Appendix
1. Database screens and reports
Fig. 1 The main data-entry screen
Fig. 2 Data-entry screen for pipework repairs
Documentation, restoration and questions of methodology
Nicolaas Waanders
This paper was presented at the colloquium "Historic Organs Reconsidered: Restoration and Conservation for a New Century," Smithfield, Virginia, USA, January 1999
In order to answer this question, I would like to briefly mention some aspects of the thinking that has taken place about restoration - mostly in Italy - from the 19th century to the present[1]. The following highly-condensed chronological view refers to of some of the ideas which have been central to restoration work at the conceptual level.
Based on the criterion of analogy, on the transposition of similar examples, on the presumed intuition of what the early artist would have done today if called upon.
(Eugène Viollet-le-Duc
1814–1879)
The restorer proceeds by following the path of historical
research, not by analogy. Concept of stylistic unity abandoned. Restorer as
artist-recreator and expert historian-philologist-archivist.
Is founded on the absolute need to conserve the old artistic and picturesque aspects of a monument. Any elements needed to complete the object should be distinguishable as a modern intervention.
Camillo Boito (1836–1914)
Historical stratifications are respected so as to preserve and demonstrate the history of the entire edifice.
George Gilbert Scott
(1811-1878)
Recommends the application of modern scientific knowledge to the problems of conservation.
Gustavo Giovannoni (1873–1947)
The restorer should not attempt to complete by analogy.
Gino Chierici (1877-1961)
Each restoration is a case in itself. Each monument is meticulously researched, with technical as well as critical and historical competence, so as to suggest the correct path to the restorer.
Legitimate removal of additions and transformations devoid of artistic value, although they constitute testimony of a historical nature.
Roberto Pane
Restoration as a dialectical process in which the critical process defines the conditions that form the premises for the creative act of restoration.
Renato Bonelli
Restoration is the moment in which the physical presence and bi-polarity (aesthetic and historical) of the work of art are recognised as such, in the face of its transmission to the future.
The object determines the nature of the restoration, not vice-versa
The material which transmits the image is not a separate part of the object, but co-exists with it, and it is only the material which is restored
Cesare Brandi (1906–1988)
A typical sequence of events in the codification of guidelines for organ restorations is to specify that which must not be done first, and then to develop more abstract guidelines about what procedures can be legitimately carried out. The Weilheimer Regulativ[2] of 1957 and its subsequent re-elaborations (of which the 1981 Wegscheider-Werner formulation[3] is one of the most sophisticated) could be viewed in this light. The Association of Italian Organbuilders code of practice (1995) is another example[4] although it often recommends procedures which are not always appropriate and is excessively focussed on a return to “original condition” without considering the risks which accompany the translation of such thinking into action.
The national commission established by the Italian Ministero dei Beni Culturali to examine the problems connected with the restoration of historic organs started out by defining those things which should not be done to historic instruments, and ended up by defining 3 guiding principles[5]. The stated objective of the commission was to define a “philological” approach to restoration. The emphasis of the proposed methodology is on the re-use of presumed original artisan’s methods – an approach which does recognise the nature of the object in question, but which can drive the restoration activity perilously close to re-construction and encourage the adoption of methods which would not always be considered appropriate in modern conservation practice. While the document makes frequent reference to conservation and preservation, its primary focus is the re-use, and therefore functional restoration of these instruments – an approach codified by Sachs in 1934[6]. The emphasis on research and the collection of historic documents from which to deduce information about the techniques of the past demonstrates how firmly it is linked to the Historical-Philological approaches of the first half of the 20th century.
The recommendations of the commission were disseminated in 1993 as part of an article which recommends extensive interference with pipework and voicing according to positivistic interpretations of historic documents.[7] Documents which relate to contemporary opinions of instruments and how they were perceived to sound have been used quite uncritically, without due consideration of their context and purpose – in fact, a published compendium of these texts has stripped away any vestige of context entirely, leaving the merest collection of words and phrases.[8] Historic texts have been interpreted too freely, and used as a justification for methodologies which are founded on unproven hypotheses about early performance practices[9]. No historic document should ever be used to justify an intervention on an instrument with which the document has no demonstrable connection.
The organ is probably one of the few instrument whose nature
and structure has permitted it to be so continuously and extensively modified
with the passing of time. In most cases, it is desirable to accept such changes
as an aspect of the object we are restoring. However, in some cases of 19th
and early 20th century “restoration” work, not only does the
character of the modifications reflect the aesthetic of the age, but the
quality of the modifications reflects the economic condition and capability of
the builders who carried it out. The consequence is that that the
modifications are both damaging to the existing structure, and incapable of
further use due to the use of poor-quality materials whose practical life has
been exceeded.
