Economics of an investment

Alaska officials ponder
only road to Juneau

Juneau, Alaska, is currently accessible only by airplane or boat. The city of 31,000 is the capital of the state, but many Alaskans have never been there because of its remoteness. That could change a little if the state government’s plans for a 65-mile, $281 million highway survives in the federal transportation bill, The New York Times reported.

The highway would connect Juneau to the rest of the state’s highway system through Canada, but some residents vehemently oppose the idea. They like Juneau’s remoteness. If Alaskans wanted a more accessible capital, they could move it to Anchorage or another city, but several attempts over the past 40 years to do just that have failed. Even with the highway, the trip from Juneau to Anchorage would be 800 miles.

The planned highway is a proposal of Gov. Frank Murkowski and U.S. Rep. Don Young, who is influential in transportation policy as chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Critics say the road would cost too much and possibly take funding away from other needed infrastructure projects. They also say the proposed alignment would threaten bears and other animals in the Tongass National Forest and would be dangerous in winter because of avalanches.

A draft environmental study is scheduled to be released this month. If the highway is not built, Juneau will remain the only state capital that cannot be reached by car.

ARTBA grassroots program
wins Telly Award

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) has won the 2004 Telly Award for the multimedia training program it produced this year to help construction-industry workers across the nation get involved in federal legislative advocacy in support of increasing federal transportation investment.

The prestigious award, founded in 1979, annually showcases the best work of the most respected advertising agencies, production companies, television stations, cable operators and corporate video departments in the world.

More than 10,000 entries from all 50 states and five continents are submitted annually. On average, only about 7% of those entries are selected as winners. The Telly Awards are affiliated with the Center for Creativity, an organization that was founded in 1963 to research and study advertising, design, production and journalism.

ARTBA developed “Mobilize! A Grassroots Legislative Action Program for Transportation Construction Firms,” which includes a 10-minute DVD, CD-ROM, PowerPoint presentation and instructional booklet. It is believed to be the first multimedia package developed by a national transportation association to facilitate grassroots training.

The program provides information about how decisions made by Congress and the White House affect the transportation construction market. It also offers employees tips on how to get involved in helping shape federal policies that will benefit their future livelihoods.

ARTBA engaged Washington, D.C.-based LAI Creative Media for the production work, and the DVD features innovative grassroots techniques that have been used successfully by Harrisburg, Pa.-headquartered Stabler Cos./PSI and by Oldcastle Materials Inc., which is located in Washington, D.C.

The association distributed nearly 1,500 kits to companies throughout the country with the goal of bolstering activities in support of a significant increase in federal transportation investment as part of the TEA-21 reauthorization.

Cement demand up in 1st quarter

Portland cement demand increased 14.8% in February, followed by a 23.8% increase in March, according to The Monitor, published monthly by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). On a seasonally adjusted annualized basis, March’s reading of 125.9 mmt is a single-month record. Year-to-date consumption is tracking 12% above last year.

Blended cement was rather flat in March at -0.3%. Year-to-date consumption is down 12.3%.

Masonry cement consumption increased 28.3%, following significant gains in January and February. Year-to-date consumption is 21.3% above 2003 levels.

Cement and clinker imports continued to grow at 7.9% in February and 11.5% in March. Year-to-date, imports are up 13.7% from the first three months of last year.

PCA’s statistics reflect the latest data from several government-issued reports.

Environmental streamlining
a success in marshland highway

Involving all the interested agencies early allowed the Federal Highway Administration and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) to finish the environmental study of a replacement highway through a sensitive marsh area in just 44 months, according to a “Success Story” on the website of the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials.

The new Louisiana Rte. 1 will provide enhanced access to the vital oil, gas and fishing industries in the gulf area. It also will provide a more reliable evacuation route in case of a severe storm such as a hurricane while preserving the marshes that buffer the area from those gulf storms.

The new four-lane highway will replace an old two-lane structure. Instead of a lift bridge over Bayou Lafourche at Leeville, there will be a new fixed, high-rise bridge. The road will stretch 16 miles from Fourchon to Golden Meadow.

Ronald Ventola, chief of the Regulatory Branch of the New Orleans District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, credited the FHWA and the LADOTD for understanding the sensitivity of the habitat and being willing to adjust the construction plan. He also gave the resource agencies credit for understanding the need for the highway and the lack of good alternatives.

One accommodation to the habitat was the decision to use “end-on” construction except for the high-rise bridge near Leeville. According to the end-on construction method, the heavy equipment working on Rte. 1 will sit on a platform on concrete piles instead of in the marsh. A crane on the platform will drive piles and place segments of the viaduct bridge then move to the next platform and repeat the process.

The FHWA and the LADOTD also undertook a study of the effect on the marsh grasses of the shade from the new structure.
The marshes are already threatened. In the past 50 years, 1,500 square miles of Louisiana’s gulf wetlands have disappeared through erosion and subsidence. In 2000, while FHWA and LADOTD were preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for Rte. 1, another 164 square miles of the salt marsh suffered a severe dieback of marsh grass. With the continuing erosion of the coastal marshes, the existing highway has become increasingly susceptible to flooding during storms.

The agencies that participated in the planning included the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others.
Those involved in the process said the cooperation and mutual respect among the agencies proved the U.S. DOT could streamline the environmental review process with the least effect on the environment.

