Hi to all!  I can agree for the most part with Adam Ramet's opinion
about restoration ethics in the mechanical organ world.  However,
I'd like to add my opinion on some aspects.

(To avoid some nasty experiences I already had in the past, I just
want to say that in no way am I thinking of any specific person.  Since
I have no experience restoring an organ myself, I have the greatest
respect for all those who do their restoration job with a good heart
and craftsmanship.  I want to stress that this is my own opinion and
have no intention to harm anyone.)

1.  I think what one understands by the word "restoration" depends on
the restorer himself.  As we know, in a lot of organs (especially Dutch
street organs), one or more registers have been replaced by non-genuine
registers under the pretext that the original register wasn't in good
condition anymore.  (I think especially of the typical Carl Frei
sounding bourdon, which is to be found in almost every Dutch street
organ).

On the other hand, I know some organs that have been completely
restored (if not to say "rebuilt") and they sound (almost) as good as
the 'original' instrument.  That's why I hate the 'argument' of some
restorers that it isn't possible to make pipes like they did in the
beginnings of this century: some restorers have proved that it is
possible, so ...

(By the way, what I absolutely hate is the fact that some restorers
replace the original builder's name on an organ by their own name.  In
my opinion, it's just a lack of respect towards the original builder.)

The major problem here are the costs, of course, but as I think of it,
I guess that if you're, e.g., a Gavioli enthusiast, you're not going
to ruin your original Gavioli organ by having it 'transformed' by a
'restorer'.  But what's the use of buying a Wurlitzer organ if you want
a Gavioli sound?

Of course, you can ask a restorer to make the Wurlitzer organ sound
like a Gavioli and therefore to replace the pipes, but wouldn't it be
easier, then, to have him made a new, 'Gavioli-sounding' organ?  (As
far as I know, a new organ is certainly not always more expensive than
replacing the pipework of an old one completely.)  In the last case,
you not only have a new organ, but you also saved a Wurlitzer.

2. About MIDI and organs: I certainly believe that MIDI is a very good
way to keep "the organ world turning", since it makes the delivery of
music easier (at least, in some respect, although it is not always
necessarily so).  I don't see why anyone could object against using
a MIDI device on an old organ as long as the organ itself doesn't need
to be modified in an irreversible way.  (Of course, I certainly have no
objections towards MIDI in completely new organs.)

But I agree with Adam that an organ is far less charming if it only
plays by means of a MIDI-system; I think we can only approve of the
fact that some restorers and builders basically only build organs
working by means of books, and they just want to install a MIDI system
as a 'surplus' but not as the main playing system.

Then, what about the "sickly sweet sounding pastiche musical
arrangements" Adam mentions?

I think it is the 'art of the arranger' we are dealing with here:
that an arrangement is sometimes less good or even bad, is not only a
MIDI-problem, isn't it?  I think we all know arrangements on an organ
book or roll of which we think that the noteur could have done a better
job.  (In my opinion the same goes for piano rolls, to some extent, at
least.)  I haven't learned to read notes or play the piano, but I do
know that to create a good MIDI arrangement takes a lot more than just
entering the notes into (e.g.) Cakewalk.  A good MIDI arranger knows
the possibilities of MIDI well, and I've heard MIDI arrangements that
can stand the comparison with arrangements by, e.g., Blache.

But, of course, another issue here is the copying of music.  (For
the sake of clarity: I disapprove of copying arrangements without
the consent of the arranger himself).  Whereas it used to be a time
consuming activity to copy an organ book, MIDI has made the job a lot
easier.  And in some cases -- as here, I think -- when the job becomes
easier, there's the risk of superficiality.

Of course, if you want to, you can easily convert a MIDI file from one
scale to another by (so to speak) "a simple press on a button."  It
works, but where's the feeling here?  In that way, the arrangement --
the music -- is reduced to some notes on a musical staff.  Even when
two organs have exactly the same scale, each organ has a unique sound
and unique characteristics which a professional arranger takes into
account.

It may seem that I've been digressing a bit from the "restoration"
subject with my comments on MIDI, but let's not forget we're living
in the 21st century, where the application of MIDI has become an aspect
in the restoration of organs.  But, thinking about great organ builders
as Gavioli and Hooghuys, we can ask ourselves if the basics have
changed: isn't good organ building and restoration a combination of
craftsmanship, technology and talent ?

Bjorn Isebaert
Belgium
http://members.tripod.com/~bisebaer/