Much writing about the conservation of musical instruments in a museum context has focussed on the recognition that each instrument carries a significant burden of historical information which is at risk whenever the instrument tampered with, and yet the determined removal of every vestige of historical stratification is still a common approach to organ restoration. There has been little attempt to come to grips with these problems in the community of organ restorers – the formulation of rules about what can and cannot be done during restorations begs important questions about why certain things are done and does not promote real thinking about problems and methodologies. Rules have a tendency to become absolute, and the pursuit of absolutes is ultimately a destructive process.
If there is to be a preferred historical state for a restoration which involves stripping away later material, we need to assess to what extent we should pursue that objective, and define to what extent we are seeking to pursue goals like stylistic consistency. Should we embark on re-voicing and attempt to remove nicking from historic pipework in order to promote an invented sound-ideal for which we may have more or less supporting evidence, or leave the material as it stands, perhaps seeking to remedy only the obvious defects? The more determined a restorer is to attain a particular goal in this sense, the greater the risk of loss of information. I am not attempting to say that we should necessarily accept the evolved situation at all costs, simply that we should be cognisant of what we are doing, why we are doing it, and decide where the boundaries lie. The despotic search for ‘historic sound’ and ‘authentic’ wind-pressures frequently risks leading us further away from the recognition of the historic value of each instrument and into the realms of speculation.
Methodologies for restoring organs should:
• recognise the that the preservation of the historic aspects of an instrument is a primary objective
• avoid dogmatic approaches
• prefer the evidence of the instrument in question to analogies and false deductions
• be flexible enough to cater for the particular requirements of a specific case
• encourage the recognition of where it is sensible to limit the scope of the activity
• have the capacity to be self-analytical.
To return to the initial question about the reasons for documenting a restoration, it is evident from the consideration of the history of restoration theory that there has been an evolution in approach which has culminated in the recognition that an extensive critical process needs to be carried out before any work is commenced in order to determine the nature and scope of the intervention. This process cannot be satisfactorily performed without some kind of documentation of the nature of the object in question, its history, an analysis of what is required of the intervention and what actions will be carried out to satisfy these requirements.
The restorer is often the agent of some kind of change which may have far-reaching effects in both a material and a cultural sense. Structural changes are often made to an organ during a restoration. What we do to an instrument today is both an expression of what we think about the instrument and its history as well as our intentions about what we intend to transmit to future generations. In these situations, the documentation of the received situation becomes critical as it is likely to become the only record of the effect of a particular set of socio-cultural impulses on the musical life of a past era.
This analysis is based on published (primarily Italian) material, and does not take material in private or other archives into consideration. Many publications do not consider the documentation of the restoration as their primary scope, so it is unrealistic to expect them to contain full details of the process or attempt to achieve completeness in a documentary sense. However, some general indications about what is considered important or useful in certain cases can be gained from such a survey.
The underlined items indicate where consideration has been given to recording the process of restoration, or to matters which are likely to be lost as a result of the restoration process.
• Photogrammetry – of chest/keyboard (post-restoration)
• Photographs, commentary and detail drawings of constructional detail
• Summary pipe scaling data, graphs, and some details of interventions
• Chemical and electron miscroscope analyses of pipe-metal
• Gas-chromatographic analysis of surface coatings on metal
• Archive documents
• Detailed pipe measurements, incl. state of rim (tuning – open/closed)
• Some structural drawings and photographic detail
• Photographic material (before/after)
• Detailed pipe measurements, composition of ripieno, pipework interventions, original position data, photographs of pipe-markings
• chemical/SEM analysis of metal samples
• Database of interventions
• Schematic measurements of keyboard
• Some analytical structural drawings
• Available archive documents
• Photogrammetry used for chest, (not published)
• Endoscopy – façade pipes (not published)
• Pipe measurements, brief details of interventions, transcription of pipe-markings
• Drawings of chest and keyboard
• Acoustic analysis (excluding transients, not measured on original chest)
It is evident from this list that there is no agreement on what should be the essential items to document about the instrument or the processes to which it is subjected. None of the documents referred to above contains enough information such that it could be considered a complete view of the instrument. In some areas, such as acoustic analysis, research into the dynamics of sound-production and the factors which influence it is still in progress. Given the comparatively recent development of such tools, there is also no historical data to which we can refer, and I know of no attempt to create a critical record of material about whose history we can be reasonably certain. Our interference in the form of restoration can add such complications as to form a barrier to valid historical research at a later date.