The new La. Rte. 1 will become part of the National Highway System in view of its intermodal link to the U.S. energy supply.

Protection Tip of the Month

Many eye injuries on construction sites result from flying wood dust and other debris like paint chips, dirt and concrete particles. Solvents, paints and adhesives used in construction can be toxic to the eyes and skin. Eyewashes and drench showers should be in place to mitigate such hazards at heavy construction sites. Equipment ranging from bottle eyewashes through portable stations to plumbed fixtures is available to meet the unique needs of your work site. And an updated American National Standard for emergency eyewash and shower equipment includes minimum performance requirements and installation, maintenance and training specifications. ANSI Z358.1-2004 may be ordered by contacting ISEA, 1901 N. Moore St., Suite 808, Arlington, VA 22209 or 703/525-1695 or visit www.safetyequipment.org.

HIGHWAY NAMES
IN THE NEWS

Association news >>>>

JCB Inc., Savannah, Ga., has restructured its North American sales and marketing: Bob Wright will head dealer development, remarketing, governmental sales and business planning; Bruce Narveson has been named vice president of sales for the Northeast region; Jan Nielsen is now general manager for the Central region; David Hahn has been named general manager of the Western region; Ron Fulmer is now general manager for Canada; and Gordon Henderson will continue as vice president of sales for the Southeast region.

Meris Gebhardt has joined the sales staff at Tracker Software Corp., Snowmass Village, Colo.

PBM Concrete, Rochelle, Ill., has merged into J.W. Peters, Burlington, Wis.

JLG Industries Inc., McConnellsburg, Pa., has made a binding offer to purchase Delta Manlift, a Tonneins, France, subsidiary of the Manitowoc Co. Inc. JLG also will acquire certain intellectual property and related assets that will allow it to relaunch selected models of Manitowoc’s recently discontinued Liftlux aerial work platforms at a later date. Scott Brower has been named vice president of marketing and market development at JLG.

Anthony E. Fiorato, president and CEO of Construction Technology Laboratories, Skokie, Ill., has been elected president of the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.

The American Society of Safety Engineers, Des Plaines, Ill., has been named secretariat of the American National Standards Institute’s A10 Accredited Standards Committee on Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, which aims at protecting workers and the public.

Vernon Wehrung, president of Modern Precast Concrete, Ottsville, Pa., has been elected chairman of the board of the National Precast Concrete Association, Indianapolis.

Tim Gillespie of Sika Corp., Lyndhurst, N.J., has been voted a fellow of the International Concrete Repair Institute.

Engineering news >>>>

C. Diane Matt has joined Women in Engineering Programs & Advocates Network as the first executive director.

Arthelius “Trip” Phaup, P.E., is relocating to Ralph Whitehead Associates’ Atlanta office to assume the duties of Transportation Group leader.

James Rowan has been named area manager for the Philadelphia office of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff has appointed Mary Clayton North Carolina area manager.

HNTB Corp., Kansas City, Mo., has appointed Mary Axetell senior vice president. The firm also has appointed four vice presidents: Uri Avin, Rhett Leary, Jim Riley and Mark Urban.

Ben Berra of Skelly and Loy Inc., Harrisburg, Pa., has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission as a qualified bog turtle surveyor in Pennsylvania.

Raymond F. Messer, P.E., has been named by Texas A&M University’s Department of Civil Engineering as the recipient of the Friend of the Department 2004 Award. Messer is president and chairman of the board of Walter P. Moore.

Horner & Shifrin Inc., St. Louis, Mo., has named Jamie McVicker, P.E., transportation/civil project manager, as an associate of the firm. Lisa E. Fennewald, P.E., also has been named associate and promoted to assistant project manager.

KS Engineers, Newark, N.J., has added Eugene W. Little and Eileen Della Volle as vice president of business development.
URS Corp., Seattle, has named Dave Alford manager of the company’s Pacific Northwest region.

Michael D. Spitz, P.E., has joined McMahon Associates Inc. as a senior project engineer in the firm’s Cape Coral, Fla., office.
At Carter & Burgess Inc., Kenneth Carper, P.E., CPSWQ, has joined as a vice president and unit manager of the Raleigh, N.C., Transportation Programs Unit, and James “Woody” Woodruff, P.E., has joined as a senior project manager in the Salt Lake City office.

It's Time To Tell the Story

Introduction

My presentation, "The Economics of Pipe Organ Building: It's Time to Tell The Story," is the viewpoint of an economist, not a builder or a musician. It reflects my fervent conviction that organbuilders must be aware of the economic parameters which shape their business. I also strongly believe that builders must communicate the unique dimensions of their age-old craft to their constituents and clientele. This, in my judgment, will contribute to the support so essential for their well-being in the challenging years ahead. My goal was to present some facts and figures for the builders to think about, to discuss with their colleagues, and perhaps to use in presentations to prospective clients. As one builder has remarked: "Organbuilding is an anachronism in the American economy."1

Assumptions

We begin with certain assumptions which are critical to the discussion. First, we call attention to the fact that no two builders are alike. Each builder has his own vision of his enterprise, his product and his market. We also recognize that APOBA is a far more diverse group today that it was thirty years ago when it was comprised primarily of comparatively large firms building non-mechanical instruments.

