leaderboard1 -

The Future of the Organ in America

February 8, 2003
Default

On June 9, 2002, John Walker delivered the keynote address at the gala Open House at the Reuter Organ Company, Lawrence, Kansas. The following article presents the text of these remarks, in which Mr. Walker responded to Albert Neutel's request to envision the future of the pipe organ in America.

 

When Albert Neutel asked me to address the topic of the "future of the organ," I was somewhat dumbfounded.  At this point in my life I have experienced a lot of past, but I have minimal experience with the future. "Change is inevitable; growth is optional," as our minister William Jackson described in a recent sermon. Indeed, there has been phenomenal change in the organ from the hydraulos to the large medieval Winchester organ, the split keyboards of Italy and Spain in the 17th century, the German Baroque organ, the French Baroque organ, the English Cabinet organ, the double pedalboards of 19th- century Germany, the innovations of Cavaillé-Coll, Ernest Skinner, the "Praetorius organ" and its descendants, the theater organ, and digital sampling, to name just a few metamorphoses of the organ. We have experienced change. And I anticipate confidently that we shall encounter more change in the future.

Happily the organ has demonstrated astonishing flexibility and adaptability to accommodate great changes. Instruments which have not been flexible in this manner have become artifacts of history, museum curiosities--the aulos, the shawm, the Bible regal, the serpent, the viol da braccia, the pedal piano. We thank our ancestors that they preferred change over death. Now in our time we will face the same challenge. Certainly some innovations will not prove themselves ultimately to be worthy; but we must make that determination from experience, not from fearful resistance to the new. "Change is inevitable; growth is optional."

Throughout history the fate of the organ has depended heavily upon its integral connection with religion. When religious culture has been strong (i.e., Germany c. 1700) the organ has thrived. When religion has been threatened (i.e.,  France c. 1800) the organ has suffered. Indeed, had Pepin the Short not donated his acquisition of an organ to a religious order in the 8th century, thereby initiating the relationship between the church and the organ, we might possibly not have the organ today and we would not have had this wonderful dinner!  Variations in style of worship have been appropriately reflected in varied organ design (i.e., 17th-century German Lutheran, vs. 17th-century French Catholic, vs. 20th-century American Protestant worship styles and the organs germane to each epoch and country). When the organ has adapted to and accommodated the requirements of changing religious ritual, the happy marriage between the church and the organ has continued.

Now we find ourselves immersed in a sea-change of worship practices in America. For better or for worse, new musical repertoire has emerged in churches throughout America and abroad. Because organs, and organists, have been perceived as incapable of handling and unwilling to address this repertoire and shift in worship pattern, one guru has even predicted the quick demise of our cherished instrument. I believe that we face a challenge similar to that of organ builders and organists in France in 1800, when traditional religious practice was abolished. Those clever organists who learned to play patriotic tunes saved many organs in France from almost certain destruction. The challenge for the church musician, and the builder of church organs, has never been greater than it is today. The way in which we respond to that challenge remains to be documented. But I believe that simple logic would indicate that an organ designed in Germany in 1700, no matter how wonderful that instrument may be, and a comparable strict diet of German Baroque music, would not serve effectively the requirements of today's American church.  We must summon our greatest artistry and creativity to respond to the liturgical challenge of our generation, to build instruments with the flexibility to respond to the demands of the best current repertoire as well as traditional sacred music literature. By analogy to French organists 200 years ago, perhaps we all need to learn how to play patriotic marches until this present cultural storm blows over. We must build instruments capable of performing our entire organ solo repertoire, accompanying the widest range of choral and solo vocal literature, supporting and encouraging congregational singing, and moving and exalting the human spirit. A very tall order!