I would like to suggest that documentation should be considered under two headings:
a) descriptive
· records information about the instrument, how it was built, what constructional techniques were used, how the materials were produced and worked before being shaped into the components of the organ
· records changes made to the instrument over time, providing us with an index of change to the instrument in relation to cultural changes. Our understanding of what we are documenting/restoring will condition how we act.
· records current state of the materials constituting the instrument
b) methodological
· analyses the current state of the instrument and its history
· explains why interventions are carried out (particularly structural modifications)
· can facilitate monitoring and review during the execution of the project
· guarantees the concept of reversibility in the structural sense by providing detailed documentation of the pre-restoration situation and subsequent processes
· facilitates future conservation activities by recording nature of interventions and dates on which performed.
Documentation of an instrument is a complex task which is in some senses undefinable, being a product of the means we have at our disposal for carrying out the process and our own understanding of what we consider appropriate or useful to record. The obvious corollary to this consideration is that we may not document aspects of the instrument which seem unimportant or of whose existence or signficance we have not become aware. While there are many issues to be considered in relation to documentation in the broad sense, I think we can to see documentation as having a very specific role in relation to the process of restoration in two senses:
• as the systematic recording and processing of data about the nature and structure of the instrument and the repository of information gained by various analytic processes, both scientific and intellectual, such that restoration proceeds from a detailed knowledge of the object in question. This record should acknowledge the boundaries of our understanding.
• as an integral part of the restoration process, being the confrontation of critical judgement with the object and its treatment. Appropriately executed documentation activities should be important components of methodological analysis.
Documentation should be complex rather than reductive, and should not limit our view of the object by its own inherent tendency to simplify, categorise and systematise. The use of diverse views, techniques and media can help to avoid these problems.
In spite of suggestions that structural drawings are really aimed at copy-builders, I believe these do have broader application – in terms of organological research, potential reconstructions, and as reference material for other restoration projects. Data may also be recorded in the form of tables for certain parts of the instrument like the channel and bar widths of a chest, or dimensions of keyboards, for example. In which case drawings could become more schematic. Drawings are still the only means by which an object which is difficult or impossible to photograph in all its aspects can be documented in graphical format. Drawings can also be used to organise information on an analytical basis.
Pipework is traditionally documented by means of tables of measurement and scaling graphs. Additional data is required to produce a complete picture of the constructional and voicing methods, the re-arrangements of pipework over time, the precise nature of the materials used and the manufacturing processes used (casting on sand, cloth, rolling, hammering, scraping). Internal endoscopic examination can be used to determine whether there are traces of construction marks, and ultrasound techniques have been applied with success to measure metal thicknesses.
The processes and tools used to build the instrument may have left marks on the materials from which we can deduce information about constructional techniques. The inner surfaces of many Italian façade pipes show small pits – traces of having been cast on sand, and sometimes the marks left by utensils used to plane or scrape the metal. We need to be aware in our observation of the instrument of the close but subtle relationship between methods of working and stylistic consequences. Consider for example the difference between a northern-european instrument which uses high-lead alloys in building large pipes accompanied by a reduction in the thickness of the metal towards the top of the pipe on relatively high wind-pressure, and an Italian principale (nearly always of tin), with metal which may be little more than 1mm thick over its entire length for a 12-ft pipe designed to operate on low pressure.
A restorer should be mindful of the risk of not understanding absolutely everything about an instrument. This awareness of the limits of his comprehension should be translated into an approach which respects and attempts to preserve evidence, however tenuous, and which avoids the use of highly invasive interventions. The documentation process should aim to codify the limits of our knowledge.
While structural drawings tend to represent an idealised view of the instrument, without the accrued traces of use and physical alteration, photographic techniques (including photogrammetry) on the other hand do not suffer from this conceptual problem, but the restitution of the images can be costly. Drawings, possibly even in a schematic form, can be used to create the basis of a graphical record of historical stratification and other changes which have occurred over time, as well as for recording restoration activities. Ordinary photography can be used to supplement the information which would otherwise not be recorded in such a drawing, such as deformities and areas of decay.
On the basis of the state of the instrument and archive documents (where available), a historical analysis should be prepared, documenting the relevant structural changes which have occurred in the history of the instrument. Generally speaking, the identification of style characteristics is sufficient to determine the succession of modifications, and these can usually be related quite specifically to archive documents. Minor changes effected to the instrument in the distant past can be more difficult to detect with certainty, and it is often necessary to carry out analyses of other instruments to gain insight into such questions. Consideration should be given to any particular relationships between the instrument and its use.