Second, as an economist, I define organbuilding as an industry. By industry we mean a group of firms and suppliers engaged in building the instrument and its components on an ongoing basis. Organbuilding is categorized by the US Department of Commerce in the Standard Industrial Classification seven digit code 3931-211. In building a one-of-a-kind product, organbuilding differs radically from the traditional view of industry as comprised of a handful of relatively large firms manufacturing automobiles, appliances, pharmaceuticals and computers. Therefore, because of the unique highly individual and artistic nature of organbuilding as an age-old craft, some builders, perhaps particularly small shops, view organbuilding as no more an industry than sculpting, portrait painting, or even piano concertizing.

Third, organbuilding is a business. The firm is subject to business realities and must conduct its affairs in accordance with them. These include balance sheet and income statement guidelines and property and contract requirements. Unfortunately, some builders, perhaps those with what one prominent executive described as a "cavalier" attitude, sometimes don't pay careful attention to these realities. We also assert that organbuilding is subject to broad economic forces which include wage rates in local labor markets and overall market determined prices for materials and components. In addition, organbuilding is critically influenced by the general economic climate of depression and inflation as history so forcefully demonstrates.

Fourth, in economic parlance, the structure of the industry is a quixotic example of two types of competition. Organbuilding is and always has been a highly competitive industry. When measured by the number of firms and ease of entry it is similar to textbook examples of pure and perfect competition. In a survey I made for a paper years ago entitled "The Place of the Small Builder in the American Organ Industry," one builder, Fritz Noack, reported that his capital cost for entering the trade was $200.00.2 Theoretically, any builder can build the same stoplist, pipe scales and casework. In practice, however, sharp differences exist between builders and instruments. Therefore, in the nature of the product, a specification good in which no two instruments are alike, organbuilding is more like a product differentiated oligopoly. Competition reflects many factors: price, windchest action, level of workmanship, prior installations, reputation, endorsements and status seeking by the organist and the buyer.

Fifth, the concept of market segments is useful. Churches, educational institutions, theaters, private dwellings, lodge halls, and funeral homes have been identifiable markets for pipe organs over the years. Each of these markets has its own demand determinants. Membership and giving would be key determinants for the church market. For concert halls and art museums, major private gifts would be all important. The builder has no direct influence on these demand determinants which critically shape the outlook for his business.

Sixth, we acknowledge that some builders don't recognize themselves as part of an industry insofar as there are interests and concerns common to all participants. Macroeconomic demand determinants don't interest them. Nor is the idea of competition, in a broad sense, viewed as particularly relevant to their enterprise. Their clientele wants their instrument, not just an organ. In an analogy, people don't go to a piano recital, they go to hear Andre Watts. This builder's clientele is perhaps most often a individual, not a committee, and quite likely a prominent academic who will make the choice of builder. Most important, funding is taken for granted. It is presumed that the buyer is authorized to pay whatever price is required to obtain the chosen instrument.

This phenomenon reflects the close symbiotic relationship between the instrument, the performer, and his employer. The instrument is what accords status to the organist's church or school and himself, and is the way he obtains recognition among his peers. It is his ego alter. This has always been true and always will be. It was, no doubt, the case with the Hooks, certainly so with Roosevelt, Skinner, Aeolian Skinner and Holtkamp. The role of brand preference among competitively sensitive and socially conscious pipe organ buyers was supremely illustrated with WurliTzer in the theater market and Aeolian in the mansions of the wealthy. Those familiar with my articles in The Diapason know that I have developed and continue to reiterate the theme of invidious comparison and competitive emulation (Thorstein Veblen) as a very real phenomenon in the organ marketplace.

Economics

The salient factor in organbuilding and the one that distinguishes it as an industry from all others is the labor intensive nature of the product. This overriding factor largely explains the postwar history of the industry and will determine its future. We would argue that 80 percent of the value added in building a pipe organ is labor. Value added by manufacture is the difference between the cost of of inputs--raw materials, semifinished components and labor (including fringe benefits)--and the sale price. Industries with sixty percent or more value added by labor are considered labor intensive. Among them are products of the so-called "needle trades"--for example, robes and dressing gowns, 64 percent labor and curtains and draperies, 68 percent labor. For leather gloves and mittens the value added by labor is 84 percent. Aircraft and shipbuilding are other obvious examples of very high labor input.3

In contrast, capital intensive and technologically advanced industries, enjoy low labor costs even with high wages and benefits. Examples of low labor cost are: Primary Copper, 18 percent; Electronic Computers, 27 percent; and Household Appliances, 25 percent.4 The implication of high productivity, high wage industries for organbuilding is that they determine the wage structure of the national as well as the local economy. In a full-employment economy such as ours, organbuilders face enormous pressures to pay competitive wages or face high turnover with the resulting disruptions, delays and cost overruns. The high cost of organbuilding mirrors the labor input and wage rate; when wages go up, costs go up in lock step. The wage pressures of a full employment economy are a direct threat to cost containment in organbuilding.

The availability of low-wage labor explains why the Möller Company in Hagerstown, Maryland was able to operate for decades as America's largest builder. With 350-400 factory workers, Möller shipped at least one complete instrument every working day in the 1920s and again in the 1950s. Hagerstown, out on a shelf in western Maryland, was bypassed by prosperity and suffered for years from relatively high unemployment. Möller, therefore, could obtain all the workers it required at comparatively low wages. Conversely, no organbuilder could have operated in Detroit or Pittsburgh, because they could never have paid the union wages of auto workers and steel workers and remained competitive. 

