is located at Seewen, Switzerland (http://www.landesmuseen.ch/e/seewen/index.php). 1912–1920 were the considered limits since such instruments had only just come out of their development stages in 1912, and the Seewen instrument was definitely known to have existed by 1920. Internal evidence such as specification, roll formats, pipe construction, comparison with similar instruments and known availability led us to moot a dating of about 1913 as most likely.
It is a variant of Welte’s “Grundmodell V–VI,” having a two-manual and pedal console with stop tabs and a roll-mechanism for automatic playing. From 1920 it is well documented. However, signposts to its pre-1920 history turned up in the course of restoration work during March 2007. In cleaning some normally unseen wooden beams around the original windchests, the word “Britanik” was found inscribed in four places. By late May 2007, more inscriptions were found, bringing the total to six.
The console is not, or not completely, original. An earlier console would naturally have been modified or even replaced in 1920 or 1937 when the organ was slightly enlarged. The present console, however, gives the impression of having re-utilized at least some of the earlier components.

Organs aboard ships
During the mid-19th century, beginning with calliopes, keyboard musical instruments increasingly came to be featured on the river boats, yachts and ocean liners of Europe and North America. Jules Verne’s 1869–70 novel Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea contains a reference to Captain Nemo playing a pipe organ installed on his ship Nautilus. From fiction to fact took a little time. Harmoniums and grand pianos were featured in such vessels as the Cunard line’s Campania and Lucania (both 1893). Campania even had false pipes arranged, as was sometimes the custom with harmoniums, to make it look like a pipe organ. The race for luxurious on-board musical entertainment was gradually intensified. It became a serious pursuit in the greatest luxury liners of the early 20th century. In their catalogue of c1913–14, Welte identified and illustrated a number of piano and organ installations, including player pianos such as the Welte-Mignon, aboard yachts and ships. Their New York branch installed at least one orchestrion, “operated by electric motor,” aboard the Pocahontas, an American river boat.
But the largest of ships’ organs was destined to be the Britannic’s organ. Others, mainly on vessels of the White Star Line or Lloyds, but including some private yachts such as Howard Gould’s steam yacht, “Niagara,” which also featured a Philharmonie, are well chronicled in these catalogues. The Aeolian company was also involved in ships’ organs. Documents exist showing that the Britannic was originally intended to have a player organ from Aeolian.
Of the White Star Line’s three great “Olympic” class ships—Olympic, Titanic and Britannic—there is neither evidence nor suggestion that Olympic ever had an organ. With the later ships, however, there are different stories to be told.

Titanic
On-board entertainment was an important item in the inventory of luxuries aboard these ocean liners. Titanic had no less than four uprights and one grand piano. In the light of this, oft-repeated suggestions that “an organ” was planned, built, or even installed aboard Titanic, cannot be ignored. There are said to be survivors’ reports of an organ that “played” (Internet Site 1—see below). The detail is vague and the report is seriously questioned. If it has any credibility at all, then we might extract from it that “played” might suggest an orchestrion aboard. It does not discredit other reports, although a second instrument aboard is highly unlikely and has never been suggested. If an organ was installed, then it now lies with the wreck and all claims of a surviving instrument “built too late” are completely errant.
There is an interesting consistency in perpetuation of a belief that the Titanic’s organ was not completed in time for the voyage. A number of collections in North America and Europe possess orchestrions claimed to be “built too late to share the ship’s fate.” Certainly, if there is any element of truth in this, then it was probably an orchestrion. These were available for decades before Titanic was conceived. The Deutsches Musikautomatenmuseum at Bruchsal in Germany has one. It is sometimes claimed that an undated letter from Ilse Bockisch (widow of Karl, his second wife, married in 1932) associates it with Titanic. The letter leaves many unanswered questions.
Suggestions have been made (Internet Site 1) that a Philharmonie was originally intended for Titanic. Welte’s Philharmonie was not offered for sale until some eight months after Titanic’s launching. A specific model was further out of the question until immediately prior to Titanic’s sea trials. The idea that Welte catalogue illustrations (see later) were of a Philharmonie organ aboard Titanic is thus ruled out by the time lines. The earliest known illustration is from 1913–14, well after Titanic’s sinking. If there is any credibility at all here, then the only possibility was an installation after the maiden voyage.
Most evidence points against an organ or orchestrion ever belonging to Titanic. Expert researchers, such as Günter Bäbler and Mark Chirnside, have looked into this matter exhaustively. Both are emphatically of that opinion.

Britannic
By contrast, evidence for an organ intended for Britannic is overwhelming. There is an interesting existing reference to an Aeolian organ with two chests for music rolls in the Britannic’s specification book. There is no evidence that these plans ever proceeded. Illustrations in Welte’s catalogues are renderings that are so accurate that they appear to be or have been made from photographs. The firm variously identifies them as “Welte-Philharmonie aboard a large English steam ship” and “Welte-Philharmonie aboard S. S. Britannic.” Surviving architects’ sketches, now preserved in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, show exactly the same organ case in the stairwell area of Britannic. The ship’s plans allocate this space as “ORGAN.” Seewen’s organ has “Britanik” inscribed in at least six places.
The dimensions of the original Seewen organ have been carefully checked against the ship’s plans. It fits exactly into the space allocated.

Time and space considerations
What was possible? Plans survive for all three ships showing their main stairwell areas. These are virtually identical, except that on Britannic a rectangular space identified with the word “ORGAN” was added, jutting out into the stair area. Any of these three ships could easily have had this modification, but only plans for Britannic include it. A Philharmonie Grundmodell V–VI could have fitted into this space on any of them.
Orchestrions generally take little more ground space than an upright piano. They typically had about 260 pipes, whereas a Philharmonie V–VI could have over 2,000 pipes. Orchestrions and salon organs the size of Bruchsal’s (and the other Titanic claimants seem to be of commensurate size) could have been placed almost anywhere aboard these ships. These would not have required identification in architects’ plans; detailed accommodation plans show nothing of this kind.
Even assuming for a moment that the reports of a Welte Titanic organ were true, which organ was too late? Certainly not one of their mass-produced instruments. Orchestrions, having been in production for years, should either have been in stock or available on very short notice. This meant that delivery of such a salon organ should have been easily achievable. It could not be entirely ruled out that delays in development of the Philharmonie might be the issue here. For what it is worth, Ilse Bockisch’s letter describes a failed attempt to deliver “an organ” to Titanic at Southampton. Her letter leaves open too many questions to be trusted as a basis for firm conclusions in this context.
We must conclude that Jules Verne’s idea was best going to be realized with Britannic.

Discussion points
A Welte catalogue of around 1914 has an illustration captioned “Welte-Philharmonie-Orgel an Bord eines grossen engl.[ischen] Dampfers” (“Welte-Philharmonie aboard a large English steamer”). The vessel is not identified by name. The illustration is very lifelike, although some background detail differs from the known architecture of the ship. Another Welte catalogue from about this time reproduces this but now unequivocally identifies it as “WELTE-PHILHARMONIE-ORGEL auf S. S. Britannic der White Star Line” (“Welte-Philharmonie on the White Star Line’s steam ship Britannic”). (See page 26.) The architect’s sketch in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum and the Welte illustrations show identical organ casework. These all clearly identify ship, organ, size and placement. They show the casework fully in place. Both captions expressly state that the organ was “aboard.” This suggests its presence behind the case. Since a responsible and proud firm repeated this in at least two catalogues, it can leave no doubt that the organ was a Philharmonie and that it probably was installed. No final proof either way is yet to hand.
Time lines easily allow this. By February 1914 there was ample time to build and transport the organ. By the end of July there was also time to install and remove it. The illustrations appear to have been the property of Welte themselves, so all evidence points to the instrument being at least in preparation for, or process of, installation by summer 1914.
The two-story space near the stairs offered ideal dimensions for an organ the original size of Seewen’s. Britannic’s Philharmonie could easily have been finished in Freiburg by late 1913 and moved to Belfast, arriving sometime between March and July 1914. We do not know whether the main staircase was installed before then. The portrayed roll player hints at a console and possibly the wind apparatus being located underneath, with windchests and pipes on top. The apparent width of the roll in the illustration lines up well with the dimensions of Welte’s Philharmonie V–VI rolls: the paper was 390mm wide and there were flanges on either side.
Welte may well have used a hybrid pneumatic-electric action. The company is reported (Binninger 1987) to have used electric actions in “larger organs” and “where consoles were detached.” Welte had developed electro-pneumatic actions as early as 1885, one of the first firms ever to master this technology. Arguments in favor of a fully pneumatic original action also exist. The two main manuals of the almost contemporary three-manual organ at Tunbridge Wells (see Appendix) are pneumatic. Although it is unclear until 1937, the Seewen organ does appear to have always had a hybrid action. Experts such as Peter Hagmann fully acknowledge this possibility and, having searched, can find nothing to disprove it.
Another photograph, from 1916, shows Britannic fitted out for wartime service. Explanations accompanying this photograph refer to a very basic state of furnishing—just white-painted metallic walls. Woodwork from the stairwell later appeared as collectors’ items. Stored items from the ship were publicly auctioned in Belfast in 1919, and many are still preserved in private ownership. This indicates that the internal outfitting of the ship was probably advancing at the time that possible requisitioning became an issue during August 1914.
Although the Welte catalogues show the roll-playing mechanism, no keyboard is apparent. This might lead to a belief that this instrument was a large orchestrion. However, Welte calls it a Philharmonie. This specifically meant that it had a keyboard. The ship’s plans unequivocally identify its space as “organ.” It is instructive to compare the design with the Welte-Philharmonie at the Salomons Centre, Tunbridge Wells, England. This has pipes above and console below, flanked by pillars. The console is on the inside, screened off from the auditor. It is exactly the arrangement with Welte’s organ for Britannic, only decorative details differ and the specifications are very similar.

Installation aboard Britannic 1914
The overall period during which the organ could logically have been installed was February 26 to late summer 1914. This is far more time than an installation would have required. Britannic’s final requisitioning theoretically allowed until November 1915 for de-installation, although Welte staff could hardly have remained or returned then. We do not yet know if anybody from Welte was in Belfast, so we simply cannot say if installation was proceeding or completed before late July 1914. Welte’s illustrations and captions prima facie support the notion that it was.
If Karl Bockisch was in Ireland for the installation, then he may have had to return quickly to Germany with the imminent outbreak of war. Edwin Welte was pursuing an extremely busy traveling schedule, especially across the Atlantic, although he was known to be “in England” (which could include Northern Ireland) at about this time. In 2005 some missing documentation that might clarify the firm’s travel arrangements came into the possession of Gerhard Dangel of the Augustiner Museum, Freiburg, but it has so far proven inconclusive. There is evidence that the Welte family traveled on the German steamer, the Kronprinzessin Cecilie, in September 1912 (this ship also had a Welte-Mignon piano aboard), but no records have yet been found clarifying the movements of Welte employees. Since they were quite itinerant, we must assume these records are now missing. Further clarification as to whether Bockisch or his team were ever in Ireland seems now dependent on finding something of this kind or from dives to the wreck planned for 2008.
Welte staff would rapidly have found themselves behind enemy lines by July 28, 1914. The inscriptions “Britanik” and “Salomoons” in the Salomons Centre organ at Tunbridge Wells make it clear that Welte identified their clients and organs in this way, a practice already established for their pianos and pneumatic roll player devices.

