Born to be mild - but an organ transplant could change
that
|
The organ should be moved to the tower to hear its true
sound, according to papers discovered in the vestry.
The small bundle also charts the progress of cleaning and
maintenance from 1942 to 1948, comments on how wartime shortages
of coal and other material affected its repair, and shows
huge post-war nudges in the direction of another rebuild.
The papers also show how vicar F W Wingfield
Digby had to write to the Carnegie Foundation to remind
them of a promised
cheque to help pay for its rebuilding in 1913.
|
|
|
They begin with a handwritten note from Birmingham
organ builder Walter James Bird to the then church warden
Arnold Cheetham (below).
Mr
Bird was replying to a letter from Mr Cheetham earlier
that
month, probably complaining about lack of notice for a
service visit. In it he describes how he built the organ
in 1913 and tuned it for 12 months free of charge. The
organ was then tuned three times a year for £6, all
minor repairs included.
|
Mr
Bird commented: “ The organ
is now badly in want of a thorough overhauling and cleaning
but this will have to wait till we can get back to peaceful
times again..
He enclosed, for interest,
a note from the then vicar the Rev Digby in which he surmised
that Mr Bird would be “as
relieved to receive the enclosed cheque as we were to receive
Mr Carnegie’s. We had to write again for it before
we could get it.”
Rev
Digby added:” I
need hardly say we are still delighted with your beautiful
organ and I shall ever be grateful to
you for all the tremendous care and trouble you have taken
in your splendid work which I believe will last for many
a day. Whenever you have to come out for the tuning I shall
always be glad to see you.” |
|
A
plaque behind the organist records donations from
relations and friends of the late Mrs Wingfield Digby
and the Carnegie Trust in September 1913 |
Four
years later the church had an estimate for £250 for Mr Bird’s proposed
work to be done. L R Fleming, who took over the company,
said the “modest scheme would restore the organ to
good and reliable playing condition, practically as Mr
Bird left it in 1913.”
In a detailed, five page letter he put forward a case
for £200 of improvements. He was not, he wrote,
satisfied with the tonal balance and general effectiveness
of the organ as heard both at the console and in the
body of the church.
He added: “The tonal scheme as it stands is truly
representative of most of Mr Bird’s work in its
excessive mildness and lack of virility and character.
Excellent though the workmanship and materials be, the
tonal results fall far short of the ideal and the foregoing
suggestions and recommendations represent an economical
and effective way of overcoming most of the defects as
they exist at present.” |
Back to Main Page |
|
|