Organbuilding is similar to the performing arts in the preponderance of labor cost to total cost and the absence of productivity increases. A widely-acclaimed study, Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma, disclosed that the share of salaries of artistic personnel to total expenditures was 64% for major U.S. orchestras and 72% for the London Symphony Orchestra.5 The principal conclusion of this authoritative work, commissioned by the Twentieth Century Fund and written by Professors Baumol and Bowen of Princeton University, was that the arts operate within the framework of a complex economy. This coupled with the inability to achieve a sustained increase in productivity makes even higher costs an inevitable characteristic of live performance. So it is with organbuilding.

The predominant role of labor input in organbuilding is illustrated in Table 1 where we compare the number of man-hours necessary to fabricate representative components of a pipe organ with those required to manufacture an automobile. For pipe organs, four key components: an 8' Diapason, 61 pipes, voiced, an 8' Trumpet, 61 pipes voiced, a 16' Bourdon, 32 pipes, voiced, and a pitman action windchest of five stops are portrayed. The contrast is indeed striking.

Rising Cost

The second dominant characteristic of organbuilding is the persistent rise in cost over time. This is illustrated for the key components over the last twenty years in Table 2. More important, when we compare the rise in cost of organ components to the producer price index for the whole economy, the increase is greater for organbuilding as shown in Table 3. This argues that in the event inflation reappears in the US economy, the cost of organbuilding will increase at a higher rate than reflected in the producer price indexes.

What are the implications of rising costs for organbuilding? Fifty years ago, in 1948, you could buy a three-rank Möller Artiste for $2975. Today, you could scarcely buy one set of pipes below 4' pitch for this amount of money. Using the church market as a point of reference, will there be a pipe organ industry ten years from now, or twenty years down the road? To answer this question we hark back to our major premise that when church giving is rising in proportion (or greater) to the increase in income generated by a growing economy, the market scarcely blinks at rising pipe organ costs. This relationship underscores the ongoing fact that it isn't the price of an organ that is the primary determinant of demand, but income, i.e., having the funds to buy them.

In 1900 the price of a Hinners tracker organ was about $125 per stop. Recall that with a force of 90 workmen in Pekin, Illinois, Hinners was building three instruments a week. Remember also that per capita real income in agriculture between the Panics of 1897 and 1907 was the highest in history. Farmers paid less for what they bought and got more for what they sold. With their short-term living standard satisfied, they pumped rivers of cash and pledges into the churches who bought Hinners, Barckhoff, Felgemaker and Estey organs. These were four builders who, with standard specifications, capitalized on this huge rural market, what we have called the commodity segment of the market. By the end of the Hinners era, ostensibly the tracker era, this firm counted over three thousand instruments in more than 40 states and in several foreign countries.6

The Electronic Organ

The critical confluence of cost and revenue in the demand for pipe organs is illustrated in the recent history of the electronic organ. Another major premise in this discussion is that the electronic church organ is a substitute for the pipe organ. To verify this hypothesis we obtained the annual sales of the Allen Organ Company for the last twenty years and plotted them against the cost of our key pipe organ components as shown in Figure 1. The results are astounding! An almost perfect fit, a statistician's dream; you could scarcely ask for a closer correlation. The demand for the electronic church organ as a function of the price of a pipe organ illustrates the economist's concept of cross-elasticity of demand. The higher the price of a pipe organ the greater the demand for the electronic substitute. Furthermore, based upon these correlations, we could write a regression equation that says if this relationship holds, for every dollar increase in the price of a pipe organ there will be a certain increase in the demand for the electronic church instrument.

Church Giving

If we accept the premise that the electronic church instrument is a substitute for the pipe organ, we perhaps can argue that the real culprit is the failure of church giving to keep pace with pipe organ costs in recent decades unlike earlier periods. Statistics compiled by empty tomb inc. for 27 Protestant denominations for the period 1968-95 and published in "The State of Church Giving," reveal that church giving has "fallen" dramatically.7 To be sure, in a growing economy per capita personal disposable income has increased as have contributions for congregational finances. However, the percentage of income contributed has declined steadily and the increase in dollar giving is nowhere near the year to year increase in income. Whether measured by the percent of income given in 1968 or the yearly income increase, the amount given for congregational finances would have been $2.5 billion more in 1995 if these percentages had held. Two and a half billion dollars would buy a lot of pipe organs. If we view church giving within the household budget as a concept of market share, we see that the collection plate has taken a back seat to other expenditures: sporting goods, toys, pizza, and travel, among others. John and Sylvia Ronsvalle of empty tomb point out that in 1992, church giving was only 23 percent of total leisure spending. They attribute this to the pervasive hedonistic consumer-driven culture of our time.8

The implications for the church market from the giving levels we have just illustrated would appear to be ominous. If we assume costs will rise and we couple this with the diminishing rate of church giving, we will then reach a point at which, theoretically, the price per stop for a pipe organ will cause the demand to drop off sharply, if not virtually disappear. What is this point? We don't know, but we could be getting close to it. Can we say there is no demand at $30,000 per stop; perhaps not even at $25,000 or $20,000?