The way in which historic documents are used merits special consideration. Historians have long been aware of the problems associated with the use of historical evidence and its interpretation, while post-modern criticism has directed attention to some fundamental concepts concerning language and meaning [14]. Some of the critical issues from these debates which are of relevance to us concern:
• the extent to which we can assume uniformity in a culture or group
• the extent to which we can allow inferences from a few historic documents to condition our behaviour in relation to the restoration of instruments in general [15]
• how to test the accuracy of our understanding of documents whose language is sometimes hundreds of years old.
I would not suggest that organbuilders were necessarily illiterate in the past, but it is true that the authorship of historic documents about organs and organbuilder’s business must often be attributed to notaries or officials, who may have influenced the choice of language or the means of expressing a concept in terms which were intelligible to the intended recipients of the document or which had recognised currency or legal validity. Perhaps the builders themselves expressed themselves in this way generation after generation. Much of the language of these contracts has the appearance of being formulaic, and we should be cautious about how we apply information gained from these sources when they make statements about the qualities of organs.
All procedures used during the restoration process, including the process of dismantling, should be documented, specifying methods and products employed. Various documentation techniques may be employed during an organ restoration. Some are relatively simple and cost-effective, others are expensive and time-consuming. The appropriate use of available techniques needs to be determined. The importance of the instrument or its ability to yield a significant body of information will play a role in determining what documentation activities are carried out.
Few organs are restored in a purely conservative sense when they are not functional. The functional imperative often leads to conflicts with conservation principles and exerts a direct influence on the chosen strategies. Fortunately, many treatments for most of the mechanically-functioning parts of the instrument do not necessarily result in the loss of important information unless structural changes are made, but the extent to which pipework is subject to subtle but nevertheless measurable transformation is often high. It is tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that a historic organ can be put back in its original state. Such approaches often involve a liberal use of highly invasive methods which are founded on hypothetical notions of ‘historic sound’. Evolved situations may preserve more historic evidence than a heavily-restored situation.
The accrual of constructional data over time contributes to the body of knowledge we have of a particular builder or school, thus enriching a body of knowledge about our musical culture, but is also useful as a source of information which can be consulted for future restoration work on like instruments. More than for any other instrument, there is a lack of stylistic analysis and performance-related data which could be exploited in relation to the restoration of organs. Information about performance practices is often extrapolated from the information contained within historic organs, a fact which makes them extremely valuable in terms of their documentary worth.
Although organs are probably restored at a signficant rate (relative to their numbers) in global terms, many instruments are badly treated and rendered historically worthless by their keepers.Very few restorations are ever documented thoroughly, much documentation is inaccessible, inaccurate or available only in severely condensed form. An organ may be restored once in the average person’s lifetime. The moment of restoration is a highly critical period in the life of an organ: the instrument is exposed to potentially risky operations, but it is also the only moment in our lifetime in which it is completely accessible for investigation. No future restorer will have access to the instrument in the state in which we can observe it today. Our own interventions have the potential to condition both the future of the instrument and any future interventions. Our opportunities for gathering information are effectively unique. The rate at which we can acquire information in this field is relatively low. Once acquired, the information is rarely disseminated or made accessible. In practical terms therefore, it is lost. Many restorers consider the information gained while performing a restoration (frequently with public funding) to be their own private property for use in marketing their own services.
The restoration of the 1701 organ built by Filippo Testa for S. Maria in Trastevere, Rome.
Previous research indicated that the first organ in this transept had been built by Venereo da Legge in 1567 [16]. Subsequent research [17] and inscriptions on pipework and bungboards confirmed that a new organ had been built in the existing case by Filippo Testa in 1701-2. The original pipework and contract confirmed that the disposition of the organ included a principal chorus of 9 ranks, two flute ranks (one unison, one fifth-sounding), a 2-rank cornet from c’ and a trombone, probably unison with the Principale, with short-length resonators [18]. Keyboard compass was CC to a’’, 53 notes with short octave in the bass and no g# in the treble. A single chest replaced what seems to have been a divided chest which probably spanned the full width of the case. The façade pipes in 3 pyramidal fields stand in front of a chest whose pipework is disposed with the smallest pipes in the centre and the largest pipes at the extremities. This strategy required the large bass pipes in the centre of the façade to be provided with a separate pallet-box, as they were placed too far from their own channels to be able to draw wind from them.