We frequently lament that during our generation we have lost the audience for the organ. Could it be that this tragic decline of interest in our instrument has been occasioned in part by our creation of some instruments which are just "plain ugly" and our insistence upon playing Titelouze when the people want to hear "What a Friend We Have in Jesus?" I recall from more than 30 years ago the lecture of a composer who said that modern composers had retreated into the universities, where it did not matter to them if their compositions ever reached a large audience. In some ways, we organists and builders of organs have sought that same shelter from the demanding reality of public taste and the dynamic opportunity to engage that large public. We have entertained ourselves with magnificent duplications of historic organs and academically sanctioned performance styles. We have sought to replicate the past in an effort to find the future. And the American musical public has lost interest in our pursuit of historicity, while we frequently have neglected the dictates of musical aesthetics and functionality. Now to survive and to thrive we must respond to the needs of the church, the worshipper, the participant, the listening public. We must relocate that dynamic which drew thousands of Americans to frequent organ recitals early in the last century. In short, we must imagine the future rather than copy the past; we must pursue aesthetic beauty, not confusing it with historic authenticity; we must energetically seek new beauty rather than to repeat the beauty of another time and place. In the words of James Russell Lowell, "Time makes ancient good uncouth."

In San Francisco, Michael Tilson Thomas has undertaken a bold and daring venture to create a new audience for the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. He has actively courted those young persons who normally would not be seen at a concert of classical music. He has implemented innovative programming, including his own piano improvisation with the surviving members of the Grateful Dead. He has featured many works which challenge the traditional envelope of symphonic repertoire. Now he finds that packed houses grace his concerts, drawn by the creative vitality of his adventuresome programming and repertoire. He then takes the golden opportunity to introduce this new audience on the same program to the wonders of Beethoven!  And it is succeeding brilliantly! Last February I had the privilege to perform the world premier of Stephen Mackey's "Pedal Tones" with this orchestra. The composer, whose own performing instrument is the electric guitar, infused this score for orchestra and organ with the idiom of the rock band. It was 30 minutes of sheer sonic extravaganza. Countless young persons from three capacity audiences commented "Wow! I've never heard a real pipe organ before! It was awesome!" These people were attracted by the visceral power of the organ, by its multitude of colors, by its capacity to respond on an equal basis to a huge orchestra, by its flexibility, the fascination of its console and its façade.  They were not concerned with its historic authenticity but purely its sonic splendor.  I challenge organ builders to focus upon that sonic and visual splendor, seeking to invent even more beautiful and diverse timbres and to expand the palette of available sonorities while retaining the best tonal designs of our heritage; I also challenge performers and composers to "push the envelope" of repertoire to reach and to create a new audience.

In this post-modern era, in which the secular world often appears to engulf the sacred arena, those who would preserve and promote the organ must look beyond the traditional church for a new audience. Although I believe firmly that the ultimate fate and design of the organ are inextricably tied to the church and its worship practices, I also believe that we must engage the entire populace with our instrument. A growing number of major concert halls now house pipe organs, and an expanding number of Americans is initiated to the instrument in secular concerts, thereby discovering the majesty and mystery which first attracted each of us to the organ. Could we devise an agreement whereby every organ builder would resolve to sponsor one concert hall instrument somewhere in America (with enthusiastic cooperation from the local concert administrators!) and assist with underwriting the cost to present and publicize concerts and recitals on that instrument? Just imagine what that could do to introduce, educate, and motivate a new audience (who in turn will purchase new organs!). This pattern would be "out-of-the-box," but "Change is inevitable; growth is optional."

