On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Michael's Music Service wrote:
 
> I am not commenting towards the views of any one person here .
. .
>
> > What should be of first consideration (in any church) is how
will
> > the instrument fulfill the needs of the liturgy.
>
> I have never understood the selection and design of an organ
this way.
> Congregations change, God knows liturgies change (Where are you
now, 1928
> Prayer Book?!), musical tastes change -- an instrument built to
last for
> a hundred, maybe several hundred years should not be built
based upon
> what will best serve the "needs" of the contemporary
congregation.
>
> A good organ should be built on good organbuilding principles
of
> construction and style. Putting in the antiphonal Trumpettes
d'Orgasme
> may make the current crowd oooze and melt, but is it good
building
> practice? Or, do we build organs now with an estimated life of
about 30
> YEARS, like everything else built by modern construction?
 
But, to paraphrase the author, "God knows organbuilding
principles change"
just like liturgies change.  Let's face it, both organbuilding
and liturgical
music are consumed by fads on different time cycles.  Is the
current idea of
what comprises "good organbuilding practices" the same as in the
60's?
 
Certainly some concepts of good organbuilding are constant, but
these
have to do with the material quality of the work, not the
aesthetic.
 
What we, as organ purchasers, builders, and players, have to do
is to strive
to specify/build/require organs that meet the needs of the
current as well
as forseeable future liturgy.  Of course, this is an impossible
task, and to
even approach this ideal one has to be willing to "tone down"
some of the
current fads to allow for the support of future ones.
 
- Brad