1917–19
There is a lack of surviving documentation that might indicate the fate of the organ between 1914 and 1919. Since Britannic sank in 1916, the organ could not be returned to her. After the war, in the natural course of events, ownership and other details had to be sorted out. White Star Line—no doubt in some disarray with the loss of two of its three most prestigious ships—had no further use for it. So the instrument (with or without casework) would have been available for sale, presumably around 1919, allowing for decisions, communications and paperwork (and possibly transportation back from Belfast).
There were negotiations between shipping company, state and insurance brokers that lasted until 1919 when final damages were paid and an auction of remaining items took place. The organ, being a part of this, would not have been available for sale until all was finalized. It probably elucidates the timing of its sale in 1920. As far as we can currently ascertain the organ was not mentioned in the inventory of items for auction in Belfast mid-1919. A Steinway piano thought to have been lost with the ship, was found after government compensation for the ship’s loss had been agreed in 1917. It was then offered for sale “as Admiralty property,” after which all traces of it disappear. An organ would have been even more obvious. We can only assume that the organ was not part of the compensation negotiations and therefore was either still or once again in Welte’s possession in Freiburg in 1919.

From 1920 onwards
Around 1920, an organ was sold by Welte to Dr. August Nagel (1882–1943) for his residence. Nagel began a highly successful camera manufacturing business in 1908 that later became the “Contessa” brand. He was a great music lover and lived in a magnificent villa in Stuttgart. In 1926 his business went to the Zeiss-Ikon concern. In 1928, he founded another camera manufacturing company that flourished in spite of hard times. This was taken over by Kodak in 1932. No photographs have yet been located of the instrument in Nagel’s possession. Indeed, the apparent absence of even one photograph of this organ is curious for a camera manufacturer: one reason could be that the organ simply was not visible and had no casework to photograph (see later). It seems that the new owner had two small supplementary windchests built to accommodate some additional stops.
Nagel returned the organ to Welte in 1935 for reasons that are now unclear. In 1937, after work on it in their Freiburg workshop, Welte sold it on to Dr. Eugen Kersting (1888–1958), owner of “Radium GmbH,” an electrical manufacturer. Werner Bosch (1916–92), German organ builder, worked on it as a young employee of Welte’s at the time. It was installed in the Radium Company’s Concert and Meeting Hall in Wipperfürth, Germany. Changes were made at Kersting’s request—mainly two reed ranks added and some interesting but small concessions made to organ reform movement principles. Once again modifications to suit a client were a normal part of Welte’s operation. The original Wienerflöte was replaced by a Harmonieflöte (also by Welte), and somewhat miraculously all pipes of both stops have survived. The Wienerflöte can now be returned to its proper (and original “Britannic”) configuration. There was again no sign of earlier original casework: a simple but elegant wooden grille appeared in Wipperfürth.
Towards the end of World War II, in 1945, water damage occurred as a result of bombing. The instrument survived this quite well and was offered for sale through Werner Bosch during the 1960s. No buyers were forthcoming. In 1961 it was used to make an important LP recording, issued in English-speaking circles as Reger plays Reger. The organ was selected as the best available for this purpose, having a specification capable of closely reproducing organists’ registrations on the original Freiburg recording organ.
By 1969, after the meeting room had been turned into a storeroom and the organ had become an encumbrance, it was to be sold for scrap. Heinrich Weiss-Stauffacher (*1920), who owned a collection of automatic musical instruments that later formed the basis of the Seewen collection, was informed. He acquired the organ at the last minute and, in somewhat dramatic circumstances, packed and moved it carefully to its present home. There, after renovation, its re-inauguration was celebrated on May 30, 1970.
During its removal to Switzerland, Bosch’s experience was critical in ensuring its preservation and proper functioning. He and Basel organ builder Bernhard Fleig helped Weiss with the re-installation and subsequently also its maintenance. Apart from normal wear and tear, the organ has remained in good original condition, with few losses or changes.

The restoration
Years of investigation into these instruments (and submissions from experts and organ builders) began in 1998 with the Seewen organ’s removal and storage while the museum prepared for extensions. These created much needed additional space, partly to properly accommodate and display the organ.
The restoration contract was awarded to Orgelbau Kuhn, Männedorf, in 2006. In early 2007, in the course of restoration, the “Britanik” inscriptions began to show up around the original windchests. The beams were carefully checked to see if they might have belonged to another organ. However, all experts—two highly experienced organ builders, the museum director, its conservator and the organ consultant—independently concluded that the beams and the organ were part of the same original instrument.
Very few relevant Harland and Wolff (shipbuilders of Belfast, Ireland) and essentially no Welte records have survived. However, all evidence overwhelmingly points to the Britannic and Seewen organs being one and the same instrument, little changed in its 90 years of existence. The Britannic’s pipework, windchests, console and possibly the action are all either fully original or have been only slightly modified, overwhelmingly by Welte themselves. The organ’s 1920 and 1937 forms are fully valid Welte configurations, developed out of their Grundmodell V–VI. In the few cases of missing or damaged pipework, replacement has been arranged with surviving original Welte pipework or pipes carefully reconstructed to the firm’s manufacturing methods and standards.
The Seewen/Britannic organ is today probably the most typical, intact and best preserved of its size and kind. So far as is currently known, there is only one other Philharmonie of comparable size, Freiburg manufacture and with tonal resources capable of doing justice to the full-sized rolls (Tunbridge Wells, see Appendix below). The collection of rolls at Seewen—nearly 1,300 of them—is well in excess of any other existing collection currently known.

The fate of the organ’s original casework
Welte’s case designs are not noted for standardization, although stylistically they are mostly consistent with their epoch. Cases and organs are sometimes sold separately. No surviving organs or photos show other Welte instruments with casework in the style of Britannic’s.
Welte also specialized in installations in basements, attics and “adjacent rooms,” the organs speaking through holes in walls or floors. This may well have been the reality with Nagel’s residence and might explain a lot in this connection—e.g., the suitability of an organ on offer without a case and the absence of case photographs. Since the Philharmonie was totally enclosed in a swell-box, façade pipes, where they existed, were always “dummies.”
Was the casework removed with the refit to a hospital ship? The photo of the bare-walled area can but indirectly suggest that it was not there. Simon Mills’s Britannic Foundation, now owners of the wreck, believe that whatever was installed—probably not much—was simply covered up and left in place. Reports of Jacques Cousteau’s divers who went down there in 1976 could point to the organ case still being present. They identified “an organ” and reported “metal organ pipes.” The value of these reports has been questioned—indeed the rendering published by Welte in their catalogues hints at wooden pipes or just simple slats of wood, “pipe look-alikes.” If the Cousteau report turns out to be true, then that could hint that the organ was at least partially installed when hostilities began.
An exhibition in Kiel, Germany in mid-2007 reconstructed the Titanic’s stairwell. Given that the three ships’ designs were essentially identical here, it was clear that the organ could be installed or removed with its façade in place. Being a totally enclosed instrument, the façade was purely decorative. The Britannic Foundation has undertaken more recent dives to the Britannic wreck and is currently planning another for about mid-2008 when currents are favorable. The area where the organ was to be placed will then be very closely investigated.
Effectively, Britannic’s casework has now completely disappeared. It is either, as per the Cousteau hint, barnacle-encrusted some fathoms under the Aegean Sea, or it was destroyed, saved in an unknown location, or broken up for use in other organ façades.

The motor and blower
Speculation of wind-raising using Britannic’s steam power sometimes arises (Internet Site 3). The availability of electric power, and potential evidence of a possibly original blower and electric action argue very strongly against steam. In fact, steam was rarely used as motive power for organ blowing. Even then it was associated more within the period of 1812–85 than the early 20th century.
An old motor and blower has survived with the organ. No dates are evident. The motor is rated at 220 volts DC and was made by Meidinger of Basel. The firm was established in the late 19th century and located not far from Welte in Freiburg. Their records only date back to about the 1960s. From its serial number, we only know that it was certainly made before then. Both motor and blower are being restored as part of the historically conscious approach to the project. It is interesting to observe that it is rated at 220 volts DC and the ship’s electric supply came from four 400 kW steam generators, each providing 100 volts DC. Expert opinion informs us that the voltage difference from running two generators in parallel—sensible electrical engineering with two in parallel and two in series—to provide 200 volts is not critical to the operation of this motor. The organ’s wind supply is designed as a regulated system and virtually never needs the full amount of wind (over-) supplied by the blower. Two experts also independently estimated that the motor itself is “probably early 20th century.” Thus, it is just possible that this motor and/or blower could have come down from the original Britannic installation.
From about 1885, a growing preference for power reticulation using alternating current was beginning to overtake that of direct current. By 1913–1914, AC might normally have been the prime choice for such a motor, but the fact that the ship’s supply was DC must have determined a DC motor. This further supports the possibility that the surviving blowing installation at Seewen could have been that of Britannic.?

Appendix

Seewen and similar known surviving Welte-Philharmonie
player organs
Full 150-note functioning Welte player mechanisms appear to survive in no more than ten organs worldwide. Details are scarce, so only tentative information can be offered as set out below. In the September 2006 issue of Mechanical Music, Durward R. Center published an article entitled “Welte Orchestrions / The Age of Opulence.” In it he reports that only two “fully pneumatic” organs (of an equivalent type to Seewen) still exist. Some of Welte’s organs originally had hybrid pneumatic-electric actions, so the field might be extended slightly in this direction without conflict to the general notion of a “Welte-Philharmonie.” (The term “pneumatic organ” is sometimes used to indicate that a player mechanism was attached; cf. “pneumatic” when used to differentiate action types, e.g., electric, electro-pneumatic, mechanical.) Welte’s Grundmodell V–VI had a basic specification of about 23/II+P (23 stops, two keyboards and pedals). The Freiburg recording organ after 1912–13 was about 28/II+P. A degree of discreet borrowing and extension was normal practice in all of these instruments (and less “discreet” in smaller organs and orchestrions). As far as we are aware, however, of Welte’s full-sized (with 150-note tracker bars) roll-playing organs left in the world today, only about eight seem to be of original Freiburg manufacture.

Seewen
The Seewen basic specification after 1937 is 37/II+P. (With retention of both Harmonieflöte and Wienerflöte, the 2007 specification became 38/II+P). This includes extended and borrowed ranks normal to Welte practice. Stop nomenclature is German; the stop-tabs are uniform and fit comfortably across the top of the keys, although some of the new stops added have been placed out of sequence to the right of the earlier stop-tabs. This suggests that the basic console dates from earlier and was only modified in 1937. A collection of about 1,300 rolls is associated with this organ. Organists include Harry Goss-Custard (150 rolls), Edwin Lemare (87), J. J. Nater (84), Paul Mania (76), Kurt Grosse (58), Alfred Hollins (47), Joseph Bonnet (44), William Wolstenholme (39), Walter Fischer (37), Eugène Gigout (35), Thaddäus Hofmiller (31), Herbert Walton (30), William Faulkes (29), Samuel A. Baldwin (26), Clarence Eddy (20), Karl Matthaei (17), Franz Joseph Breitenbach (16), Alfred Sittard (15), Paul Hindermann (13), Marco Enrico Bossi (12), Max Reger (11), Marie-Joseph Erb (11), Günter Ramin (8), Karl Straube (7), and Marcel Dupré (7), among others.

Tunbridge Wells
Residence of David Salomons, Salomons Centre, Tunbridge Wells, England. This organ also dates from c1913–14 and is virtually a twin to that at Seewen. The basic specification is 27/II+P, pneumatic player, pneumatic action. It has, however, a third manual, an Echo division of five stops (remotely placed with electric action), bringing it to 32/III+P. Extended and borrowed ranks normal to Welte practice also exist here. A most valuable survivor, its basic specification includes the full Philharmonie Grundmodell V–VI stops, with resources that sometimes differ slightly from Seewen’s. Apart from the Echo-division, the percussion accessories in particular show some variance, e.g.,“tubular bells” in place of Seewen’s “Harfe” and “Glocke” registers. The console was required, as per the contract, to be modeled on English systems—pistons rather than fixed combinations, manual compasses reaching to 61 notes instead of 58, stop-knobs rather than rocker-tabs, and the stop nomenclature is entirely English. There is no crescendo pedal. Even so, the general size and layout is remarkably similar to Seewen’s. It plays rolls of two sizes, accepting also the Welte #10 orchestrion rolls, the largest orchestrion rolls Welte ever made, and is apparently the only player for them still functioning. A collection of about 150 full-sized Philharmonie rolls is associated with this organ. See website: <http://www.maesto.com/US/welteinstruments.html&gt;.

