#acl All:read

Link to > CouncilMinutes20120418

== Report of Organ Committee to Church Council ==
=== Introduction ===
Early in 2011, a report was submitted to Church Council by Messrs Robert Fleming, Geoff
Willis and Ross Lennon outlining the result of some investigations into problems with the 30
year old Allen electronic organ in the church. It was stated that a perceived distortion
problem in the organ may cost about $2,500 to repair. Alternatively, purchasing a new
electronic organ would cost at least $20,000.<<BR>>
In mid-June 2011, at the request of Church Council, a committee (the Organ Committee) was
formed with the following terms of reference:
 * Is the repair of the current organ worth the cost expected?
 * Does the current organ meet the needs of the congregation, and if not, in what way?
 * If replacement is a preferred option, what are the cost and features of a unit that will meet the needs of GWUC?
 * What warranty and maintenance support is available, and at what cost?
 * As we do not have a pipe organ, the committee is to ensure it also considers newer and more feature-rich electronic options to enable the organ to support more than just choral and traditional worship needs
 * In conjunction with the Finance and Property committee, what is the best option for funding the purchase if we proceed with replacement?
=== Organ Committee membership ===
The initial membership of the Committee was Robert Fleming (Chair), Ross Lennon, Elwyn
Pederson, David Williams and Geoff Willis. John Snare was co-opted in early 2012.
=== Initial Consultations ===
The Committee is aware that the GWUC membership profile is constantly changing, so that it
is difficult to say whether, 20 years hence, the organ will still be the instrument preferred by
many members of the congregation (if not a majority) for accompaniment of congregational
singing. Another question in the same context is whether, 20 years hence, there will be an
adequate number of members willing and able to play the organ at an acceptable standard
(despite recent developments which make an electronic organ less daunting for pianists).
With these considerations in mind, the first action of the Committee was to approach several
(probably around 100) congregational members, from youth to those of greater maturity, and
to ask informally their opinions on the role of the organ (repaired or new) in worship services
for the next 10-20 years. With few exceptions, the response over the entire age spectrum was
loud and clear; the congregation must have an organ. Several respondents also mentioned that
an organ would continue to be essential for weddings and funeral services.
=== The Options ===
The Committee believes there are three realistic options:
 * Continue without repairing the existing organ, at zero cost.
 * Repair the existing 30-year old Allen organ, at a cost of $5-6,000 (current faults). This is considerably higher than the early advice to Church Council ($2,500), due to the subsequent discovery of speaker damage and the desirability of refurbishing the keyboards and pedal board.
 * Purchase a new electronic organ, at a cost of $26-27,000 including installation (see attached estimates).
 * Conversion of our existing organ to a computer based electronic system known as Hauptwerk, and an alternative system known as Aeolus, were investigated but dismissed as being impractical in our context. This is discussed later in this report.
=== Continuing without repairing the existing Allen organ ===
The only advantage of this option is its zero cost. The organ could conceivably continue to
meet (after a fashion) the musical needs of the congregation for several years, but continuing
deterioration and the possibility of sudden and complete failure could eventually force
considerable expenditure.
It should be noted that one major source of distortion of the organ has been eliminated
recently by removing six damaged loudspeakers from the box mounted on the wall on the
left hand side of the worship area. Similar damage to some of the loudspeakers in the box on
the right hand side was repaired several years ago.
=== Repairing the existing Allen organ ===
The problems with the existing organ are as follows:
 * Some notes on the quieter stops, e.g., the flutes, are distorted. This distortion is inaudible at greater volume, e.g., when accompanying congregational singing, but limits the choice of stops when playing quiet contemplative voluntaries or
accompanying quiet choral anthems. Faults in the two main circuit boards are suspected. These boards would have to be returned to the Allen Organs workshop in USA to be repaired or replaced.
 * Six of the eight speakers in the box on the wall (left-hand side looking towards the sanctuary) had largely disintegrated, not due to neglect or abuse, but because such speakers are subjected to considerable forces in the course of normal operation. Some of the speakers in the box on the right-hand side were replaced several years ago. Replacement speakers can be purchased. The organ is currently operating with only the right hand set of speakers, the set-up immediately after it was transferred from the Springvale Road church. Shortly after that move additional speakers were added on the left-hand side, in response to (a) choir audibility problems, and the relocation of the organ console from the right-hand side to the left-hand side.