Of all performers, we organists are the only ones who regularly play instruments of varying dimensions and measurements. We deal with flat pedalboards, radiating pedalboards, flat manuals, tilted manuals, French-style consoles, American-style consoles, tilt-tabs and stops, and a wide range of spatial arrangements. Would any pianist or violinist be willing to cope with such challenges to muscle memory? And it is now well documented that organists as a group tend to suffer specific long-term physical maladies from the constant encounter with their beloved console. Some years ago, my doctoral student, Catherine Burrell, now also a doctor of medicine, based her dissertation upon the design of an ergonomically structured organ console. Basing her research upon findings from computer workstations, Catherine envisioned a console which wrapped around the player, enabling the performed to access every control with complete ease and facility.  My own physician suggests that we organists need lumbar support at the console, such as those used by secretaries and computer operators at their desks. He envisions a flexible lumbar support invention, one which would respond to movement of the torso while maintaining therapeutic support to the lower spinal column. He also suggests a circular manual and pedal configuration patterned after the newer computer keyboards which encircle the operator. Another challenge, which organists constantly encounter, deals with the distance between the surface of the bench and the pedalboard.  Since organists are created in varying sizes, there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to this ideal distance. Therefore, we have invented hymnals to place under the bench and, more lately, adjustable benches, some of them even motorized! But a high bench, necessary for those with longer legs, places the arms at a disadvantaged angle to the keyboards, thereby creating additional problems of its own. Also a high bench frequently places the performer's knees in undesirable proximity to the lower frame of the manuals, potentially even trapping the performer! If the question involves distance from seat to pedalboard, the obvious solution would appear to be an adjustable pedalboard, such as the one created for the organ at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Why has this concept not been generally applied elsewhere? I would suggest sincere study of these concepts, which could eliminate the skeletal problems which many performers encounter. Could some clever and insightful engineer design such an ergonomically sensible console? Could such an ergonomically designed console ever become the industry standard?

More than 20 years ago Jean Guillou published his fascinating and challenging book L'Orgue: Souvenir et Avenir, in which he details the history and his vision of the future of the organ. He describes in detail his idea for an "Organ of Variable Structure," an instrument which would be constructed in several separate mobile chambers, which could be transported with ease to performance locations where no permanent organ would be feasible. Such an instrument would go far to extend the impact of the organ to a vast and expanded culture. Who will build such an instrument and make it available? "Change is inevitable; growth is optional."

Much has been written and said about the last century's innovation of digital technology, and frequently there has been more heat than light generated by this conversation. While the larger musical world has accepted the legitimacy of "electronic music" for almost 100 years, with composers of the stature of Messiaen and many others writing serious compositions in this medium, we organists have been loathe to accept this expansion to the resources of the pipe organ. I would suggest that the secret of the organ's longevity has been the ability and willingness of builders and performers throughout history to accept and to adopt the best of every innovation throughout 2250 years of history.  Now the former National President of AGO, Dr. Philip Hahn, has written: "I have opened my ears to the latest technology. My soul has been stirred." (The American Organist, February 2001) I believe that the time has arrived for us to catch up to our musical colleagues and to think openly and creatively about the fascinating opportunities which are available to expand our tonal resources and to bring a vital new era to the noble history of the organ. Might we please evaluate the aesthetic worth of this new sonic resource from experience rather than from obstinate fear? Might we postpone writing the review until the performance has concluded?

So, what will be the future of the organ?  To be sure, the future will not be the past, although it must be informed by the spirit of the past. It has been said that "If we fail to evaluate ourselves historically, we shall be condemned to evaluate ourselves hysterically!" And what is that spirit of the past? I believe that it has always been a readiness to adapt to innovation, to serve changing liturgical and cultural needs, and to emulate the finest aesthetic concepts of every era. By this means our ancestors have given to us an instrument which encompasses stylistic innovations and changes from the original genius of Ktesibios in 250 B.C. through the onset of the 21st century. Let us summon the courage to continue the noble pattern of our forebears to accept, adopt, adapt, modify, and utilize every creative opportunity. We have been given an instrument which universally encompasses the history of our musical heritage. May we continue the open-minded creativity which has characterized the greatest names among our forebears! May we create yet a new and even grander era for the organ, so that ever more people may be inspired by this instrument, and so that in the 22nd century our descendants may know that we saved, expanded, and delivered this noble heritage to them!  

Related Content

March 18, 2024
The celebration “These people will be your friends for life,” Karel Paukert pronounced to his organ class at Northwestern University in the mid-1970s…
March 18, 2024
That ingenious business Great Britain’s King George III (1738–1820), whose oppressive rule over the American colonies led to the American…
March 18, 2024
Robert Eugene Leftwich Robert Eugene Leftwich died January 13, 2024. He was born July 2, 1940, in Texas and grew up in Longmont, Colorado. He…