Other instruments
• a 25/II+P Welte-Philharmonie, from a collection that belonged to Jens Carlson, is now in the Mechanical Musical Instrument Museum at Elm, Germany (Stiftung Museum mechanischer Musikinstrumente Königslutter am Elm).
• formerly at Linz am Rhein, Germany. Also a smaller Philharmonie organ than Seewen, 21/II+P, recently moved to the USA. This organ was used for an EMI CD recording set issued as 7243 5 74866 2 0. It was built in 1925 for the Villa of Lady Burton of England in Cap de Antibes, southern France. Horst King und Sohn restored it for the Linz Museum in 1984/85. Laukhuff of Weikersheim delivered a purely decorative case for it.
• Siegfrieds Mechanisches Musikkabinett, Rüdesheim, Deutschland. The console has the Freiburg firm’s nameplate attached. Two of Wendel’s publications give “around 1922” as its date of construction. 21/II+P with “Harfe und Glocken.” Currently “partially restored.”
• Deutsches Musikautomatenmuseum at Bruchsal (in the “Welte-Saal.”) As well as the so-called Titanic organ, there is a 20/II+P Welte-Philharmonie dating from 1924 in this collection. See their website: <http://www.landesmuseum.de/website/&gt;.
• The Schloss Meggenhorn instrument near Luzern in Switzerland. 19/II+P (with borrowing and extension) probably built 1915–20. An associated roll collection of 104 items features Max Reger, Karl Matthaei, Eugène Gigout, Marcel Dupré and others. The instrument was restored by Orgelbau Kuhn.
<http://www.orgelbau.ch/site/index.cfm?fuseaction=orgelbau.orgelportrait…;
• Tuxedo Park, New York (also made in the USA), at the Spedden residence. Members of the Spedden family were survivors of the Titanic. The organ is still in its original location. It was recently restored by the Kegg Organ Company. 15/II+P of Freiburg manufacture. Year of manufacture is not known at this stage.

Other, related installations (excluding cinema organs):
• An interesting player organ exists at the former Krupp Residence in Essen, Germany at Villa Hügel (now a museum and concert venue). It began as an American Aeolian organ with 9/II+P. In 1914 an Aeolian player mechanism was added. 1921 and 1928 saw the instrument enlarged to 14 stops by Welte, with one of their player mechanisms substituted for that of Aeolian. It was restored in 2003 by Orgelbau Klais of Bonn. Associated with it is a collection of about 110 usable rolls recorded by Ramin, Straube, Sittard, Mania, Lemare and Reger—a repertoire surveying Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Gluck, Händel, Haydn, Liszt, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Reger, Schubert and Wagner. Five rolls are of popular music. These appear to duplicate many rolls in the Seewen collection, as would be expected, bearing in mind the Welte catalogue marketing system. The Orgelbau Klais website has details: <http://www.orgelbau-klais.com/m.php?tx=52&gt;.
• A Welte player mechanism—also a 150-note tracker bar—was added in 1931 to the Willis organ at Blenheim, England. There appears to be an associated collection of some 80 remaining rolls, said to be by English organists.
• Technik Museum, Speyer, Germany. 36/III+P manufactured in the USA. Dating from 1916, it must have been one of the last instruments, and the largest, built there before Welte’s New York branch in Poughkeepsie was closed down. Renovated in 2001. A collection of over 600 rolls is associated with it. See <http://www.museumspeyer.de/&gt;.
• An organ under restoration (2006) for the Swiss dealer Hanspeter Kyburz by organ-builder Remi Steis of Germany. It is also of U.S. manufacture. It additionally bears a “W. W. Kimball” company reference underneath Welte’s on its nameplate. It is a II+P organ with much extension and borrowing somewhat reminiscent of cinema organ practice.
• A Welte-Philharmonic of nine ranks built pre-1926 in the studio of Barker Bros.’ department store in Los Angeles, then variously in the possession of Anita Baldwin, South Pasadena Masonic Lodge (1930) and Kyle B. Irwin (1999). Apparently of U.S. manufacture with much extension and borrowing. Barker Bros. eventually owned a total of four Weltes.

Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude for the many personal telephone, verbal and e-mail communications received. Special mention is made of
Günter Bäbler, Titanic-Verein Schweiz (http://www.titanicverein.ch)
Andrew Baghurst, Adelaide, Australia
Nelson Barden, Boston, USA (http://www.nbarden.com/)
Durward R. Center, Baltimore, USA
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England (www.markchirnside.co.uk)
Gerhard Dangel, Augustiner-Museum Freiburg, Deutschland
Malte Fiebing, Titanic-Verein Deutschland (http://www.titanicverein.de)
Brooke Green, Tasmania
Bernhard Häberle, Gesellschaft für Selbstspielende Musikinstrumente, Germany
Georg Hofmeier and Gesellschaft des Museums für Musikautomaten, Seewen (GMS)
Philipp Klais, Orgelbau Klais, Bonn, Germany
Brett Leighton, Linz, Austria
Ken Marschall (http://www.kenmarschall.com)
Michail Michailakis, Greece
Simon Mills (Britannic Foundation) England (http://www.thebritannicfoundation.org.uk/)
Bernhard Prisi, Seewen, Switzerland
Wolfgang Rehn and Ueli Schärer, Orgelbau Kuhn, Männedorf, Switzerland
Rico A. Reinle, Münchenstein, Switzerland
Elizabeth Rumsey, Basel, Switzerland
Heinrich Weiss and Susanne Weiss, Seewen and Basel, Switzerland
Matthias Wunderlich, Essen, Germany

Since 1968, Francesco Ruffatti has been a partner, along with his brother Piero, of Fratelli Ruffatti—Ruffatti Brothers Family of Artisans—of Padova, Italy. The firm is involved in the restoration of historic organs and the construction of new pipe organs, and has worked for decades in Italy and many other countries, including the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Mexico, and Sweden. Francesco Ruffatti holds the position of tonal designer with the company. He supervises the design of construction parameters of the pipe stops and their voicing. He is involved directly in the study, cataloguing, and restoration of voicing, and researching the temperament of the pipework of ancient organs undergoing restoration. He has co-authored several publications and has written articles in this area of expertise for both Italian and American journals, including “Gaetano Callido, Organbuilder in Venice,” The Diapason, December 1998, and “The Historical Italian Organ—Tradition and Development,” The Diapason, June 2001. He has also participated as a speaker at numerous conferences. A two-term past president of the Association of Italian Organbuilders, Francesco Ruffatti is currently teaching restoration practices and the theory and practice of flue and reed voicing at the school for organbuilders of the Lombardy region in Crema, Italy. Fratelli Ruffatti is a member of both the Association of Italian Organbuilders and the International Society of Organbuilders. Judit Angster comes from the famous Hungarian organbuilder family Angster. She holds a Diploma and PhD in physics. Since 1986, she has been engaged primarily in pipe organ research. Since 1992, she has been working for the Fraunhofer Institute (IBP) in Stuttgart, Germany, as head of the “Research Group of Musical Acoustics,” where, among other things, important European research projects were carried out in close cooperation with organ building companies. From 1994 until 2003, she taught classes in acoustics for master craftsman courses (the highest level of education and training) for organ building at the Federal College of Organ Building in Ludwigsburg, and intensive advanced training courses for pipe organ and church acoustics at the Fraunhofer Institute (regular workshops for further education of organ experts). She also lectures in acoustics at the University of Stuttgart and at the University of Music and Fine Arts in Stuttgart. Dr. Angster is President of the Technical Committee of Musical Acoustics of the German Society of Acoustics (DEGA) and a member of the Executive Board Council of the German Society of Acoustics (DEGA). She is the author of 115 publications in scientific/technical journals, conference proceedings, etc., ten patents, one book, 113 invited papers for conferences, congresses and at different institutes and societies.

The organbuilder’s viewpoint
Investing in research is foreign to most organbuilders. The pipe organ is a traditional instrument, for which it is natural to think that everything has already been invented. Research is therefore perceived by most as something that has no value, since no advancements can be made. The possible exception to this involves the console systems and controls, where conservative attitudes in many cases have been overwhelmed by the very practical need of many organists to have tools on hand that can facilitate their performances. But what about sound, and the very principles that control the ancient art of voicing? In such areas, one will find that every single pipe voicer thinks that his way is the way it should be done, and procedures cannot be improved upon from his normal practices.
Voicing is largely a matter of taste, and subjective preferences are the only governing factors. Very often, an organbuilder is chosen because of the sound that his instruments produce, meaning essentially the stylistic approach to sound that he takes. Why would he then be interested in research in this field? Why change something that already works?
My entire career has been guided by two principles: anything can be improved upon, and an organbuilder never ceases to learn. The combination of these two beliefs has determined my personal desire to take part in scientific research programs. For almost a decade, Fratelli Ruffatti has participated in joint European projects aimed at finding ways to improve the art of organbuilding. Such projects have determined the need to conduct a great deal of fundamental research, which has been carried out over the years by a number of notable institutions, among which are the Fraunhofer Institut für Bauphysik (IBP) in Stuttgart, Germany, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Prague, the University of Budapest, and the Steinbeis Transfer Center of Applied Acoustics in Stuttgart. The Fraunhofer IBP in particular has been the constant guide and the main force behind fundamental and applied research.
The programs have been encouraged and co-sponsored by the European Commission in Brussels. A small group of organbuilders,1 coming from different European countries, participates in the research investment and actively cooperates with the scientists. Astonishing results have been obtained over the years, ranging from more efficient and silent wind systems, to efficient ways to evaluate room acoustics and to better adapt pipe organs to different acoustical environments. Recently, a revolutionary wind system has been invented, a monumental advancement over the traditional winding methods, which allows the organbuilder to simply avoid the use of reservoirs, schwimmers or related equipment, while at the same time obtaining unprecedented stability and efficiency in the wind supply of pipe organs.
The research currently under way deals with sound. The aim of this two-year process is to find better ways to reduce or eliminate problems that exist both in the field of “scaling,” or pipe dimensioning, and in “voicing,” meaning the process by which the pipes are given their proper sound character. At first sight, one may think that a project of this nature is aimed at “standardizing” organ sound by promoting uniform procedures for all. This is not at all the case. The idea is to provide scientific, undisputable knowledge, which can be used by each organbuilder to better reach his individual tonal ideals. Examples are the application of scientific principles to calculate an efficient shape for large wooden pipes that will make them prompt in their attack despite their size, while ensuring the production of the needed fundamental. Other interesting examples under research are finding practical ways to make the transition between stopped and open pipes, or the transition between wooden and metal pipes within one single rank, as tonally undetectable as possible.
In such a research program, the subject of voicing techniques could not be avoided. Once again, the objective was not that of teaching new ways to voicers with decades of experience, but to find out scientific evidence in a field that has never been properly analyzed with scientific methods, with the purpose of supplying new knowledge that the voicers will then use at their discretion and according to their personal taste.
One of the steps that has been analyzed concerns the investigation of the differences between the practices of open-toe and closed-toe voicing. Open-toe voicing is a technique by which flue pipes are voiced with their toe hole completely open, thus achieving continuity between the size of the toeboard hole and that of the pipe foot. With this technique, the pipe toe opening is not used to control the volume of sound that the pipe produces. On the other hand, with the technique called “closed-toe voicing” the volume control in the pipe sound is achieved by means of adjusting the diameter of the pipe toe opening.
It is the opinion of many that the difference between the two techniques merely represents a choice in the method for controlling the sound volume of pipes and that there are few and marginal effects on the quality of sound. If the volume can be well equalized by closing the pipe toes, why choose to avoid such practice? Even the first, partial results of the investigation are proving that such an assumption is an oversimplification. The two methods produce different tonal results, which can be detected and measured.
An experimental session was called in April 2009 at the Fraunhofer Institute in Stuttgart. The participants spent two solid days investigating a number of metal pipes specially built for the experiment. The research took place in a very sophisticated structure: a huge anechoic room of almost 2,000 cubic meters in volume. The test “floor,” a steel grille placed at mid-height (20 feet from floor level), housed the several people involved in the experiments, plus all of the needed equipment: sophisticated pressure sensors (along with a less sophisticated old-fashioned wind gauge), computers, sound pressure detectors, state-of-the-art microphones, etc.
The group of researchers included Dr. Judit Angster, head of the Research Group of Musical Acoustics and Photoacoustics of the Fraunhofer IBP; Prof. Andras Miklos, director of the Steinbeis Transfer Center of Applied Acoustics and a world-famous researcher in the field; Johannes Kirschmann, voicer and restorer of the firm Mühleisen of Leonberg, Germany; Francesco Ruffatti, tonal director and head voicer of Fratelli Ruffatti of Padova, Italy; and Thomas Trommer and Maria Cabanes Sempere, scientists at the Fraunhofer IBP.
During this intensive session, two sets of pipes, one of Principal scale and one of Open Flute scale, were analyzed. Each set was made of four identical pipes, two of them voiced with the open-toe and two with a controlled-toe opening. To reduce the risk of subjectivity, each voicer worked on and prepared one open- and one closed-toe pipe. The same procedure was repeated at three different wind pressures, ranging from 70 mm water column, just slightly less than 3 inches, to about 170 mm, or slightly less than 7 inches. Pipes were voiced with no nicking at the languids, but further investigations were carried out also with nicked languids in different configurations. All pipes in each set and for each trial were voiced to equal, instrumentally measured sound volume.
The wind pressure was measured not only inside the windchest but also inside the pipe toes of both the open- and closed-toe pipes.2 The sound of each pipe was also recorded simultaneously but separately at both radiating points, i.e., at the mouth and at the top of the resonator. In addition, the “mouth tone”3 was also recorded from each pipe at each step.
A huge quantity of data was collected, which is currently being analyzed. During the test session, however, several interesting phenomena could already be observed. To everyone’s surprise, it was noted that the wind pressure inside the pipe foot in open-toe pipes showed an average pressure drop of 10% or less from the original pressure inside the windchest, while in the closed-toe pipes, even though these were still fairly open, the pressure drop was about 40 to 50%. A further immediate difference was detected in open- versus closed-toe pipes: under equal conditions, the “wind noise,” a natural component of the pipe sound that the voicer normally tends to reduce or eliminate, was by far more noticeable in closed toe pipes. This is not at all an irrelevant difference: in practical terms, it means that pipes voiced with closed or partially opened toes will require a heavier presence of “nicks” at the languids in order to control the wind noise, and this in turn will determine significant modifications to the structure of their sound.
The final results will be presented, with scientific data and measurements, to the project participants in the near future. These are occasions where the various organbuilders share experiences and learn from the scientists, an invaluable help to modern organbuilding.
—Francesco Ruffatti