 * The reverberation unit (normally located within the console) was removed some years ago by the then Allens Organs representative, who carried out maintenance on our instrument. He advised that it was not working, and normal practice was to remove the unit from the organ. It was not replaced. However, such a unit is highly desirable, given the “dry” acoustics of the church (due mainly to the carpet on the floor and the padding on the seats). Allen Organs would probably be able to provide a replacement, and the cost is included in the estimate of $5-6 k for repair.
 * The card reader is unreliable. The card reader provides a range of additional useful sounds (or stops) when punched cards are inserted in a slot in the console, one card for each additional sound. The reader has been repaired several times by local
(GWUC) experts, usually by replacing a blown globe, but it has proved difficult to obtain exactly the same replacement globes. Thus the repairs have not always been successful. Repair of the card reader is also included in the $5-6,000 estimate.
 * The Chorus tab is unreliable. When activated this tab should cause the pitch of the notes played to oscillate slightly, thereby mimicking the operation of a pipe organ. Of late it has frequently produced a very unpleasant wailing sound. This fault probably
originates in one of the two main circuit boards.
 * The two keyboards and the pedal board have deteriorated through normal wear and tear. Occasionally some of the keys do not produce a sound when depressed, because of dust particle accumulation on the contacts, and the pedals near the centre of the pedal board (more frequently played than those at the extremities) tend to wobble and clatter when released. Our present maintenance man doubts the practicality of overcoming these defects, at reasonable cost, because of the way in which the key and pedal contacts operate. (A new magnetic contact mechanism introduced by Allen Organs greatly reduces wear and tear).  The only advantage of this option is its lower cost (relative to purchasing a new organ). Its main disadvantages are:
 * Although Allen Organs will guarantee their repair of a circuit board for a year, other unrelated faults could occur at any time, e.g., circuit elements other than those replaced in the repair could fail. It is unclear what guarantee would apply to replacement circuit boards.
 * After the repair we will still have a 30-year-old organ, incorporating 30-year-old technology, and lagging far behind the sound quality and versatility achievable today at modest cost.
=== Purchasing a new electronic organ ===
The only disadvantage of this option is its cost (four times that of the repair option). There areseveral advantages:
 * It will greatly enhance the contribution which music makes to worship, by providing better support to congregational singing, more varied and sympathetic accompaniment to choral singing, and greater flexibility for the organists in playing their voluntaries
 * The Allen instrument under consideration by the Committee has two particularly “user-friendly” features, the Bass Coupler and the Melody Coupler. The Bass coupler will enable pianists/keyboard players, who don’t play on the pedals, to extract a much
deeper and more supportive sound from the organ. In this way the organ might play a bigger part in the 9:15 am services. The Melody Coupler makes the tune (or melody) of a hymn readily audible to the congregation, and thus helps with the introduction of new hymns.
 * The Allen instrument also has an optional Vista Navigator facility (included in the Prestige Organs and Pianos quotation). It makes available an extra 243 stops, e.g., 32 ft pedal reed, Spanish trumpet, orchestral strings, piano, and several exotic sounds, e.g., rushing wind, to enhance the traditional organ sound. These possibilities would be expected to increase the value and appeal of the organ to the 9:15 am services.
 * The Committee also considered a Johannus electronic organ. Both the Allen and Johannus instruments come with 10-year warranties on parts and labour. Allen also guarantees the supply of parts for the life of their instrument. In practice we could realistically expect 30 years of reliable service, with minimal maintenance costs, from either instrument.
8. Choice of a new electronic organ
The Committee considered the following electronic organs:
 * An Allen Protégé L-10 Quad Suite Classical Organ, with Vista Navigator. We heard this instrument in St Scholasticas Catholic Church, East Burwood, and were very impressed by the sound which it produced in an auditorium slightly larger than ours.
 * A Johannus Sweelinck 17 AGOSE Classic Organ in St Clares Catholic Church, Box Hill North. It also produced a very exciting sound in an auditorium comparable to our own.