A description of the organ from 1815 provides further details about the organ, specifically that the trombone had resonators of tin-plated iron, and boots of lead. The document also notes that not all of the trombone pipes were present: only the bass from CC to b0 (32 pipes). While the chest indicates that a full-compass register was planned, it is not known whether the entire stop was provided originally, or whether the treble was later removed. Interestingly, the compass of the Trombone which was present in 1815 complemented the Cornet, which started at c’.
The state of the organ in 1996, confirmed by reference to archive documents, indicated a substantial re-build in the late 19th century. The bellows-room on the transept roof had been demolished, and two reservoirs with hand-pumps built in the gallery next to the organ. The Trombone and Cornet were removed and replaced with a trumpet and clarion, made out of the lowest 11 lead pipes of the VIII, which were replaced with wooden pipes, suggesting possible problems with structural stability, if the motive were not simply to obtain metal with which to build the stops. Boots and resonators were made by soldering strips of metal from the old pipework together: old inscriptions and scribing for lower lips was evident in some of the boots.
This instrument is the earliest known organ by a Roman builder to have a Cornet stop. The Flemish Jesuit Hermans, who occasionally made use of the Testa workshop, had provided the earliest known examples of this stop in his Italian instruments. Since there was no provision in the construction of the chest for divided stops, the Cornet could only have been used (1) as a soprano solo with its own foundation stops for accompaniment, or (2) as an addition to the chorus, possibly with the Trombone.
The changes to the organ in the 19th century involved the removal of the Trombone and Cornet and changes in the wind supply as previously mentioned, but also the removal of the fifth-sounding flute (subsituted for an Ottavino). The original keyboard was modified by lengthening the diatonic keys and changing the shape of the sharps. The action was modified by inserting an octave coupler in the soprano. There were originally 14 pedals connected to the manual, but a new pedalboard was provided late in the 19th century which had 17 notes. The profile of the orginal pedalboard was revealed on the side-panels of the case when the current pedal-board was removed for restoration. The keys were probably wider, shorter and had a relatively steep slope.
The transformation of this instrument to do duty in the late 19th century can be accounted for by seeking correspondences with trends in the organ-building of the time. However, by chance, another organ by Filippo Testa dating from 1720 had been transformed by the same builder (Priori) after its removal from the Choir Chapel in the Vatican to a small church in S. Gregorio da Sassola in the province of Rome. Testa had projected this organ as a 2-manual instrument, but it seems the second manual was never built.[19] A comparison of the two renovated instruments reveals that the process of transformation was virtually identical: the keyboards were modified by exactly the same processes (attaching small blocks to the front of the diatonic key-levers, changing the cheeks to the company’s standard model), the pedalboard was also of the same design. In this case, there was not sufficient height for the organ on the gallery, so the façade pipes were cut down to make an extremely wide-scaled flute.
The processes of restoration of the instrument in question were recorded using a database whose structure followed a standard pattern for documenting restoration activities in use at the ICR [20]. It would be possible to document these processes quite adequately manually for many objects, but in the case of an organ, the the amount of information to be processed was quite significant, considering the complexity of the instrument, and the number of individual items involved. Data entry was speeded up using forms which provided drop-down lists with standard options and reference data wherever possible, as many operations are repeated for numerous elements. The parts of the organ were classified according to a structure – element – component hierarchy (e.g. chest – pallet no.1– upper surface).
Conservation records were structured according to the following scheme:
A Object identification
B Materials and production techniques
C Current state
D Later interventions
E Research and analysis
F Interventions
1. disinfestation
2. removal of corrosion or surface deposits
3. removal of subsequent interventions
4. recovery of the original form
5. functional integrations
6. substitutions
7. consolidation
8. surface protection
G Graphic and photograhic records
Items E and G were excluded from the database.
Most interventions could be verbally described, however, repairs to pipework were recorded in graphical format as it was not easy to incorporate a precise description of the exact location of the repairs in the database. In this instance, the repairs were recorded by hand on a diagrammatic representation of each pipe. The object is viewed as if it were opened up and projected on a flat plane. In this case, the recording sheets were prepared by generating a chart from the scaling data which was stored in a standard spreadsheet, however, the process has now been modified to generate the recording sheets using scripts and a CAD program.