The scientist’s viewpoint
Organ building is a traditional craft, which entails a valuable body of knowledge passed from generation to generation and which therefore should be preserved. Nevertheless, innovative design methods and technologies can be applied in the daily practice of this craft in order to optimize the design and production of organs, without endangering the valuable traditions inherent to their fabrication. The organbuilding firms that are taking part in the European research projects recognize that the quality and the effectiveness of their work can be considerably enhanced by adopting scientific and technological innovations into their craft.
In the current pipe project, before starting applied research, it was necessary to carry out fundamental research to reach a better understanding of the physics of flue pipes in organs. Furthermore, some special tools had to be developed, including special software for the analysis of pipe attack and stationary sound. The measurements were carried out in the anechoic room of the Fraunhofer IBP, where an acoustic-free field could be achieved. Here the pipe sound can be detected without any acoustical influence from the surrounding space.
The pipes were positioned on a functioning model windchest. All the other parts of the wind system, like reservoir and blower, were set outside of the room so that the sound detection would not be disturbed by any noises (Figure 1). The sound of individual pipes was detected by changing parameters one at the time, in order to evaluate the physical effect of single voicing steps. The evaluation of the experimental results is currently being carried out with the help of the above-mentioned special software.
The selected flue pipes that are the object of the research are being analyzed from the standpoint of the physical features of their steady sound spectrum and of the analyzed onset of the sound. A stationary spectrum of a flue pipe can be seen in Figure 2. This spectrum shows the most important properties of the sound of flue pipes, some of which are listed as follows:
1. A series of harmonic partials. As is well known from the elements of the Fourier theory in mathematics, any periodic signal has a lined spectrum with several harmonic partials and mostly a complicated spectral envelope.
2. A second series of smaller and wider peaks, which are not harmonically related, but slightly stretched in frequency—these peaks are at the frequencies where the sound will be amplified by the pipe body (acoustically called pipe resonator).
3. A frequency-dependent base line—this is the characteristic noise spectrum of the air flowing out of the flue.
An example of attack transient of an organ pipe of the Diapason family can be seen in Figure 3. Three phases can be subjectively distinguished in the attack of flue pipes.1 These parts cannot be entirely separated in time because they overlap quite broadly. Therefore, it is better to refer to them as three components, which start almost simultaneously, but develop at different rates. These three components can be characterized as follows:
• Forerunner. This is the sound heard first. It is very difficult to describe. It may have a pitch, but sometimes no pitch can be assigned to it. Several different terms are used for this component, such as chiff, ping, hiss, cough, etc.
• Appearance of a pitch. The second component in the attack usually has a pitch close to the pitch of a higher harmonic partial. This component is very important for certain stops. For example, for several diapason stops the second or the third harmonic can be heard preceding the fundamental.
• Onset of the fundamental. The third parameter of the attack is the rise time of the fundamental. For stops of the flute family, this rise time is very short, whereas it is very slow for stops of the string family. As the fundamental grows, certain components of the attack simultaneously become weaker.
The presence of the first two components is not compulsory in the attack. Moreover, the voicer can seriously influence the attack by producing, according to his taste, a faster or slower speed, a more or less pronounced forerunner, brighter or more fundamental sound, etc. It is worth mentioning that sometimes one or more partials are quite strong at the beginning of the attack, but become weaker in a later phase of the development of sound. The measurements show that the perception of the attack can be assigned to measurable properties.
The three parts of the attack can be clearly detected in Figure 3. The forerunner appears in every partial, implying its broadband nature (chiff). Then the partials start to grow; the fastest component is the sixth one. After a while, the second will be the strongest; it dominates the attack in the 35–40 milliseconds domain. The fundamental slowly overtakes the second, which becomes slightly weaker as the fundamental rises.
It can be assumed that the presented characteristics of the attack in flue pipes are related to the basic physical properties of the pipes. These relations will be investigated also in the case of voicing with open and closed toe. In Figure 4 another three-dimensional representation of an analyzed onset (attack transient) of a flue pipe is shown. In this case also the time function of the noise between the partials can be observed.
One of the many tasks of the project is the investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of the voicing methods with an open-toe and with a controlled-toe opening. In doing so, an aspect that has been analyzed from a scientific viewpoint deals with the radiated sound power (“volume of sound”) as a physical parameter.
The values of the pressure and flow are indifferent from a physical point of view, since the same sound power can be achieved by
• large foot pressure and small flue area (voicing by open toe)
or by
• small foot pressure and large flue area (voicing by closed toe).
The sound power depends on the air volume, which is proportional to the flue area and to the square root of the wind pressure in the toe. The pressure in the foot is constant in the case of an open toe; consequently there is only one parameter, the flue area, which can be varied by the voicer. By closed-toe voicing, the wind pressure in the foot can be changed, e.g., in this case two parameters can be set: the wind pressure and the flue area.
There is one more difference that must be mentioned. In a closed-toe pipe, a cross-sectional jump in the flow occurs at the foot hole through which flow noises can be generated. As the measurement results show in Figure 5, the noise level in the pipe sound is lower in the case of voicing with an open pipe foot.
The above are only a few and partial examples of the thorough investigation that is being carried out to evaluate the different aspects and characteristics of the open-toe and closed-toe voicing methods. Their influence on the attack transients will also be investigated.
A great advancement in the research process has come from technology that allows one to see the air flow pattern at the pipe mouth. A plexiglass “window” was created in the pipe, and air mixed with smoke was utilized to activate the pipe. By means of sophisticated equipment, involving a laser light source and a high-speed camera, it has been possible to film the movement of the air flow (see illustrations). The process is the work of scientists Hubert Ausserlechner, Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics (IBP), Stuttgart, and Margit Liehmann, Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology (ICT), Pfinztal.
In addition to the subject above, the research program has already produced excellent results in examining wooden pipes, open and stopped, of different shapes, with the aim of scientifically calculating the best shape from the standpoint of the efficiency of their air column. In addition, specific research will be aimed at finding efficient solutions for the tonal transitions between stopped and open pipes, or between pipes of different shapes and materials within the same rank. This is not an easy task, but a very exciting one, which can bring immediate and tangible results to the day-by-day work of the organbuilders involved in the research.
—Judit Angster

Common reference projects for cooperation for both authors—European CRAFT (Co-operative Research Action For Technology) projects within the framework of Brite-Euram III program:
1. “Development and Modernization of the Wind Supply Systems of Pipe Organs“ (BRST-CT98-5247)
2. “Advanced Computer Designed Open Wind Systems for Pipe Organs” (G1ST-CT2001-50139)
3. “Development of an innovative organ pipe design method” (G1ST-CT-2002-50267)
4. “Innovative Design Method for Matching the Pipe Organ to the Acoustics of the Room” (COOP-CT-2005-017712)
5. “Innovative Methods and Tools for the Sound Design of Organ Pipes” (FP7-SME-2007-1, Research for SMEs – 222104) (current project)

Princeton, New Jersey, April 23-27, 2003

Stephen Leist holds degrees in history from Furman University, where he studied organ with W. Lindsay Smith, Jr., and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has served on the faculties of Furman University and Georgetown College, and is currently on the library staff of Transylvania University.

The second symposium to be held at the American Organ
Archives attracted organists, organ builders and organ historians from across
the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany and Australia. Organized
by Stephen L. Pinel, Director of the American Organ Archives, and James L.
Wallmann, the five-day gathering of lectures, papers and panel discussions with
generous time to explore the archives was sponsored jointly by Westminster
Choir College of Rider University and the Organ Historical Society.

Thursday

Those who arrived early to the symposium were rewarded with
extra time to browse the American Organ Archives, the world's largest
repository of organ research materials, or to conduct research on individual
projects. The real opening of the symposium began with a marvelous afternoon
reception in the archive reading room on Thursday, April 24. The reception was
a great opportunity to see old acquaintances and to make new contacts. After
the reception and dinner, participants were transported to Christ Church, New
Brunswick, to hear a recital by Lynn Edwards Butler on the 2001 Richards,
Fowkes & Co. organ of two manuals and 24 ranks. The all-Bach program,
perfectly suited for this organ, was entitled "Hymns for the Seasons"
and featured chorale preludes for the Easter season through Trinity. This
outstanding performance was framed by Bach's Fantasia in c
style='font-style:normal'> and the Passacaglia in c
style='font-style:normal'>.