 * Hauptwerk (or Australian Virtual Organs) instruments, four examples of which we heard during an evening presentation in Greensborough Lutheran Church. These instruments are based on detailed recordings of pipe organs (each note on each rank of pipes) in various churches, mainly overseas. One purchases a computer program for a given organ, e.g., Salisbury Cathedral, UK, supplies one’s own console, complete with bench and computer screen, and puts it all together. There is a separate program for each organ which is simulated. Although the versatility of the system and the sound quality were very impressive, enquiries have shown that
very little technical back-up and support is available locally. In other words, the system is best suited to individual enthusiasts with strong technical and computing backgrounds, and lots of spare time! The price would be comparable with the Allen and Johannus instruments, possibly a little cheaper, but the system would not be a wise choice for GWUC at this time. It could also be argued that the simulated sound of a major cathedral organ, such as in Salisbury Cathedral, would be somewhat incongruous in a church the size of ours.
 * An organ synthesiser known as Aeolus (after the Greek god of Wind) which was demonstrated to us by Nathan Hurst on a recent visit. This system is similar to the Hauptwerk system. It can be implemented on a much lower cost computer, but it would require much the same physical connection work as the Hauptwerk system, if the present organ were to be converted to it. It offers considerable flexibility of music style, but the Committee feels that, even assuming that its sound quality matched that of a “ready-to-play” organ such as Allen or Johannus, the realisation of its potential would be beyond the technical capabilities we have in the congregation at present.<<BR>>
Other Allen and Johannus models, some much more expensive, and others a little less expensive, are available. However, the Committee feels that anything down-market of the two models listed above would represent only a marginal improvement on our existing
organ, and would therefore not be worthwhile. There are of course other manufacturers of electronic organs, e.g., Rogers, but only Allen and Johannus are represented in Melbourne. Technical support outside Allen and Johannus could therefore be problematic.
=== Allen versus Johannus ===
The Committee prefers Allen, for the following reasons:
 * Allen has been established longer than Johannus, and has a proven track record for reliability and technical support
 * The sound qualities are comparable, as far as the Committee could tell from a comparison in different locations. As mentioned above, the Vista Navigator option with the Allen Protégé L-10 (included in the quotation) offers 243 additional sounds,
controlled through a touch screen located in a box built into the console. Johannus offers a supplementary voice module (CSM128), not specifically mentioned in the quotation but included in the price. It provides a total of 48 additional “sounds”, controlled through a box which sits on top of the console (and made of the same wood grain). The committee feels that the Allen add-on is superior to that of the Johannus.
 * The Allen instrument offers more organist-friendly devices, especially suited to usage with or by our bands.
 * The Allen key and pedal contact system is less prone to wear and tear than that of the Johannus.
=== Is it really extravagant to spend $27,000 on a new organ? ===
It is worth pointing out that the Springvale Road congregation spent $13,000 on the existing
organ in late 1981. The purchase of a much superior instrument today will cost $26-27,000,
about twice the 1981 outlay. The cost of living (as measured by the CPI) in Melbourne in
December 2011 was more than three times what it was in December 1981, so that,
proportionately, we would be spending less than the Springvale Road people in 1981.
Our current maintenance man has indicated that it would be possible to use our existing
speakers with a new organ, as he believes they are of adequate quality. However, this would
need to be confirmed by comparative listening tests. The maximum saving would be around
$2,850, relative to purchasing new speakers.
=== How might we pay for a new organ?? ===
This is really a question for Church Council, considering income, maintenance costs, salaries
and other financial commitments. Some suggestions follow:
 * The Committee believes it has detected a certain “warmth” in the congregation
towards the purchase of a new organ, e.g., at least one member attending the
Congregational Meeting on Monday 19 March had brought his cheque book with him,
intending to contribute to an organ fund should such have been set up on the night!
The committee suspects that several others are similarly inclined, and suggests that
this potential source be investigated
 * The Committee would be willing to organize three or four organ recitals on a new
instrument, to raise some money following the example set in Springvale Road in
1981. However, such an approach may not prove particularly successful.
 * It may be appropriate to draw some or all of the required funds from the Building
Deferred Maintenance Fund, if the organ and other building contents are covered by
this fund
 * Perhaps the church has bequest funds which could be used in accordance with the
donors’ wishes
 * It may be appropriate to seek contributions from the major Funeral Directors who use
our church, perhaps with acknowledgment in the Book of Gifts, as would be the case
for congregational members who may make major donations towards a new
instrument.
=== Recommendation ===
The Committee strongly recommends that GWUC purchases a new Allen Protégé L-10 Quad
Suite Classical Organ with Vista Navigator, as soon as possible.

Robert Fleming<<BR>>
Chair Organ Committee<<BR>>
21 March 2012