Not all builders believe the figures for church giving are relevant to the demand for pipe organs or that projected increases in price per stop will spell the end of the industry. They view the King of Instruments not as a utilitarian device to accompany church services but as an art form akin to a fine painting. Thus a "high end" market will continue to exist because sophisticated, discriminating--and wealthy--individuals will always select the instrument of the ages, in the same spirit in which they build their art collections--without regard to cost. These builders hold that the industry, now numbering many small shops in addition to the few larger builders, has adjusted and stabilized to this level of output, as evidenced by the demise of Möller, a builder for the commodity market which has now been almost totally preempted by the electronic instrument. A good illustration of this new paradigm is the firm of Taylor and Boody in Staunton, Virginia who by choice build only thirty to thirty-five stops per year.9

Pipe Organ Imports

Imported instruments have been a significant part of the American pipe organ scene since WWII. Large instruments by Rieger, Flentrop and Von Beckerath plus smaller ones from a host of other European builders were the cornerstone of the tracker revival in this country. They were often viewed as a status symbol by the organist profession who proclaimed "if it's foreign it's finer." The principal source of offshore instruments today is our northern neighbor Canada. The sensitive issue of Canadian imports, based primarily on the insurmountable cost advantage afforded the Canadian builder by the exchange rate, is not a new one. In February, 1931, Major Fred Oliver, veteran of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in WWI and husband of Marie Casavant, acknowledged before the US Tariff Commission that Canadian-built organs were less expensive than American instruments. He argued that clients bought them because they liked them better than the domestic product. Could they have liked them better because they were less expensive?

For many years organ imports, including those from Canada, were not a problem. American builders were busy with healthy backlogs and the Canadian share of the market was unobtrusive and not growing. Nonetheless the threat was lurking and today, in the author's judgment, it is a major one. Based upon the dollar value and the number of instruments imported from Canada in the past two decades, I, as an economist, view the Canadian competition as a significant threat to the American organ industry. I also feel strongly that the US buyer should be apprised of the implications of a decision to buy a Canadian-built organ.

Foreign trade statistics published by the Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce show that in the 1980s Canadian builders exported an average of 43 instruments per year to the US, their primary market, valued at $3.8 million per year and representing two-thirds of total imports. For the eight year period 1990-97, Canadian imports averaged 19 instruments per year valued at $4.2 million per year. In the most recent years the numbers are: 1995, 21 instruments, value $5.2 million, 76 percent of total imports; 1996, 24 instruments, $4.5 million value, 75 percent of all imports; and 1997, 22 instruments, $5.1 million total value representing 70 percent of total foreign-built organs. Table 4 portrays the value of Canadian imports in US dollars, as declared at the point of entry, for the years 1975-97 and the percent of dollar imports accounted for by Canada and Netherlands-Germany. The dollar figure is a better indicator of the import threat than the number of instruments for the same reason that the number of voiced stops is more representative that the number of instruments in that it more accurately reflects industry activity. One instrument of 100 stops is in terms of output larger than eight instruments of ten stops each. These figures understate the impact of Canadian imports which significantly influence the price structure of the organ market, making it difficult for domestic builders to compete, especially for the larger and more prestigious contracts.   

The Canadian import threat exists, primarily perhaps, for the larger firms in non-mechanical action and in situations where a price sensitive committee, as opposed to an individual, often makes the decision. Conversely, some builders, chiefly smaller firms with a guild versus business mentality, do not view Canadian competition as a threat. To them price advantage is not a pivotal factor in choice of builder in situations where the instrument and the builder are highly individualized in the unique and incomparable nature of their work.

The problem results from coupling the 80 percent labor cost of organbuilding with the Canadian dollar which has hovered around 70 cents in recent years and fell to 63.7 cents in August, 1998. If we assume that a representative wage in organbuilding in the US today is $12.00 per hour, for an American builder to compete with the 70 cent Canadian dollar his workers would have to take a pay cut to $8.40 per hour. When committees elect to purchase a Canadian-built organ this is precisely what they are asking the hapless American workers to do. Perhaps committees should ask themselves whether they would be willing to work for $12 an hour, let alone $8.40?  Furthermore, it is unethical and patently unfair for a committee to accept an offer from an American builder to spend hundreds of dollars flying them across the country to see installations, only to lose the contract to a Canadian builder solely on the basis of price.

Keep in mind also that the Canadian market is hermetically sealed against the American builder. Except for one project by Schoenstein, it has been impossible for an American builder to get work in Canada. This is attributed to the cultural protection issue. Canadians are paranoid about the "invasion" of their culture by American media and have taken steps to block American magazine sales and satellite TV programming in direct violation of the rules of the World Trade Organization. One government official hysterically compared stores selling satellite dishes to dope pushers.10 Perhaps if the Canadians are so touchy about their culture we should return the favor and talk about protecting our rich culture in pipe organ building; the legacy of Hilbourne Roosevelt, Ernest Skinner, Donald Harrison and Walter Holtkamp!

The author is not alone in his analysis of the present and future impact of Canadian competition on the outlook for American organbuilding. Erik Olbeter, project director of the prestigious Economic Strategy Institute in Washington, D. C. agrees that US firms cannot indefinitely absorb the exchange rate differential in the labor cost basis of organbuilding. He adds that since no US builders have been able to sell into the Canadian market, this is a powerful argument in support of the domestic firm.11

There are, of course, two sides to every question. Canadian builders enjoy a positive image, a distinguished history and can point to many fine instruments in this country. Therefore, if the client elects to recognize these factors in choosing a builder and to disregard the implications for American builders, that is their business. But at least they ought to be aware of what they are doing!