Friday morning

Lectures and panel discussions for the symposium were held
at Christ Congregation Church located across the street from the Westminster
campus. The commodious meeting space was ideal, both for location and
acoustics, as no amplification was needed, and speakers did not need to
significantly raise their voices to be heard. Friday morning, April 25, began
with a brief welcome by Allison Alcorn-Oppedahl, Chair of the Governing Board
of the American Organ Archives. The Keynote Address, delivered by Uwe Pape of
Berlin, followed with the topic, "Research on North German Organs and
Organbuilding--History and Current Perspectives." Prof. Dr. Pape, who
manages Pape Verlag and the Organ Databank, gave a detailed presentation on the
beginnings of organ history research in the 1920s and its progress to date,
making thorough mention of a variety of scholars and their work. He also
outlined his own work over the last forty years and his efforts to document
organs in northern Germany and make the information available through his
publications and those of others. The abstract provided in the symposium
handbook is a wealth of information regarding these themes, as well as the
mention of various archives in Germany that serve as necessary finding aids.
One of the continuing problems cited by Prof. Dr. Pape regarding organ research
was the shortage of funds for scholarly work. Much of this has to be done out
of one's own pocket during free time. An additional problem is that fewer
younger scholars in Germany are taking up an interest in the organ. Despite
these trends, the six states of eastern Germany are fertile ground for organ research.

Following the Keynote Address, Stephen L. Pinel presented a
brief report on "Current Developments at the Archives." This report
made mention of the three goals of the American Organ Archives and its
Governing Board, which are acquisitions, processing and maintenance, and
outreach, and what the archive is doing to meet these goals. The archive is
regularly in touch with scholars around the world to acquire publications, and
the use of Internet search engines and the production of a want list have greatly
added to the archive's holdings. Recent acquisitions include Hallens' 1779
treatise Die Kunst des Orgelbaues and
the archives of the Virgil Fox Society (summer 2003). Much of the processing
and maintenance is done by volunteers, but cataloging has been greatly
facilitated by outsourcing to Joni Cassidy of Cassidy Catologing, Inc. Outreach
has been improved with the website and online catalog, the use of Interlibrary
Loan, and frequent reports of activities and news. Stephen Pinel stressed the
importance of protection and stewardship of this collection for future
generations of scholars. 

The final presentation of the morning before breaking for
lunch was a panel discussion on "Current Trends in Organ
Scholarship." Chaired by James Wallmann, the panel featured Prof. Dr. Uwe
Pape, Paul Peeters of the Göteborg Organ Art Center in Göteborg,
Sweden, Rollin Smith, and Andrew Unsworth. This discussion focused on research
activities in the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, France and the United States.
Bibliographies of important monographs and other resources were provided in the
handbook, thereby making the handbook a valuable tool to take away from the
symposium. All agreed that the degree of quality was uneven, due in large part
to funding and the organization of societies for investigating and documenting
organs. The most consistent work is probably being done in the Netherlands,
where organists in general seem to be well-educated about the instrument beyond
the repertoire, and government support for restorations includes reports which
are often published. This has served to maintain an active interest in the
organ in society at large, despite very low church attendance. Andrew Unsworth
pointed out that organ scholarship in the United States is steady, but slow,
with the most significant work being done by Orpha Ochse and Barbara Owen. Paul
Peeters explained the interdisciplinary nature of the GOArt Academy by pointing
out their goal of not separating the organ building, research, and music.
Rollin Smith demonstrated that scholarship in France has been predominantly on
French classicism to offset German influence in Baroque music, but that French
scholars are beginning to show new interest in the 19th century. Societies have
been instrumental in producing local and regional inventories of historic
instruments. Much work on the French organ, however, continues to be done by
scholars from other countries.

Friday afternoon

The afternoon session began with a paper presentation by
John Buschman, Acting Dean of University Libraries, Rider University, on
"The Changing Roles of Libraries and Archives in the New Millennium, Or,
Why Is It So Hard to Get Money These Days?" Likening libraries and
archives to museums and symphony orchestras, Buschman pointed out that these institutions
share a commonality in that they can trace their beginnings and support for
acting in the common good by educating society in individual and democratic
values. In recent years, this has changed as these institutions have become
more market driven to educate individuals for a workforce in an increasingly
technological age. Combined with the new emphasis on technology is a desire for
lower taxes and public spending. The impact on libraries and archives is that
they have had to move away from public funding to other sources of support.
Collection development has been cut with funds being redirected toward
technology. Even proposals for federal funding must emphasize technological
projects. Technological resources have redefined the library as a place of
study. Buschman believes that libraries and archives have inappropriately
followed the marketing model by viewing patrons as customers, with web traffic
becoming justification for more support. Buschman stated that it is essential
for librarians to emphasize public services and service to scholarship, as a
library's effects cannot be quantified, in order to recapture the original
purpose of libraries and reduce suspicion of public motives.

The second session of the afternoon was taken up with the
topic, "Organ Libraries Around the World," featuring Paul Peeters of
GOArt, David Baker of the Royal College of Organists/British Institute of Organ
Studies, and Barbara Owen of the AGO Organ Library at Boston University. Each
panelist explained the particular structure of their institutions and along
with recent activities and needs. Paul Peeters presented a diagram of GOArt's
interdisciplinary approach to research as exemplified by their recent North
German Organ Research Project. He further explained that their current library
needs are primarily books on materials and tools. David Baker's presentation
focused on the RCO/BIOS move to a new home in Birmingham, England, in
partnership with the University of Central England. The new library is tied to
inner-city regeneration by refitting an early 19th-century railroad station and
the "out-of-London" initiative. We were treated to a comprehensive
presentation on collection development policies, accessibility to services and
outreach programs. Barbara Owen explained the origins of the AGO Organ Library
as starting with the gift of a personal library. The collection has since been
expanded by more donations, although its collection has more to do with
organists than organ building. Much of the work is done by volunteers and
work-study students, and the library is currently unable to handle Interlibrary
Loan due to lack of staff. Boston University provides space and Internet
access, which has enabled the library to provide worldwide service. The library
is now occupied with developing an online catalog.

Friday evening

Following the mid-afternoon break, the final panel
discussion of the day was held on the subject of "What Organbuilders Learn
(and Don't Learn) in the Library." Moderated by Jonathan Ambrosino, the
panel featured Jack Bethards (Schoenstein), Bruce Fowkes (Richards, Fowkes
& Co.), Paul Fritts (Paul Fritts & Co.), and Scot L. Huntington (S. L.
Huntington & Co.). The panelists largely agreed that a library does not
teach one how to build an organ, that much still depends on experience.
Documentation helps answer questions about approach and resolve problems with
informed decisions. Printed materials and recordings are a start, but
ultimately, one has to visit the instrument. Printed information can also provide
important technical details. 

We were once again treated in the evening to a fine recital,
this time Joan Lippincott performing on the Joe R. Engle Organ, built by Paul
Fritts & Co. (Op. 20, 2001), in the Miller Chapel at Princeton Theological
Seminary. Another all-Bach program, this recital featured the catechism
chorales of the Clavierübung, Part
III framed by the Prelude and Fugue in E-flat. A stunning program from start to
finish, the Fritts organ was ideally suited to the music and space of the chapel.
Opening remarks were made by Martin Tel, the chapel organist, and Paul Fritts.
At Joan Lippincott's request, Martin Tel finished the evening accompanying a
setting of Vater unser im Himmelreich found in the Presbyterian
hymnal, which was rousingly sung by the assembled audience
style='font-style:normal'>.

Saturday morning

The final day, Saturday, April 26, began with a paper
presented by Kelvin Hastie, Secretary of the Organ Historical Trust of
Australia, on "Organ Research, Documentation and Conservation in
Australia: An Overview of the Work of the Organ Historical Trust of Australia,
1977-2003." Dr. Hastie began his talk with a brief history of the organ
culture of Australia, explaining the influence of the 19th-century English
organ builders and their influence on the first Australian builders. Most of
the historic organs in Australia represent this period and style and are modest
instruments, with a few rare examples of large organs among the town halls,
most notably the 1890 William Hill organ in the Sydney Town Hall. Very few
organs came from continental Europe. Dr. Hastie further pointed out that the
first stylistic shift away from the English late Romantic organ came after 1945
when the influence of the organ reform movement appeared in Australia,
particularly represented by the work of Robert Sharp. More imports were coming
from Europe as well. The historic preservation movement came to Australia in
the 1960s, and the following decade saw the establishment of local societies
and a national trust. The OHTA was also established at this time and began a
Gazetteer project to raise awareness of historic organs. Today, about 50% of
19th-century organs survive in Australia, and the percentage is higher in rural
areas. The joining of congregations and church closures continue to threaten
the loss of instruments, but the rate has been low due to successful
relocation. Current documentation projects of the OHTA are the acquisition of
the shop records of Hill, Norman & Beard of Australia and Whitehouse
Brothers, in addition to notebooks and letter collections. A database is being
prepared with the goal of making it available on CD-ROM, though there is no
central holding library. The OHTA has established guidelines for conservation
standards and issues, and conservation and documentation projects now receive
government grants, as organs are classified as cultural monuments. Despite
this, Hastie pointed out, the saving of historic organs "still requires
constant energy and vigilance."

Scot Huntington, a member of the OHS publications committee,
made a brief report on "Current Publishing Activities of the OHS." He
announced that the committee was in the process of hiring a Director of
Publications and an oversight committee has been formed. In the meantime, book
proposals have been received. The goal of the publications committee is better
documentation of American organs through an opus series, a monograph series,
and American works on other organ traditions. Publications currently in
preparation are works on Hinners, Lawrence Phelps, Murray Harris, and Susan
Tattershall's work on Spanish organs. A special 50th Anniversary edition of The
Tracker is being planned along with a history of the OHS. An ongoing project is
the Möller opus list, and a reprint of Eugene Thayer's Organist's
Quarterly Review is almost at the printers.

Closing panel

The closing panel of the symposium was moderated by Laurence
Libin, Curator of Musical Instruments at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
The panel was made up of all previous panelists and speakers. Libin began by
observing that there was general agreement that documentation of instruments is
a great concern, but there had not been much discussion about what kinds of
information should be preserved and how. One example he mentioned was the
importance of oral histories. Kelvin Hastie stated that the problem in the
United States in terms of documentation was the absence of a methodology. Jack
Bethards raised the issue of going beyond academic work and doing organ
research simply for the fun of it, that there is a joy by itself in reading
older documents. Barbara Owen asked the question, "What does the
instrument itself tell?" The approach of visiting the instrument and then
following the paper trail in her view is a mutually supportive research
process. Paul Peeters and David Baker stressed the interdisciplinary nature of
organ research and the importance of research networks. Peeters specifically
drew the example of the North German Research Project, in which archival
information was very important to understanding the issues of sandcasting pipe
metal and winding systems. Libin suggested the importance of economic and
social issues, such as the function of guilds in stifling or encouraging
development. Baker also added the need for continuous vigilance to protect
archival assets. Scot Huntington added to this theme his own experience in
working with the Möller records, which represented a great deal of
technological change and invention. Jonathan Ambrosino also agreed with the
need to share information, stating that "not to share is to die." The
discussion was then opened to the floor, with symposium participants given an
opportunity to ask questions and raise additional issues. Among the topics
covered were conservation/preservation issues, professionalizing organ
research, and more effective means of disseminating information.

Archive

After lunch, the American Organ Archive was open for
participants to browse the collection or conduct research. Interest in the
archive was such that it was difficult to find a seat, and Stephen Pinel was
cheerfully busy providing assistance. I had the opportunity to conduct a little
research of my own, locating some photos for a forthcoming article, and then do
some browsing to while away the afternoon. The archive was again open on Sunday
for those who remained. I came away from this conference excited and refreshed,
not to mention with a host of more questions than when I arrived, which is the
kind of activity a quality conference stimulates. We will all be eagerly
awaiting the next symposium offering.