The mere fact of recording process data means that it becomes possible to profile the restoration activities. The database can generate reports which list the activities carried out – the main use at present is to provide a complete report on the restoration to the statutory authorities, but there is potential for the data to be used if there is a need for preventative maintenance subsequent to the restoration in future. Analysis of the data related to the restoration of the pipework yields some interesting results. 25% of the historic pipes had to be repaired (resoldered) at the lower end of the foot. Although there is no published comparative data available, this is a fairly high figure, and entirely due to the procedures used to remove dents from the foot by rolling the pipe on a polished marble slab while exerting pressure from the inside with a polished steel rod. This procedure results in the opening out of the lower end of the pipe-foot with the risk of detachment of the solder seam at the lower end. 16% of historic pipework needed repairs to the upper lip, which had become detached at the lower end of the scribe lines. Some of this damage was pre-existing, but the procedures which contributed to this damage were again related to the removal of dents from the pipe-bodies using steel mandrels, in many cases lifting the upper lip to do so, as well as the use of thin metal spatulas to re-position the upper lip and re-align the flatting. While some of the damage must be attributed to the use of inexperienced operators to carry out the work, questions need to be asked about the objectives of such activities and the extent to which they should or need to be pursued.
1. Database screens and reports
Fig. 1 The main data-entry screen
Fig. 2 Data-entry screen for pipework repairs
Conservation file - Organ
Locality Roma (RM) Location In cornu epistolae.
Building S. Maria in Trastevere N. Cat. ICCD 1200179868
Author/s F. Testa 1701 Date 1997
Index
Interventions___________________________________________
Mater- State Post. Disin- Rem. Rem. Restore Funct. Substit- Consoli- Prot.
ials int. fest. sup. rec.int. orig conf Integr ution dation surface.
Structure/element Record B C D F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
1. Rackboard
Upper surface boards 65 B C D F1 F2 F3 F5 F8
C D F5 F8
F5
F5
Frame 96 B C D F1 F2 F5 F7 F8
C
C
2. Key action
Rollers 41 B C F2 F8
F2
Rollers fa-mi-re-ut 109 B C F2 F8
F2
Rollers fa-mi-re-ut to 99 B C F2 F8
manual
Stickers fa-mi-re-ut 97 B C F2
Stickers fa-mi-re-ut 108 B F1 F2 F6
Action to façade 23 B C F1 F6 F7
Rollerboard 63 B F6
fa-mi-re-ut to manual
Support action 110 B C F1 F2
fa-mi-re-ut
Support action 98 B F2 F6
fa-mi-re-ut
Rollerboard 62 B C F1 F2 F5 F7
Octave coupler 133 B D F3
Trackers 73 B F1 F2
Trackers 87 B C F5
Trackers 74 B C F2
Trackers 111 B C F2 F8
Trackers 104 B D F3 F6
Trackers 75 B C F5
Fig. 3 Reports: the index to database records
Scheda Conservativa SM Organo F. Testa 1701, S. Maria in Trastevere
N. scheda 41
A. Oggetto Struttura Meccanica tastiera
Elemento Catenacci
N. elem.
Componente
Localizzazione
Particolarità
B. Materiali e tecnica di esecuzione
Carattere Ferro Pertinenza Configurazione originaria
Lavorazione Ripiegati all'estremità, martellatura a caldo
Trattamento
Finitura
Assemblaggio con doppio strangolo in ottone Diametro 5 mm
Particolarità Lungh. rebbio 58mm, diam foro ca. 1,5mm
C. Stato di conservazione
Tipol. Alterazione di natura chimica/fisica/biologica Periodo Antico
Carattere Ossidazione Intensità Leggera
F2. Rimozione corrosione/materiali sopramessi alle superficie
Identità Ossidazione
Prodotto Organici/inorganici Classe
Denom. scientifica
Denom. commerciale
Ditta produttrice
Utensili Spazzola in ferro Modalità
Superfice Intera Data 1/03/97
Identità Conversione ruggine
Prodotto Organici/inorganici Organici Classe Convertitore di ruggine
Denom. scientifica Poliferrolo
Denom. commerciale Fertan
Ditta produttrice ITB srl/Nova Max technologies
Utensili pennello Modalità
Superfice Intera Data 1/03/97
F8. Protezione alle superficie
Identificazione
Prodotti impiegati Organici/inorganici Organici Classe Protettivo -
consolidante
Denom scientifica Etil-metacrilato + metilacrilato
Denom commerciale Paraloid B72
Ditta produttrice Rohm & Haas
Modalità impiego a pennello, sciolto in acetone, 5%
Superficie Intera Data 1/03/97
Fig. 4 Record no.41, detailing operations carried out to remove rust from the iron rollers.