Predictions

In conclusion, let me turn to my crystal ball, cloudy though it is, and make some observations and predictions about pipe organ building in America in the coming years. Remember that economists can't resist the temptation to forecast; it's a congenital defect in the profession. You are free to disagree with me and I acknowledge that many of you will elect to do so.

First, pipe organs will always be built, and organbuilding activity, in its many forms, will continue indefinitely. The level of output and the composition of the industry is impossible to predict and I wouldn't hazard a guess. Long-established major builders have previous instruments to rebuild, update and relocate. Small tracker shops may build one instrument a year. Builders of all sizes may move into service work to maintain cash flow while awaiting an order for a new instrument or a rebuilding project. If the industry is defined by total employment this will include suppliers and service firms.

Second, it is clear to me as an economist that a reversal of the persistent decline in church giving is critical to the outlook for the industry. As the King of Instruments, the pipe organ must be recognized as a symbol of the broader dimensions of culture throughout the ages, bridging nations and generations, an essential component of religious symbolism vital to the experience of corporate worship, and the object of sacrificial devotion by churchgoers who stand in opposition to the hedonistic consumer-driven culture of our time. Forbes Magazine, highlighting the resurgence of popularity of mechanical watches over quartz watches pointed out: "An unscientific survey of several dozen watch experts produced one common thread: mechanical watches have soul, have workmanship, have intrinsic value that cannot be found in quartz timepieces. It is this fact, and not a Luddite, reactionary longing for the old days, that makes these watches so popular."12 So it is with the pipe organ. Like a diamond, the high cost of a pipe organ is what makes it so distinctive and so valuable.

Third, the perception of an organ today in the eyes of many churchgoers exacerbates the cost problem. The instrument has to be large and, therefore, expensive. A pipe organ must exert a commanding presence in the sanctuary as reflected in the console of a nonmechanical organ, one with three or more manuals and lots of drawknobs, and in the totality of a mechanical instrument. Above all, the sound must project power, majesty and grandeur, as evidenced by the popularity of the 32' pedal reed today.

Fourth, each builder faces a management challenge of how large an operation his market will sustain and the make-or-buy decision with every project. On an emotional level the builder must continually ask himself whether he is a businessman or an artist and how to balance these all too often conflicting interests. Above all, he must resist the temptation to cut prices to stay in business. This is the road to ruin. As they say in the ocean shipping business, those who live by the rate cut die by the rate cut.  Organbuilding must live in the real world of cost and revenue; there are no "sugar daddies" out there willing to put money into a failed pipe organ business because of the romance of it.

Fifth, supplemental electronic components are here to stay, primarily because they are the only way to keep costs down. The danger, and perhaps it is a real one, particularly for small instruments, is that the electronic organ comes to define the pipe organ whereas it must be the other way around. 

Sixth, the Canadian dollar will remain weak for many reasons. Canadian organ imports will perhaps grow and command a greater share of the market for new instruments. In the author's judgment, the current import levels already pose a serious threat to the future of the American industry.

Seventh, the greatest threat to organbuilding in the US, or anywhere, is inflation. I have already suggested that with current levels of church giving there is no market at $30,000 per stop. If our economy were to experience three to five years of double-digit inflation, organbuilding on a sustained basis would largely disappear. Church contributions would continue to erode as our aging populace struggled to make ends meet, the demand for social services by churches would rise, and the electronic organ would preempt the church market. Milton Friedman, the widely-quoted economist and celebrated Noble laureate told Forbes Magazine in December, 1997 that he expects a period of much higher inflation sometime in the next ten to twelve years. Let's hope Friedman is wrong.13

Notes

                        1.                  Telephone interview with George Taylor, March 15, 1998.

                        2.                  Coleberd, Robert E. Jr., "The Place of the Small Builder in the American Organ Industry," The Diapason,Vol. 57, No. 12, November, 1966, p. 45.

                        3.                  1995 annual survey of manufactures, US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics, Bureau of the Census, Table 2, Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 1995 and 1994, pp. 1-10--1-27.

                        4.                  Ibid.

                        5.                  Baumol, William J. and William G. Bowen, Performing Arts--The Economic Dilemma, Copyright 1966, The Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., First M.I.T. Press Paperback Edition, August, 1968, Second Printing, December, 1977, p. 145.

                        6.                  Coleberd, Robert E. Jr., "Yesterday's Tracker--The Hinners Organ Story," The American Organist, Vol. 43, No. 9, September, 1960, pp. 11-14.

                        7.                  Ronsvalle, John L. and Sylvia Ronsvalle,The State of Church Giving through 1995, Champaign, Illinois, empty tomb inc., December, 1997, passim.

                        8.                  Table 18: "Combined Per Capita Purchase of Selected Items Compared to Composite Per Member Church Giving in Constant 1987 Dollars" in John L. Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 1994, p. 61.

                        9.                  Taylor, op. cit.

                        10.              Olbeter, Erik R. "Canada's Cultural Hangup," Journal of Commerce, April 3, 1997, p. 6-A. See Also "Cultural Struggle" The Journal of Commerce, July 2, 1997, p. 8-A. Craig Turner, "Canadian Culture? Whatever It Is, They Want To Preserve It," Los Angeles Times, March 30, 1997, Section D, p. 1, 12. Joseph Weber, "Does Canadian Culture Need This Much Protection?," Business Week, June 8, 1998, p. 37.