In closing, it should be mentioned that the American Organ
Archive is a wonderful resource for conducting research, not only on American
organs and builders, but traditions in other countries, due to the
comprehensive nature of the collection. It is significant also for music
history research not necessarily restricted to the organ, as many of the great
composers worked with other media besides the organ. Stephen Pinel and James
Wallmann are to be congratulated for brilliantly organizing a successful
symposium. Hearty thanks are also due to the members of the archive Governing
Board, the sponsors, and all those who assisted with the reception and break
time refreshments, especially Mary Jane Kress and James S. Palmer.
style='mso-tab-count:1'>           

Joyce Johnson Robinson is associate editor of The Diapason.

In the 1980s I was a graduate student in Rome, doing research on oratorios in the archive adjacent to the sanctuary of the Chiesa Nuova (Santa Maria in Vallicella). That church, established by St. Philip Neri, witnessed the flourishing of the oratorio in the 18th century; more oratorio performances were held there than at any other venue in Rome. Oratorios, performed weekly from November through Lent, were written by the leading opera composers of the day.
Twice weekly (the archive was only open from 5–7 pm on Tuesdays and Fridays; this explains why my research took a while), I entered the large sanctuary and walked toward the altar on my way to the archive. Though the church still revealed its Baroque splendor, there was no splendid—i.e., in playable condition—organ. So I took no note of the instrument; lack of maintenance on an organ was not an uncommon situation in Roman churches.
Fast forward to 2003, to the office of The Diapason, where I was now on the editorial staff. A new CD had arrived,1 featuring organist Francesco Cera playing the Guglielmi organ at Santa Maria in Vallicella, the instrument having been restored by Fratelli Ruffatti.2 I was impressed by the marvelous playing and the incisive sound of the instrument. Even the temperament was revelatory; the meantone tuning gave the dissonances extra pungency and made their resolutions all the more satisfying.
Francesco Cera, born in Bologna, now resident in Rome, studied organ and harpsichord with Luigi Ferdinando Tagliavini and Gustav Leonhardt. He has appeared as a soloist in international festivals and has played historic organs in various European countries. His recordings of the complete keyboard works of Michelangelo Rossi, Tarquinio Merula, Bernardo Storace, and Antonio Valente were praised by the international press. He is currently the conductor of the Ensemble Arte Musica, which specializes in Italian vocal repertoire, from the madrigals of Gesualdo to 18th-century cantatas.3 Cera has led masterclasses and seminars at such institutions as the Accademia di Musica Italiana per Organo, Academie d’Orgue de Fribourg, the Royal Academy of Music in London, the University of Illinois, the University of Evansville, and the Eastman School of Music.
I felt it was worth a try to see if I could meet Mr. Cera in person. An e-mail was graciously answered and led to further exchanges, and my husband and I were able to meet Cera on our next trip to Rome. He was most kind and agreed to show and play the organ for us. We met at the church one December day, along with the organist of Santa Maria in Vallicella. After making our way up the curving staircase to the shallow loft, Cera fired up the instrument. He began playing some works by Rossi, but had not played for very long when the competition arrived—another organ was being played, to lead a rehearsal of children singing. We weren’t going to win this one, so we ceased and desisted and headed for the coffee bar across the street.
Time passed. Cera’s CD was given a glowing review in The Diapason.4 In October 2006 he made a tour to the United States to present concerts and masterclasses, to demonstrate Italian organ music of the 17th century. His tour included a stop in Chicago, where he played on the Flentrop organ in Holy Name Cathedral. We were able to meet up with him once again, to discuss the Guglielmi organ and its restoration in further detail.

JR: Was the Guglielmi organ in Santa Maria in Vallicella installed when the church was first built?
FC: The organ that we hear today is the second built by Giovanni Guglielmi for the church, and for centuries it was paired with a second organ, also built by Guglielmi, for the newly built church, in about 1590. The church of Santa Maria in Vallicella (called the Chiesa Nuova) was constructed at the request of St. Filippo Neri, who in the nearby oratory founded the order of the Philippine fathers; thus it is a crucial place in the history of the Catholic Church. The organ we hear was built in 1612, according to archival research.

JR: Is the Guglielmi organ typical of other Roman instruments? How does its design reflect the style of Italian organ building of the 17th century?
FC: Yes, the Guglielmi organ is a traditional type of organ quite frequently found in large Roman churches at the end of the 16th century. I would say that this organ is clearly distinct from those built in northern Italy during the same period, for example those of Antegnati and his followers. It is typically Roman because it exhibits construction characteristics that are very similar to those of organs built in Rome (such as in the 1598 Luca Blasi organ in the basilica of San Giovanni Laterano, in the small organ ca. 1600 by an unknown builder in Santa Barbara ai Librari, and later in the century in the 1673 Testa-Alari at San Giovanni dei Fiorentini). We can note these characteristics in even later instruments that have survived, and through descriptions in old contracts: a short-octave 50-key manual, C–f3 (plus five chromatic split keys for D-sharp/E-flat, and G-sharp/A-flat); a Ripieno based on a 16' Principal, an 8' Trumpet with full-length resonators (called Tromboni)5, and a pair of flutes pitched at 4' and 22⁄3'. The scales of the principals and of the Ripieno ranks are very narrow, giving much transparency to the 16' Ripieno, and a very silvery sound, full of light, to the organ. These narrow scalings produce a very clear and pungent timbre, compared to, say, Tuscan organs of the same period, which have wider scalings and tend towards a rounder sound. The Tromboni, frequently found in Roman organs, add power and color. The sound of the Guglielmi organ seems to reflect the grandeur and luminosity of Rome.

JR: The organ’s case design is something special, too.
FC: Its golden case, redesigned in 1699, is a triumph of the Roman Baroque, clearly inspired by Bernini’s style. Gilded carvings show angels that seem to float across the façade: bas reliefs with putti, garlands of flowers, and a big shell crowning the top just behind the major pipes. Three pipes are embossed with a twisting surface, including the central one, 16' low C. The pipe mouths are also gilded with decorative patterns.

JR: Is the Guglielmi organ similar to any of the masterpieces of Italian organbuilding?
FC: I don’t believe so. For example, the famous organs of San Petronio in Bologna (Lorenzo da Prato, 1475, and Baldassare Malamini, 1596) or the 1545 Antegnati at San Maurizio in Milan have quite a different sonority from the Guglielmi. In fact, the characteristic of Italian organbuilding of every era—from the Renaissance to full-blown Romanticism—is to conceive of nuances of sonority that are distinct in every single region (remember that Italy was divided into many small states until 1860).
At times we have stops typical of a school of organbuilding—for example, in the Venetian school, the 8' Tromboncini (a short-resonator reed); in the Lombardy school, the orchestral stops such as Corno Inglese or Flauto traversiere; or in the Tuscan school, the multi-rank Cornetti. But it is interesting to note how very many old organs having the same stoplist (for example, the most common in various parts of Italy is a Ripieno, a 4' or 22⁄3' Flauto, Voce Umana, and 16' Contrabasso in the pedal) offer quite diverse sonorities, above all in timbre (tone color), due to the scaling and type of voicing. The major organbuilders imparted a personal “character” to their instruments, and it was inevitable that a local “school” resulted. This is the great fascination of the Italian organ—the different nuances of timbre, which still needs to be better understood. The Guglielmi organ is a masterpiece of Roman organbuilding.

JR: The instrument is based on a 16' Principal—is that typical for that time?
FC: Almost all the large Roman churches had instruments whose Ripieno was based on a 16¢ Principal. This was probably felt to be necessary due to the vastness of the churches, but certainly also for the desire for a very solemn sound. At the same time, the narrow scalings provided great luminosity and clarity.

JR: Who played the Guglielmi organ? What documents refer to the organ?
FC: Among the famous organists who played the organ were Bernardo Pasquini, who was the organist at Vallicella from 1657–1664, and also in the 17th century Giovanni Battista Ferrini and Fabrizio Fontana (both of them, along with Pasquini, wrote organ music of high quality). Various documents about the organ and its maintenance through the centuries have been published by Arnaldo Morelli, in the musicological journal Analecta Musicologica.6

JR: When was the organ abandoned and no longer maintained?
FC: At the end of the 19th century, a romantic-style organ was built in the right-side choir loft, and from that point the old Guglielmi, after some mediocre work, was gradually abandoned. Yet most of the 17th-century pipework was not altered—neither the mouths nor the pipe lengths. Thus, notwithstanding the negligence, it was possible to again have the original sound, without having to reinvent it, as it was necessary to do in other cases. This was a very good thing.

JR: How did organ restoration in Italy begin and evolve?
FC: Historic restoration in Italy originated with the pioneering work of the celebrated organist Luigi Ferdinando Tagliavini and the great scholar, the late Oscar Mischiati. The first organ “saved” from restorations that had a tendency to alter and “modernize” historic organs was Graziadio Antegnati’s 1581 masterpiece in the church of San Giuseppe in Brescia, restored back in 1956. In subsequent years, following the directives of these two great experts, it became more common to respect the original features of every instrument, including the short-octave manuals and pedalboards, which previously had been “normalized” through the addition of chromatic keys. Then came the practice of reconstructing the pipes of lost ranks, with faithful copies of authentic pipes by the same maker. In the late 70s there was a return to the old temperaments, where there had been some surviving traces (meantone and its variants). All this spread at first in the north, with the help of government financing, and since the 1980s, also in central and south Italy. Today my country can claim at least ten organ builders who have specialized for a long time in restorations of the highest quality—work that is on a par with the best carried out in the rest of Europe, perhaps even characterized by a deeper historic consciousness.

JR: Who provided the funds for restoring the organ? When did this come about?
FC: The Italian government provided funding for the restoration, and the work took place between 1998–2000. The superintendent of historic and artistic works of Rome entrusted the work to Fratelli Ruffatti of Padua, due to their experience in restoring historic organs in various regions of Italy, with the leading expert Oscar Mischiati as consultant.

JR: What work needed to be done on the organ?
FC: The spring windchest that was found in the organ was almost destroyed by rainwater that had leaked in, but although it was probably from the 19th century it seemed inspired by 17th-century building technique—thus it was reconstructed with the same design. Also lacking was the console, but after an accurate analysis of the pipes, it appeared clearly that its compass was of 50 keys (c1 to f5, with the first “short” octave), plus five added “split” keys, for a total of 55 keys, and the stops arranged vertically.7 The keyboard and pedalboard were reconstructed according to models of the period. The surviving group of original pipes was simply put in the best possible playing condition, and the temperament reset to meantone, with the pitch being detected as A=400—quite low, but close to the documented pitch in use in Rome at that time (i.e., around A=390). Ruffatti’s work has produced a very satisfying result.

JR: What are some other important recent restorations?
FC: Italy has the good fortune to possess very many Renaissance organs, which have had only minor modifications. Among these are the two organs at San Petronio in Bologna (to which I referred earlier), whose restoration, done by Tamburini under the supervision of Tagliavini and Mischiati, was completed in 1982. These two organs have been recorded on many CDs and have been visited by many organists from all over the world. Then there is the splendid 1556 Giovanni Cipri instrument at San Martino (also in Bologna), and the 1521 Domenico di Lorenzo at the church of the Annunziata in Florence.
Among the most important recent restorations, I would name the 1509 Pietro da Montefalco in Trevi (Umbria), restored by Pinchi-Ars Organi, the 1852 Tronci with three manuals and two small pedalboards at Gavinana (Tuscany), restored by Riccardo Lorenzini, and the 1775 Gaetano Callido at Fano (the Marches), restored by Francesco Zanin. Lastly, there is the 1565 Graziadio Antegnati organ in the church of Santa Barbara in Mantua, within the Gonzaga palace, an imposing 16¢ instrument with seven split keys for D-sharp and A-flat, restored by Giorgio Carli. I had the honor of playing the inaugural concert.