Fig. 5 Recording sheet for pipework repairs.
Fig. 6 Sample recording sheet for voicing adjustments. Adjustments to lips, languid and alignment of foot can be indicated.
Giuseppe Basile (ed), Conservazione e restauro degli organi storici: esperienze e ricerche nel restauro dell’organo Altemps in S. Maria in Trastevere a Roma, Roma: Palombi, 1998
Cesare Brandi, Teoria del restauro, Turin: Einaudi, 1977
Giovanni Carbonara, Avvicinamento al restauro, Teoria, storia monumenti, Naples: Liguori editore, 1997
Cesare Corsi, “Veniero da Legge (da Lezze?) e la questione dell’organaria romana del Cinquecento”, Il Saggiatore musicale, I, n.1, 1994, Olschki, Firenze, pp113-127
Pier Paolo Donati, “Regesto Documentario”, Arte nell’Aretino, Firenze: Edam, 1979, pp148-257
Pier Paolo Donati, "Restauro e 'suono storico': nuove evidenze documentarie," L'Organo, XXIV 1986, pp63-78
Marco Fratti, “Studi delle caratteristiche costruttive originali e restauro dell’organo Antegnati di Almenno”, L’organo Antegnati 1588–1996, chiesa di San Nicola in Almenno San Salvatore, Bergamo, Parrocchia San Salvatore 1996
Gabriele Gravagna (ed), L’organo di Antonio Pace Pesaro 1631, Cremona: Turris, 1996
C.B.McCullagh, The truth of history, Routledge, London, 1998
Arnaldo Morelli, “I Testa celebri organari romani”, Note d’archivio per la storia musicale, nuova serie, i 1983, pp111–38.
Richtlinien zum Schütze alter wertvoller Orgeln: Weilheimer Refulativ: zugleich kurzgefaßter Bericht über die Tangung der Orgeldenkmalpfleger in Weilehim/Teck vom 23. Bis 27. April 1957, Berlin, Verlag Merseburger, 1958
Piero Ruffatti: “L’Associazione Italiana Organari”, L’Organo, xxix 1995, pp179–95
[1] See Giovanni Carbonara, Avvicinamento al restauro, Teoria, storia monumenti, Naples: Liguori editore, 1997
[2] Richtlinien zum Schütze alter wertvoller Orgeln: Weilheimer Refulativ: zugleich kurzgefaßter Bericht über die Tangung der Orgeldenkmalpfleger in Weilehim/Teck vom 23. Bis 27. April 1957, Berlin, Verlag Merseburger, 1958
[3] Kristian Wegscheider & Helmut Werner, Richtlinien zur Erhaltung wertvoller historischer Orgeln: zum Gebrauch für Orgelbauer, Denkmalpfleger, Organisten, Abteilung Kultur, Kultur- and Forschungsstätte Michaelstein bei Blankenburg/Harz, Kultur- und Forschungsstätte Michaelstein, 1981
[4] Piero Ruffatti: “L’Associazione Italiana Organari”, L’Organo, xxix 1995
[5] Pier Paolo Donati, “La tutela degli organi antichi in Italia oggi”, Le fonti musicali in Italia: studi e ricerche, vii 1993, pp131-32. The points are summarised as follows: (1) The position of the organ in its architectural context must be respected, including shutters and bellows-rooms… (2) The instrument must be respected in all its aspects... stop-mechanism, chests, mechanisms, supporting structures, bellows; in its manual and pedal compass, characteristics of voicing and wind-supply to pipework; in its pitch and temperament. Normally, historic stratifications are respected. In the case of tampering which has occurred within the last 100 years according to pseudo-concepts of modernisation which led to substitution of stops for industrialised products, changes to compass, changes to transmission systems – the configuration prior to the tampering will be recovered. When an organ is found to be substantially intact, starting with the pipework, the possibility of a complete recovery of its original characteristics will be evaluated, putting any recent elements into storage, proceeding to the necessary reintegration necessary for the recovery and evalutation of the sonorous document. (3) Each intervention will be conducted according to the criteria of philological restoration. These impose a preliminary study… Only after an examination of the pipework and its re-ordering according to the original scheme… can decisions be made about the nature and limits of the intervention. Procedures must be used which are reversible, materials which have a mechanical, chemical and mechanical affinity with those of the original builder must be used, and technologies analogous to the craft of the original builder must be used. The restoration must be justified and documented according to the salient points of the analysis of the instrument, from the restoration plan, a description of the operations carried out and materials used, accompanied by photographs relating to the situation before during and after the interventions, graphic documentation where necessary, complete pipe-scaling data and measurements of the important components of the instrument (keyboard, pallet-box, pallets etc).
