Organ Historical Society announces Alan Laufman Research Grants

Brian Swager is carillon editor of THE DIAPASON.

Carillon composition competition
On the occasion of the 750th anniversary of the city of Rhenen, The Netherlands, and the 50th anniversary of the Van Bergen carillon in the St. Cunera tower, the Cunera Carillon Association is very pleased to announce an international carillon composition competition. This competition is organized in cooperation with the Dutch Carillon Guild.
St. Cunera was a virgin and martyr. She was born a princess from York, England. On October 29, 340, she was strangled by Aldegonde, the wife of King Radboud, out of jealousy. She is now the patroness of the city of Rhenen.
The best composition will be awarded a first prize of €1,500. The second and third prizes are €1,000 and €750. Furthermore, there is an incentive prize of €750 for the best composition by a composer under than 30 years old. Anyone may submit more than one piece. Only pieces that have not entered other competitions or were published before are welcome, and only original compositions for carillon are allowed; no arrangements of existing works. However, variations on a song or an existing theme will be accepted. There is no limitation on the duration or difficulty of the entries.
A piece must be playable on a standard European four-octave carillon: 47 bells, 4 octaves without low c-sharp and d-sharp. Pedal range from c to g1, manual from c to c4. To assure total objectivity, an entry may not have any signs or marks that can reveal the identity of the composer. The names of the winning composer(s) will be revealed to the jury only after their deliberations.
A committee of judges consisting of Ton Hartsuiker (musician and former director of the Sweelinck Conservatory of Amsterdam), Carl Van Eyndhoven (carillonneur and carillon teacher), Marco de Goeij (composer), and Gideon Bodden (carillonneur), will evaluate all entries received by the deadline. The jury judges on originality, musicality, and usefulness or effectiveness for the instrument. The judges may also decide not to award any composition, or to divide the prize money between more than one submitter.
The announcement of the prize-winning piece(s) will take place at the annual meeting of the Dutch Carillon Guild in Rhenen on March 29, 2008. The winning piece(s) and a selection of the other entries will be performed that day. All the composers of the performed pieces will be informed in advance.
Two (good readable) copies must be sent (please no originals!). The date on the envelope will be used to determine the timely receipt. Send them to Freek Bakker, the secretary of the jury (address below). Participants must write their name, address, the title of the submitted piece(s), and a short curriculum vitae in a letter that accompanies the entry or entries. Also, every participant agrees to the publication and performance in the scope of the competition. The prize-winning composition(s) and a selection of other interesting entries will be published and distributed by the Dutch Carillon Guild and the Cunera Carillon Association after the competition.
The deadline for entries is Tuesday, January 1, 2008. For further information, contact the secretary of the jury: Freek Bakker, Van Kluyvelaan 14, 3862 XG Nijkerk, The Netherlands; phone: +31 (33) 245 90 53; e-mail: <[email protected]>.

Brian Swager is carillon editor of THE DIAPASON.

Sixth International Queen Fabiola Carillon Competition
Since its foundation in 1922, the Royal Carillon School “Jef Denyn” in Mechelen, Belgium, has been involved in the support and development of the art of carillon playing. As part of this effort, the school organizes the international Queen Fabiola Carillon Competition in cooperation with the city of Mechelen. This competition, widely recognized as the most prestigious of its kind, provides a powerful stimulus for the recognition of carillon playing as an artistic expression of the highest level.
The winners of the previous competitions have acquired international fame:
1987 - Geert D’hollander
1990 - Boudewijn Zwart
1993 - Gideon Bodden
1998 - Tom Van Peer
2003 - Twan Bearda.
The sixth international Queen Fabiola Carillon Competition will take place on September 10–14, 2008. Carillonneurs from all over the world are invited to participate; there is no age limit. Candidates should submit nine compositions of a high degree of virtuosity: three baroque or classical works, one of them being a prelude by Matthias Vanden Gheyn; three romantic works originally composed for carillon; and three contemporary works also originally composed for carillon. Candidates must send one copy of each score along with their application. These scores may not show any references or indications from which the name or the nationality of the participant could be traced. An obligatory work is to be performed in the elimination round and in the finals.
All performances will be played on the new carillon in the tower of St. Rombouts in Mechelen. It was cast by Royal Eijsbouts, Asten, the Netherlands, in 1981. This carillon comprises 49 bells: B-flat, C1, D1—chromatic through—C5. The instrument transposes down a fourth: the pitch of C1 is G0. Candidates are offered the opportunity to practice on this instrument as well as on the practice consoles in the carillon school.
The elimination round takes place on Wednesday, September 10 and, if necessary, also on Thursday the 11th. During the elimination round, all candidates will perform three works: the obligatory work, one work chosen by the candidate, and one work chosen by the jury and selected from the candidate’s repertoire. The order of performing is assigned by lot. Performers are unknown to the members of the jury. The five competitors who receive the highest marks will be selected for the finals. Those who are not selected for this final round will receive an allowance of €125.
The finals will take place on Saturday and Sunday, September 13–14, 2008, at 7:30 pm. On Saturday, finalists will perform three works chosen by the jury: one baroque or classical, one romantic, and one contemporary. On Sunday, the candidates will perform the obligatory work as the contemporary composition, a baroque or classical work chosen by the jury, and a romantic composition also chosen by the jury.
First Prize: €3000, Prize of the Minister of Culture of the Flemish Government
Second Prize: €2000, Prize of the Province of Antwerp
Third Prize: €1500, Prize of the City of Mechelen and the Mechelen City Guides League
Fourth Prize: €1300, Prize of the City of Roeselare and the Royal Tower and Carillon Society “Jef Denyn”
Fifth Prize: €1000, Prize of Mr. A. Jans, honorary president of the Archeological Society and Mr. P. van den Broek, honorary director of the carillon school
Extra Prize: €1000, Prize of SABAM for the best interpretation of a Belgian contemporary work.
Applicants should send their curriculum vitae with a suitable photograph, the nine scores, and the choice of which work they will perform in the elimination round before May 15 to the Royal Carillon School “Jef Denyn,” Frederik de Merodestaat 63, B-2800 Mechelen, Belgium.
The organizers may refuse any submissions that do not meet the required standards. No appeal against their decision is possible. After approval by the organizers, candidates will receive a confirmation and additional practical guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior and current rules 

(These are subject to change.)

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

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

Commercial imports

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

Personal imports 

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

Commercial export 

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

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

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

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

The Musical Instrument Certificate or “Passport”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic: intrastate and 

interstate trade and movement

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

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

California, New Jersey, and New York State

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

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

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

Current and potential effects

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

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

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

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

Look-alike problem

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

Late-summer developments

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

What you can do to help

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

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

The important talking points are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is contact information for the appropriate government officials:

Sally Jewel, Secretary of the Interior

Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: Feedback form

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

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

1‑800‑344‑WILD (9453)

Barack Obama, President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

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

Representative Ed Royce

Chairman, Committee on Wildlife Trafficking

1380 S. Fullerton Road, Suite 205

Rowland Heights, CA 91748

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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'>