JR: Has there been much publicity about the Guglielmi organ?
FC: Unfortunately, after the restoration, nothing was published regarding the organ, and few organists played it. Realizing its importance—a great Roman organ from the time of Frescobaldi!—I proposed to Radio France that they do a CD recording for their “Temperaments” series, and Gilles Cantagrel, artistic director and noted Bach and organ scholar, accepted right away.
The CD notably helped develop interest in this important instrument, which restores the authentic sonority of the organs that the great Frescobaldi—and also Rossi, Pasquini, and their German pupils (Froberger, Kerll, Muffat)—would have regularly played, and for which they conceived their organ works.

JR: Francesco, you have toured a few times in the United States. Do you find that American organists know much about Italian organs?
FC: Generally, I think that it’s quite a mystery—people have only a vague idea—but all the organists that I’ve met in America are very interested to know more! For example, someone who heard the Guglielmi organ through my CD was extremely surprised by the very clear, or as they say, “stringy” sound—but also by the presence of the trumpet rank. Both these aspects are not part of their conception of the Italian organ, if their idea of the Italian organ only comes from visits they made to organs in Bologna rather than Florence. In Italy today, the Italian language is spoken with many varied accents (in the past, dialects were spoken more than they are today), and these differences are found in our old organs as well. It seems to me that the interest in Italian organ music, and the desire to explore it in all its vast scope, is growing. I have the impression that lately, after having concentrated on German Baroque works, people are looking for new repertoire, and the Italian repertory is clearly gaining popularity!

JR: Tell us something about your latest trip to the U.S.
FC: I was surprised to be able to play two historic Italian organs! I had heard of the 18th-century organ at the Eastman School in Rochester, inaugurated last year and now at the center of a strong, thorough study of Italian organ music. Its placement within the museum is really splendid; being surrounded by Italian Renaissance and Baroque paintings, it is put in a cultural context that is so important for those who are knowledgeable as well as for American students. Equally excellent is the positive organ that I played at Cornell University in Ithaca—an instrument with a strong Neapolitan character, built by Agostino Vicedomini in the 1720s. I think that both these instrument were restored very well.
I was also delighted with the sound of the big Flentrop at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago—faithful to the Dutch Baroque aesthetic—and also the John Brombaugh organ in Springfield, Illinois, a fine balance between historic copy and personality. I hope that soon the United States can have more organs in Italian style, maybe entrusting their construction to Italian builders so that the true Italian sonority—luminous and full of character—can be more widespread. I think that in mid-size churches with good acoustics, such an organ could be successful, or in churches where in addition to a traditional instrument there is a desire for an organ with a different sonority. Why not?

The author wishes to thank Fratelli Ruffatti, and especially Francesco Ruffatti, for their kind assistance. All translations are by the author.

Unless you read the White House Blog daily, you no doubt missed a quiet but monumental announcement. On February 11, 2014, the White House issued an executive order essentially banning international trade in items containing ivory, as well as tightly controlling movement of personally owned items containing ivory. Two weeks later, on February 25, 2014, Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, released Director’s Order 210 giving the draconian details of implementation. The executive order and director’s order were immediately enforced, including being applied to CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) import and export applications filed months earlier. Restrictions on intrastate and interstate sales and movement were announced on May 15, 2014, along with other revisions discussed below. The Executive Branch and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have ignored federal requirements for publication of proposed regulations and public comment before enforcement.

You have perhaps learned, e.g., of violin bows belonging to members of touring European orchestras being confiscated upon entry to the United States, or of the refusal to give a CITES permit for the import of a significant harpsichord by a United States collector/performer. The new regulations are being enforced through immovable, irrational requirements that ignore personal property rights of owners of legally acquired items containing ivory. Further complicating the situation are diverse actions by individual states, in particular, New Jersey, New York, and California. These actions have far-reaching effects among musicians, collectors, musical instrument dealers and repair people, and everyday citizens.

According to President Obama, the United States needs to “lead by example” with tough restrictions on all trade and movement of ivory. It is unclear why any country—especially China, the primary and nearly sole market for illegal new ivory—would be influenced by restrictions in the United States. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has acted, in their words, “to close the loopholes” of transportation and markets for illegal new ivory in the United States, theoretically reducing pressure on elephant populations.

The illogic of thinking a legally acquired musical instrument, or ivory-inlaid 17th- or 18th-century furniture, or ivory Torah pointers, or knives or canes containing antique or pre-Convention (1976) ivory would be conduits for new ivory seems apparent to us, but the new regulations are rigidly defended by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff. Director Dan Ashe also states that they cannot tell new from old ivory thus justifying their methods (guilty until proven innocent, yet worse), a statement that has experts and repair people familiar with antique ivory shaking their heads in strong disagreement. In truth, I think he is speaking more to the lack of expertise among inspectors. In the United States, there are few instances of trade in illegal new ivory, though a few notable episodes have helped fuel this maelstrom, one involving faked African antiques in Philadelphia, and another of faked Asian antique figurines in New York City. Both were caught by appropriate profiling of the merchants and thorough investigations. The nets are being cast far wider now, and being visible targets, musical instruments have been particularly persecuted.

So, why the urgency and drama? The story is that the African elephant is in dire danger of losing 1/5 of their population over the next twenty or thirty years and then extinction. Beware the numbers appearing in seemingly reputable publications, as incorrect, unsubstantiated figures are being propagated. In stark contrast, looking at CITES’ own recent reports,¹ there are currently about 500,000 African elephants in Africa, down from a probable 600,000 in 1989.² About 22,000 elephants have been killed in each of the last several years, an admittedly horrific number, but actually decreasing, not increasing as claimed. 

According to the CITES report referenced above, the poaching rate appears to have leveled off and further affirms that poaching is primarily due to “extreme poverty and lack of governance in the affected areas.” Local farmers and corrupt game wardens earn huge payments for leading poachers to their prey. In some countries elephants are already at risk, while in others they are over-populated, causing serious problems by destroying farmers’ crops and overgrazing their own protected preserves. In these countries, culling is necessary. Their governments want to sell their large ivory stores in a controlled fashion, to raise money for the local human and elephant populations. A regular source of legal ivory sales would dramatically bring down prices and deter the brutal and horrific practice of poaching.³

Prior and current rules 

(These are subject to change.)

Previously there were no domestic restrictions for sales or travel of items containing ivory and CITES permits could be acquired for import and export of legally acquired ivory by following instructions, paying a fee, and filling out paperwork, a somewhat onerous but do-able process. Exemptions were granted allowing import or export of items that could be demonstrated to be antique (over 100 years old), or pre-Convention (1989 for African elephant ivory). All of this changed in February. “Commercial” imports of ivory are forbidden. Period. No exceptions. Exports are limited, but the hoops to jump through have made permits virtually impossible to acquire. As of May 25, 2014, the details of the regulations were eased somewhat thanks to various musical instrument related organizations with lobbyists working tirelessly in Washington, D.C., but the limitations and requirements are still unreasonable and unclear and were expanded to severely restrict sales within states and across state lines.

The most up to date summary can be found at www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answ…. Remember while reading this web page and the explanations of it below, that qualifying for the CITES documents is extremely difficult. Here is the summary, with remarks about qualifying for the exemptions below.

Commercial imports

Forbidden. If you buy an instrument out of the country, you will not be able to get it into the United States. Note that the term “commercial” is being applied to any transaction that could be conceived of as resulting in a financial gain. For example, if you want to import an instrument and donate it to your favorite institution, they consider that commercial, since you may be applying for a tax deduction for the donation. Instruments bought overseas before the ban was announced, but awaiting their import permits, had their permits abruptly rejected. 

Personal imports 

You may import an item containing ivory as part of a household move or inheritance, or as part of your own musical instrument or as part of a traveling exhibition as long as the item contains “worked elephant ivory that was ‘legally acquired’ and removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976 and has not been sold or otherwise been transferred for financial gain since February 25, 2014.” Thus you will not be able to bring in (or out) of the country any ivory-containing item that was purchased after February 25, 2014. (This is at least a significant improvement of the original specification of not being transferred for financial gain after 1976!) This freezes instrument ownership for touring musicians and amateurs as of the date of the Director’s Order. Additionally, the individual or group must qualify for a CITES musical instrument certificate and the musical instrument containing worked elephant ivory “must be accompanied by a valid CITES musical instrument certificate or equivalent CITES document.” The instructions do not specify what would qualify as an equivalent document. 

Commercial export 

While the rules state that pre-Convention and antique items containing worked ivory may be exported, in reality the new requirements to qualify for a CITES export certificate are extremely difficult-to-impossible to satisfy. Fortunately, in May they did eliminate two of the most ridiculous aspects of the February 25th Director’s Order, wherein 1) no domestically made items containing worked ivory could qualify, and 2) the exporter had to supply evidence that the item had entered through one of the “specified ports” for ivory import/export, despite the fact that these ports did not exist before 1982. If the ivory was repaired or modified after 1973, it will not qualify. If the item was originally imported after 1982, then it must demonstrably have been imported through one of the 13 ports of entry designated for antiques made of Endangered Species Act-listed species (Boston, Massachusetts; New York, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Miami, Florida; San Juan, Puerto Rico; New Orleans, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Anchorage, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Chicago, Illinois).

To qualify under the antique exemption, the exporter must document the item’s age and identify the species used. Proof of age can be through scientific testing at an accredited laboratory or facility, a qualified appraisal, or provenance through other documentation, such as a detailed history of the item, family photos, ethnographic fieldwork, or other evidence that assigns the work to a known period of time. Fortunately, most musical instruments can be dated quite accurately. The species can be identified through DNA analysis (but this is unusable as the large quantities required would destroy that part of the musical instrument), or a qualified appraisal or other documentation that demonstrates the identification of the species through a detailed provenance. In practice, there have been difficulties with Fish & Wildlife permit examiners insisting on satisfying all of these dating and species methods and requiring a description of the “scientific method” used to make the species determination. Note that there are visual ways to identify the different types of ivory, except that Asian and African elephant cannot be visually distinguished. (See www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_id.php and www.fws.gov/policy/do210A1.pdf.)

Again, the ivory must not have been “repaired or modified.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife agents reviewing applications are insisting on full details of restorations, not just whether the ivory was repaired. This despite that in reality, restorers do not need to, want to, or use (expensive, illegal) new ivory. There are synthetics and ample supplies of surplus antique ivory, e.g., in the form of old piano key tops. Regardless, as the rules are written, if the ivory was repaired, they can refuse the application even if you just filled a crack with dental epoxy. Whether having glued a piece back on would result in denial is unclear.

The burden of proof has been laid heavily on the exporter in an “all are guilty until proven innocent” fashion. Fish & Wildlife agents reviewing applications since February have been virtually impossible to satisfy. Some insist appraisers are trained in biology or wildlife forensics. The director has told them they don’t have to believe any documentation and to “set a high bar.” This writer, who has been importing and exporting antique pianos for over ten years, was informed that the common knowledge, as well as published information, that piano key tops were made from African elephant ivory, was now insufficient. This was despite pointing out that I was initially told by a Fish & Wildlife official years ago that African elephant ivory (Loxodonta africana) was the correct species to specify for ivory key tops and all my other previous applications were all accepted stating this species.

The Musical Instrument Certificate or “Passport”

After being besieged by concerned touring musicians, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and CITES created a new permit certificate for people traveling regularly with their instruments, called the Musical Instrument Certificate or “Passport.” The application is available on the Fish & Wildlife website (www.fws.gov/international/pdf/permit-application-form-3-200-88.pdf).

They require a signed appraisal or other documentation to demonstrate the age of the ivory-containing item, which must pre-date 1976. You must also include a signed statement (though it does not say signed by whom) that the item has not been repaired or modified on or after December 28, 1973, with any part of any species covered by the Endangered Species Act. That should suffice for antiques (over 100 years old), but for export of younger items, it additionally says the applicant must also state whether the item was bought, sold, or “offered for sale by you or anyone else” since December 28, 1973, in which case “there may be a need for additional information and the Division of Management Authority will contact you directly.”