[6] "La restauration doit rendre à l'instrument la voix", Curt Sachs, “La Signification, la Tâche et la Technique Muséographique des Collections d'Instruments de Musique,”Museion, 1934, vol.27-28, p13, quoted in Friedemann Hellwig, "Il Restauro: Un Problema di Ideologia, Tecnologia e Personalità," in Restauro Conservazione e Recupero di Antichi Strumenti Musicali, Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Modena 2-4 aprile 1982, Olschki, Firenze 1986, p31
[7] Pier Paolo Donati, “La tutela degli organi antichi in Italia oggi”, pp125–39
[8] Pier Paolo Donati, “Regesto Documentario”, Arte nell’Aretino, Firenze: Edam, 1979
[9] Pier Paolo Donati, “La tutela degli organi antichi in Italia oggi”, p130, cites a phrase from a document by Giovan Battista Fasolo, 1645: “[…] la percussione del ‘tasto di polso battendolo, acciò spicchi’ […]”, without providing further information about the context. In another article by the same author, Fasolo’s remarks are rendered differently (“acciò il soggetto meglio spicchi” – see Pier Paolo Donati, "Restauro e 'suono storico': nuove evidenze documentarie," L'Organo, XXIV 1986, p64). This version of the text tends to lead us to conclude that it is the musical theme which is being described, not the behaviour of the instrument.
[10] Marco Fratti, “Studi delle caratteristiche costruttive originali e restauro dell’organo Antegnati di Almenno”, L’organo Antegnati 1588–1996, chiesa di San Nicola in Almenno San Salvatore, Bergamo, Parrocchia San Salvatore 1996, pp85–177
[11] Pierre Cheron: “Inventaire technique de la tuyauterie”, L’orgue de Jean-Esprit et Joseph Isnard dans la basilique de la Madeleine a Saint-Maximin, 1774, Arcam, Nice 1991, pp42-181
[12] Giuseppe Basile (ed), Conservazione e restauro degli organi storici: esperienze e ricerche nel restauro dell’organo Altemps in S. Maria in Trastevere a Roma, Roma: Palombi, 1998
[13] Gabriele Gravagna (ed), L’organo di Antonio Pace Pesaro 1631, Cremona: Turris, 1996
[14] C.B.McCullagh, The truth of history, Routledge, London, 1998pp134-171
[15] e.g. could a sixteenth-century document about the use of tuning-flaps be used to justify the application of tuning scrolls in a restoration in which there is no evidence of their previous adoption and where local traditions seem to negate such a choice?
[16] Cesare Corsi, “Veniero da Legge (da Lezze?) e la questione dell’organaria romana del Cinquecento”, Il Saggiatore musicale, I, n.1, 1994, Olschki, Firenze
[17] G. Tabak, “I restauri dell’organo Altemps nei documenti d’archivio tra XVII e XIX secolo,” Conservazione e restauro degli organi storici: esperienze e ricerche nel restauro dell’organo Altemps in S. Maria in Trastevere a Roma, Roma: Palombi, 1998, pp97-116
[18] Nicolaas Waanders, “The restoration of pipe organs: some reflections on theory and approach,” Recercare, IX, 1998, p221. P.P. Donati, “L’organo Testa del 1701,” in Conservazione e restauro degli organi storici: esperienze e ricerche nel restauro dell’organo Altemps in S. Maria in Trastevere a Roma, Roma: Palombi, 1998, p31-33 insists that the register was pitched an octave higher than the Principale, based on the stipulated measurement of the length of the lowest resonator (11 palms). This argument overlooks the fact that resonator-lengths were often precisely stipulated, but the pitch was not. Their length could be described as “a contentamento”(as the client pleased) in at least one case, and “tutta grande” (full length) in another. It seems musically incongruous to have a reed stop an octave higher than the Principale in a large instrument. It is tempting to speculate whether the designation “tutta grande” was referring to a trumpet in the style of Hermans, as other Roman builders like Alari seem to have taken up alongside their own particular types of reed.
[19] Arnaldo Morelli, “I Testa celebri organari romani”, Note d’archivio per la storia musicale, nuova serie, i 1983, p118
[20] Istituto Centrale per il Restauro, a teaching institution which is a division of the Ministero per i Beni Culturali.