Electronic Organ Survey, July 2011

Transcription

1 Electronic Organ Survey, July 2011 Summary We received 45 responses (though some questions elicited fewer responses). This is sufficient to get a feel for the answers, but it does leave rather larger margins of error if we try to extrapolate the results to the rest of the church. We might assume, however, that the people motivated to fill out the survey include a greater proportion of those that feel strongly about the issue. More people are in favour of renovating the pipe organ (55%) than are in favour of buying an electric organ (36%). The margin of error 1 on these results is ± 13% so the results would also be consistent with a 50/50 split in opinion of the church as a whole. Also important to note, then, is that there exists a significant number of people favouring each option. From my reading of the comments I think a majority of those favouring the electronic organ did so because they felt it was a reasonable compromise: either to free up space or to reduce costs. I think both groups felt that other issues aside a pipe organ was more in keeping with St Andrews. Very few of the comments seemed intransigent. A significant minority felt that more information or more options were necessary before making a decision. A majority (70%) would like to attend a meeting to discuss the choice. David Bick, September Calculated at a 95% confidence level with a small finite population correction (N=200).

2 Results 1) What did you think of the sound quality of the electronic organ? Great Good Okay Poor Great 7 17% Good 24 57% Okay 8 19% Poor 3 7% Terrible 0 0% 2) Compared to the existing pipe organ, did you think the sound quality was Better About the same Worse Better 4 10% About the same 22 52% Worse 16 38% 3) Aside from the sound quality, how do you feel about having an electronic organ in St Andrew's? I like the idea No strong opinion I don't like the idea I like the idea 13 30% I don't like the idea 14 33% No strong opinion 16 37%

3 4) With respect to costs, how would you feel about raising the following amounts? 175k to renovate the pipe organ Enthusiastic Happy OK Unhappy Opposed 50k to buy an electronic organ Enthusiastic Happy OK Unhappy Opposed 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 50k to buy an electronic organ 175k to renovate the pipe organ Enthusiastic 4 11% 8 20% Happy 15 43% 13 33% OK 7 20% 12 30% Unhappy 6 17% 5 13% Opposed 3 9% 2 5% 5) In view of the sound quality, the suitability for our church and the provisional costs, is your first impression that we should: Renovate the pipe organ Buy an electronic organ Renovate the pipe organ 24 55% ± 13% Buy an electronic organ 16 36% ± 13% I don't feel I have enough information to choose 4 9% ± 8% 6) Would you like to attend an open meeting to discuss whether an electronic organ would be suitable? Yes No Yes 26 70% No 11 30%

4 Comments If we could get a suitable electronic organ that would be fine, but the last one was not good because of: 1) the individual notes were fuzzy and indistinguishable from each other at least in the central aisle where I sit 2) the sound from it was not suited to our church. Losing a good pipe organ would be a loss to the heritage of church music and St Andrew's. Although the electronic organ was adequate, I found that the sameness and the difficulty in getting the sound level right for the acoustic quite annoying on the ear at times. If we had absolutely no other option, an electronic organ would serve the purpose. Nothing has been spent on the organ for a very long time and so it is overdue some tlc. To maintain the strong musical tradition of St Andrew's I would definitely say keep the pipe organ. I believe there are funds specifically for use for the music that could be used towards this? If the option of the electric organ is adopted would the speakers be hidden from view?? The last open meeting stressed the importance of not spending (or seeming to spend) vast sums on ourselves. We need to think carefully about alternatives. Fairly modest sums to Azul Wasi have had a big effect. Q3 is ambiguous. I have put that I like the idea. This is because I d be happier not spending vast sums on a pipe organ! Thanks for setting this up on line! I like the idea of preserving / renovating rather than disposing and buying new. Also let us think long term. Who knows whether future generations at St Andrew's will be able to afford buying organs. We can provide funds for restoration. 1) An electronic organ because of its smaller space requirement would make re-ordering of the vestries / organ chamber easier and possibly cheaper. 2) The exact location of the loud speakers still needs to be determined. In my opinion they need to be a few feet above ground level and suitably camouflaged. Should the vestries be used for kitchen, toilets and storage of music, etc. The electronic organ would be the best option for space and cost. If the pipe organ is voted for, space for the pipes would have to be found in the church. The electronic organ would use much less space and be far cheaper, and not need retuning. I would not support fundraising for 175k -- I think that is an over the top suggestion driven by the organists wanting a nice instrument to play on, and not a good use of church funds. I realise there is a great difference in the cost, and it would obviously perhaps be more expedient to have the electronic organ, but I do prefer the pipe organ. I would prefer it if the organ and pipes were kept. It would be better for the ambience of the church. In my humble opinion only John Marsh and Chris Pountain are in a position to decide this quandary, together with the moneylenders.

5 An advantage of the electronic option is the space it would free up. 1) didn t really notice much difference, but given pipe organ needs replacing electric must be worse sounding 2) was supporting electric for cost reasons only, but given price about the same in long term would be nice to support pipe organ building. A hard decision indeed! An electronic organ would free up space that could be used for other purposes we desperately need [???] space and would be adequate for our musical needs. Electronic organ produced perfectly respectable sound, but believe pipe organ has better sound, presence and appearance in St Andrews. At first we didn't really notice the difference, but still feel a pipe organ is more suitable for our church. My head says an electronic organ is more than adequate, my heart feels it may be more in keeping with this church to have a pipe organ. I'm happy to go with either solution. Pipe organ is part of the church and our heritage, please save it!

6 Requests for more information I would appreciate the views of John and Chris before a decision is made. I was in the church when John was playing the electric organ and he did say the keys responded immediately when touched. The sound from the speakers was very loud being set in the Chancel. It needs to be a decision of the whole fellowship - so open discussions will be important. 50k sounds to me a large amount to spend on a musical instrument - but I accept that there is a musical tradition that is valuable and worth nurturing. We need to be clear as to the reasons that we are committing to spending at least 50k. Personally I do not particularly like organ led worship Although I have put unhappy and opposed this does not mean that I think that one of these ideas may well prove to be the right one! Comparative maintenance costs. Comparative guarantee periods for maintenance and for free parts. 1) Whether we would have to keep the pipe organ in the church, regardless of whether or not it was in working order (this is a question for the DAC). If we wouldn't, I'd say run with an electronic organ to save space, if we would, I'd keep and restore the pipe organ, money permitting. 2) Whether raising 175k for pipe organ is a viable possibility. My first impression is that we have not been given all the options. Some sensible costings for minimum maintenance to the pipe organ if we spend 10-20k will that be enough for the next 10 years I strongly suspect it would be. 1) difference between 2 sets of maintenance costs 2) how long would pipe work be phased over, how much would need raising at once What is the timescale of this project? How long would we have to raise [???] & money for renovation; as mentioned it could be done over a number of years.