Confusingly on the form, this last category is apparently not applicable if your instrument includes African elephant ivory. What is worrisome is that the wording opens the door to interpretation by the examining agent to not allow the export at all if the subject item contains elephant ivory. Additionally worrisome is the inclusion of a note that African elephant ivory removed from the wild after February 4, 1977, is not considered to be pre-Convention (for the purposes of this application, since it most certainly is in the rest of the world). Given the recent difficulty in establishing the species of elephant to the satisfaction of the USFWS agents, it will likely be difficult to get approval for any personal musical instrument containing ivory to travel.

Note that you need a different CITES form for each endangered species in your instrument, including rosewood and tortoiseshell. Also note that you and your instrument will need to exit and enter the country ONLY through one of the 13 designated ports for ivory: www.fws.gov/le/designated-ports.html.

If your instrument contains a listed endangered plant species, you are further restricted to exit and enter through a designated port for listed plant species: www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/cites.p….

Obviously this makes travel arrangements even more complicated and there are no plans to expand on the number of designated ports.

A fee of $75 is due with the application, which can take 45–60 days or more for approval, processing, and return. The certificate is good for three years, but you must bring the instrument back into the issuing country before it expires, at which point you can apply for a new certificate.

For all forms applicable to musical instruments, see: www.fws.gov/international/permits/by-activity/musical-instruments.html.

Domestic: intrastate and 

interstate trade and movement

Beginning on June 26, 2014, domestic sellers of items containing worked African elephant ivory must demonstrate that any item offered for sale—whether across state lines or within a state—was lawfully imported prior to the CITES Appendix-I listing of the African elephant (January 1990) or under a CITES pre-Convention certificate. Appendix-I covers species around the world most at risk as a result of international trade. Non-commercial movement is still allowed. There has been no clarification of how commercial may be defined beyond sale or what documentation is needed for such things as household moves. Some fear that traveling over state lines to perform at a paid concert could be considered a commercial transaction. Emphasis seems to be on sales, but given the vagueness of the rules both to the populace and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service agents, and recent aggressive enforcement, it is a concern. At least one piano transport truck has already been stopped and questioned with the result that the firm will no longer move pianos with ivory key tops. Another said they would just leave any questioned piano on the roadside and keep going. 

Unfortunately for musicians and others involved with legally obtained pre-Convention ivory, public support for the ban is being fanned with false numbers, hysteria, dramatic photos, and endorsements by celebrities who apparently can’t do the simple research required to discover the truth. For example, the performer Billy Joel publicly requested people save elephants by not having their pianos made with ivory keys, apparently unaware that no pianos have been made with ivory key tops in the United States since 1956 and in Europe since the 1980s. It appears that there is massive funding for public “awareness” and high-level political influence by some large conservation groups.

California, New Jersey, and New York State

Individual states have begun a hodgepodge of their own restrictions. In spring of 2012 California began to enforce a law that has been on their books since 1970 by raiding an auction house in northern California and seizing approximately $150,000 worth of ivory objects. This law has no exemption for antique and pre-Convention ivory and criminalizes possession with intent to sell, with stiff penalties. Introduced on May 8, 2014, both houses of New Jersey’s legislature quickly and quietly passed a draconian bill signed by Governor Christie on August 1, 2014. This law includes elephant, hippo, mammoth (which has been legally used to substitute for elephant ivory in recent years), narwhal, walrus, and whale ivory. It is unlawful to import, sell, purchase, offer for sale, barter, or possess with intent to sell any item containing ivory. 

There are no exceptions for antiques or pre-Convention ivory. It is legal to convey ivory to the legal beneficiary of an estate after death or in anticipation of death. The penalties are stiff, and ivory products will be seized and transferred to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for “proper disposition.” The New York State legislature quickly followed with a ban on the sale of elephant and mammoth ivory and rhinoceros horn that Governor Cuomo supports. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation may issue permits for the sale of documented antiques over 100 years old and containing less than 20 percent ivory and musical instruments made prior to 1976 (this is bad luck for the New York owners of Bösendorfers and Hamburg Steinways made in the 1980s with ivory key tops). Fines are steep and felony charges possible. (See www.governor.ny.gov/sites/thediapason.com/files/GPB44-IVORY_BILL.pdf.)

In all these cases, vagueness of wording is a serious problem. Technically, federal laws take precedence, but until court battles ensue, those with non-antique but pre-Convention ivory or insufficient “proof of provenance” will not be able to sell their items intact.

Current and potential effects

Many antique and pre-Convention cultural artifacts contain ivory, including Torah pointers, George Washington’s false teeth, medical demonstration figures, scrimshaw art, and of course, musical instruments. Key tops, guitar nuts, saddles and tuning pins, wind instrument rings, stringed instrument bows, organ stop knobs, and more have been made from ivory for its workability, beauty, availability, density, durability, and tactile and acoustic properties. Many musical instruments remain in active use for generations and commonly travel with their owners.

Already, the international import ban has prevented collectors from importing important pieces for study, performance, and recording in the United States. Because of the abrupt announcement and enforcement, quite a few people buying or selling internationally have found themselves unable to get instruments to their new homes. Reduced to the domestic market alone, musical instrument values will necessarily drop. If domestic trade is further restricted this summer, the value of ivory-containing objects will be reduced to virtually nothing, nor will anyone be able to receive a tax deduction for donations of instruments to institutions since that is considered “financial gain,” a serious potential loss of donations to colleges, universities, museums, and other public institutions.

The restriction of musical instrument certificates to instruments that have not transferred ownership for any financial gain after February 25, 2014, prevents internationally traveling musicians from upgrading, or ever again purchasing any instruments or bows containing ivory that can travel with them. Given the expense and paperwork to obtain the musical instrument passports, along with the aggressive and suspicious stance of the customs officials, it is highly likely there will be less touring of musicians in and out of the United States. Again, musical instruments containing ivory will be significantly devalued. (See www.wqxr.org/#!/story/newark-officials-seize-budapest-orchestras-violin… and www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/08/05/us/ap-us-travel-brief-bagpipes-at-t….)

Additionally, it will take a great deal of time, paperwork, and human power to administer and enforce all these new regulations. This will cost taxpayers dearly and consume considerable personal time for applicants, while not preventing the loss of one elephant to poaching.

Look-alike problem

It is very important to point out that customs agents are rarely skilled at identifying materials and may even presume, for example, that all instruments of a type are suspect. This has resulted in items containing “look-alike” materials and even with no ivory-like material being confiscated from their cases at border crossings with no explanations. It is highly advisable to have prepared and accompany your instrument with copies of an official appraisal or listing by the maker of the materials used in your musical instrument, whether it contains any suspect species or not. Also insist, as is your right, to be present when your instrument is inspected before shipping. Take photos of what is in the crate or case before shipping.

Late-summer developments

On July 14, 2014, two bills (H.R. 5052 in the House of Representatives, and S. 2587 in the Senate) were introduced; both would prohibit U.S. Fish & Wildlife from implementing any “new rule, order, or standard regarding the sale and trade in ivory that was not in place before February 25, 2014.” As of August 2, H.R. 5052 had 20 bi-partisan co-sponsors, an encouraging development. In addition, in early July, the House Appropriations Bill for the Department of the Interior included language that would prohibit U.S. Fish & Wildlife from spending any funds to enforce any rules, orders, or standard not in place before February 25, 2014. The appropriations bill has passed the Senate but faces a battle in the House of Representatives. The appropriations bill language is intended to put a moratorium on enforcement until a permanent method of undoing the disastrous actions of February 11 and 25, 2014, can be put in place. The appropriations bill includes other language against other more publicly controversial programs, but I am hopeful the ivory section will be kept as a trade-off against other concessions. The final hurdle is, of course, whether President Obama will sign or veto any of these bills.

What you can do to help

It is urgent that we eventually press for a permanent solution to protect cultural artifacts made before any species included in them was declared endangered. The current problems are regulations and enforcement rules, not laws, and can be changed with enough pressure. Lobbyists are working for groups such as the League of American Orchestras, National Association of Music Merchants, and some private individuals (e.g., through the important Podesta Group), and are kindly sharing information and guidance. Thanks to the efforts of many, we have the promising bills to be debated in Congress. Numbers count! It is critical for as many people as possible to write to their members of Congress, the President, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of Fish & Wildlife Services, those on the Committee for Wildlife Trafficking (www.fws.gov/international/advisory-council-wildlife-trafficking/bios.ht…), Natural Resources, and the Congressional Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. See https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/HSII/22.

Most useful is to try to get a personal or phone appointment with your senators and representatives and explain why these regulations are harmful and will not save any elephants. E-mails through their websites are also working for some. Ask them to support and co-sponsor H.R. 5052 and S. 2587. You can find your senators and representatives at www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup.

The important talking points are:

• We want to end the poaching of African elephants and illicit trade in new illegal ivory, but banning the domestic sale and trade of legal ivory in the United States and preventing import of antique and pre-Convention items containing ivory will not stop poaching, nor save one living elephant. 

• The July 2014 CITES meeting emphasized that the cause of poaching is extreme poverty, lack of governance, and corruption in the affected areas. Efforts need to help the affected communities and fund intelligence operations that locate poachers and dealers.

• The ban unnecessarily hurts owners of antiques and pre-Convention items containing ivory legally imported into this country by stripping their value, resulting in a taking of billions of dollars from law-abiding Americans. The domestic ban would devastate the current market in worked ivory items, causing legitimate business owners and everyday citizens tremendous economic harm. Note how the ban will hurt you personally. The analysis of the economic effect of this ban by U.S. Fish & Wildlife is grossly understated.

• The proposed ban would make the survival of cultural and historic artifacts much more unlikely, and keep them out of collections where they would be preserved. It is highly likely that the ban and regulations are against the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (See www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm.)

• Even the author of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1989 testified at a congressional hearing on June 24, 2014, that this ban will not help to stop poaching and was never the intent of the AECA. (See www.fws.gov/international/laws/aeca_fv.html.)

• The current requirements for the antique exemption for export are still virtually impossible to meet for many legally obtained items due to a lack of documentation never previously required to stay with the instruments.

• Ideally, ivory regulations should revert to where they were on February 1, 2014, which did indeed stabilize elephant populations since their inception.

This is one of those times when we all need to stand up for what is right and fair. Somehow we need to get the powers in charge to understand that not one elephant will be saved by these absurd regulations, but our cultural, historical, and musical heritage will suffer, as will private individuals and owners of small businesses.

Here is contact information for the appropriate government officials:

Sally Jewel, Secretary of the Interior

Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: Feedback form

Daniel M. Ashe, Fish & Wildlife, Director of External Affairs

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

E-mail: www.fws.gov/duspit/contactus.htm

1‑800‑344‑WILD (9453)

Barack Obama, President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

E-mail: www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

Representative Ed Royce

Chairman, Committee on Wildlife Trafficking

1380 S. Fullerton Road, Suite 205

Rowland Heights, CA 91748

To write your local senators and congressmen see: www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup.&nbsp;

For further reading: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/11/fact-sheet-national-stra…. ν

Notes

1. www.cites.org/sites/thediapason.com/files/eng/com/sc/65/E-SC65-42-01_2… “Interpretation and implementation of the Convention: Species trade and conservation: Elephants: Elephant Conservation, Illegal Killing and the Ivory Trade,” Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, 65th Meeting of the Standing Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, July 7–11, 2014, especially pp. 10–11.

2. A. M. Lemieux and R. V. Clarke, “The International Ban on Ivory Sales and its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa,” The British Journal of Criminology (vol. 49, no. 4), 2009, pp. 451–471.

3. Testimony of Jack Fields, June 24, 2014, at Hearing of Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/II/II22/20140624/102350/HHRG-113-II22-Wstate-FieldsJ-20140624.pdf.