                        11.              Telephone interview with Erik Olbeter, Economic Strategy Institute, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1997.

                        12.              Powell, Dennis E., "A Glance At Some Of The Timepieces That Made History," Forbes FYI, November, 1997, p. 152.

                        13.              "Milton Friedman at 85," Forbes, December 29, 1997, pp. 52-55.

Acoustic excellence is derived from wise design planning and decision-making regarding elements that are already “givens” within a project and budget

Acoustics in the Worship Space I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX have appeared in The Diapason, May 1983, May 1984, January 1986, May 1987, April 1988, April 1990, July 1991, May 1992, and April 2009 issues respectively.

In today’s world and economy, costs and budgets loom large in almost all activities and endeavors. During discussions of new church building or renovation projects, it might not be uncommon to hear the following ideas expressed: “Good acoustics aren’t really worth it for the average worshipper who won’t notice or appreciate it—that’s just for the elite ‘Carnegie Hall crowd;’” or, “It will cost too much to have good acoustics, and we cannot afford it.” When these notions surface they can sometimes be the cause for a church being doomed to a less than excellent acoustic environment.

Scientifically and experientially, it can be proven that good acoustic settings are indeed noticeable and appreciated by many, and not only by the “Carnegie Hall crowd”! In fact, acoustic qualities such as speech intelligibility, musical balance, and rhythmic and tuning accuracy can be scientifically tested and documented as being perceived and valued by a cross section of the population. The notion that “regular folks” won’t notice good acoustics is just scientifically false!

Economic issues are often the most difficult to resolve in many projects. Reduced availability of funds, lack of confidence in the economy, and the fear of future economic conditions are often governing factors. Indeed, when constructing a new worship facility or remodeling an existing one, many important matters tug at the purse strings, and budgeting can often be a stressor to a project. That said, it would still be eminently beneficial to consider acoustic issues seriously, and not simply dismiss acoustic excellence as being unaffordable or unattainable. Acoustic excellence does not necessarily mean purchasing “extra” or expensive features. Often, acoustic excellence can be realized from wise decisions and design choices regarding elements that are already a given part of a project.  

The primary architectural factors that affect the acoustic environment include the geometric form of a room (does the structure’s cubic air volume and shape enhance or detract from good sound?), the interior materials of a room (to what extent do selected interior finishes reflect, absorb, or transmit sound energy in a structure?), and the location of key elements (do the relative proximities of things such as microphones, speakers, singers, organ pipes, instruments, and even potentially noise-generating equipment help or hinder sound perception?). Wise or poor design choices regarding any of these factors can result in acoustic excellence or disaster.  

Geometric form of a room

Geometric room forms can distribute and project sound evenly through a space, or can generate unwanted tonal focusing, echoes, and standing waves. Successful worship space geometries typically have generous cubic air volumes, longer and shorter axes, and unobstructed “line of sight” sound projection paths. Sound-diffusing wall and ceiling surface profiles and features will also contribute to even distribution and dispersing of sound energy. Alternatively, low ceilings, flat and parallel surfaces, concave forms, deep transepts, etc., typically limit acoustical potential and create echoes, “hot spots,” “dead spots,” flutters, trapping, and other unwanted and disturbing acoustical anomalies.

Interior materials of a room

Appropriate ratios of sound-reflective to sound-absorbing materials in a room can result in a vibrant and reverberative space that enlivens music and liturgical participation, and produces 

authoritative speech. Alternatively, excessive amounts of carpeting, draperies, and other sound-absorbing features can deliver a dull, dead effect that suffocates worship participation and leaves music and speech uninspiring. Having a carefully selected ratio of sound-reflecting to sound-absorbing materials, which results in an appropriate reverberation period, is essential to a worthwhile acoustic setting.  

Location of key elements

Then there is location! The relative placement of organ pipes and choir singers together will allow choristers to hear accompaniments and each other clearly and facilitate accurate rhythm and tuning. For example, positioning singers in an ensemble format, forward and below organ cases or chambers, can maximize musical potential. If singers are placed far from organ pipes, within restrictive alcoves, behind obstructions, or strung out in long lines, the entire musical ensemble will suffer from being disengaged. Similarly, the correct location of loudspeakers relative to both microphones and the listening congregation can assure speech intelligibility for all, while inappropriate placement of sound system components can result in frustration and lost clarity for all; if loudspeakers are placed with direct “line of sight” access to all listeners, they can deliver sound with clarity. Ultimately, it is not enough to have all of the sound sources and listeners “somewhere” in the room.  Relational locations and proximities are critical to success.

Finally, even if all of the beneficial acoustic design features for room geometry, material selections, and functional proximities are adopted, all can still be ruined if unwanted and interrupting noises invade the worship space. Techniques such as placing noise-generating equipment and functions away from the worship space, and using resilient mountings and discontinuous structures can mitigate “noise to listener” pathways.  

Acoustic excellence

In all of these examples, acoustic success is not derived from expensive treatments or extra apparatus. Acoustic excellence is instead derived from wise design planning and decision-making regarding elements that are already “givens” within a project and budget. It may cost no more or less to place organ pipes in good or poor proximity to choir singers! It may cost no more or less to place noise-generating air-conditioning compressors near or far from the worship space! It may cost no more or less to angle a wall profile to avoid or create an echo! In many instances, the good acoustic choice can indeed be the least costly choice. For example, a hard surface floor that reinforces sound energy will last a lifetime, while a carpeted floor that removes sound energy from an environment will wear over time and eventually require replacement.  

While significant acoustic success can be realized from informed design and decision-making, it should not be inferred, however, that all acoustic matters are free and easy! There are some acoustic benefits worth paying for. Hard, dense walls that reinforce and balance low frequency tone near organ pipes and choir singers are indeed more expensive than thin gypsum board, but the price of the thin walls can be perpetually brittle and “tinny” music. It may cost more to hoist heavy loudspeakers to a high ceiling location than to wall-mount smaller units, but the price of poor speaker placement is a missed opportunity to proclaim the word with clarity and intelligibility. It may cost more to line air-conditioning ducts to prevent noise transmission, but constant HVAC noise interrupting speech and music during worship ruins the experience for all. While these and similarly important acoustic details do have an initial price tag, the cost of remedying these details later is even greater. As a wise observer once said, “If you don’t have the funds to do it right the first time, where are you going to find the additional funds to do it over again?” So, the functional value of design decisions must also be considered along with cost.

Substantial and significant acoustic benefits can result from making wise choices about already-fixed costs. A building will have floors, walls, and ceiling; these can be designed to work in favor of a good acoustic environment through careful detailing, and not necessarily through additional expense. A good acoustical environment can be defeated through uninformed and unwise design, and not necessarily because of lack of spending! Great acoustical worship environments are indeed achievable, even on a budget. Careful overall planning that maximizes the acoustic potential of a design, combined with reasonable spending on priority features, can result in architectural, functional, and inspirational value for generations.

Photo credit: Scott R. Riedel & Associates.

New technical references among upgraded association offerings

New technical references among upgraded association offerings

ACPA has refined its educational and training programs,
offering a number of seminars that provide hands-on technical training in
concrete pavements.

The highly rated courses include "Concrete Pavement
101," a three-day training and technology transfer seminar that focuses on
technical and engineering aspects of concrete pavement design, rehabilitation
and construction issues.

ACPA's "Professors' Seminar" provides in-depth
instruction on performance and economic factors related to concrete pavements
and the latest pavement design methods, as well as mechanistic-empirical design
procedures and state-of-the-practice construction methods. The course is
limited to university professors and instructors at accredited universities
with civil engineering programs.

These courses typically sell out quickly and class size is
limited to allow for an optimal instructional environment. For information
about future courses, please contact Jim Lafrenz at 202/842-1010 (e-mail:
[email protected]) or Mike Ayers at 847/966-2272 (e-mail:
[email protected]).

ACPA contributes to research project

ACPA and several of its affiliated chapter and state paving
associations are participating in a pooled-fund research project that will
result in guidelines to improve the quality of concrete pavement.

The $1.4 million project, conducted by Iowa State
University's Center for Transportation Research and Education is called
"Material and Construction Optimization for Prevention of Premature
Pavement Distress in Portland Cement Concrete Pavements."
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> 

ACPA and several of its chapter and state affiliates are
contributing to the pooled funding over a period of five years. ACPA staff also
is participating in an advisory capacity to the technical advisory committee.
The panel reviewed progress of the project, notably:  workability, strength development, air content, permeability
and shrinkage.

The Federal Highway Administration and 16 U.S. states also
are contributing to the project that has a combined budget of $1.2 million.
Iowa is managing the effort. Other states include Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.

Test development and demonstration projects are scheduled
from 2004 through 2006. Technology transfer materials will be published
throughout the project timetable, with a final refined suite of tests for concrete
paving being published in mid-2007. The study was initiated by the Midwest
Concrete Consortium, a voluntary group of state DOT and industry experts that
meet semiannually to exchange ideas and information. It will be conducted
through an active partnership of the participating states and organizations.

For additional information, contact Jerry Voigt at
847/966-2272 (e-mail: [email protected]).

ACPA develops new technical resources

In response to the increasing demand for technical
information about concrete pavements, ACPA has developed a number of new
technical resources, including:

"Concrete Pavement Repair Manual" (JP002P):
The  definitive source of
information about concrete pavement repair methodologies. This handy field
manual fits into your back pocket and is an excellent resource for inspectors,
engineers, contractor crews and anyone involved with concrete pavement repair
on both airfields and roadways. The guidelines cover concrete pavement repair
and restoration techniques including full- and partial-depth patches, diamond
grinding and load transfer restoration.

"Constructing Smooth Concrete Pavements" (TB006P):
This technical bulletin covers all of the aspects of concrete pavement design
and construction that affect pavement smoothness. Factors discussed include
base and subbase, horizontal and vertical curves, embedded items, concrete
mixture, grade preparation, stringline setup, operation of the paving machine
and finishing crew activities. The measuring devices for smoothness measurement
in construction acceptance also are covered.

"Slag Cement Use on Paving" (PL517P): This brief
explains how using slag in concrete paving mixtures can enhance the long-term
benefits of concrete pavements. Definitions of the hydraulic activity, effects
on plastic and hardened properties also are listed.

"Airfield Joints, Jointing Arrangements and Steel"
(TB017P): This technical bulletin describes the design, layout and construction
of joints for pavements that serve aircraft larger than 100,000 lb.

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. 

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.

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'>