Alexandra Palace Organ
London N22 4AY
The unofficial website
Dear Sirs
As you are responsible for the official organ appeal web site, I am writing to correct some of your statements under the heading FAQs.
Who owns the organ ?
The unrestored portions of the organ were purchased from the firm of Henry Willis and Sons for the sum of £7,050 on my recommendation to the Appeal Committee. Subsequently at a Committee meeting with signed minutes available, the pipes were donated to the AP Trustees.
Are Appeal Funds being used for Tuning and Maintenance?
You are correct in that the AP Trustees pay for tuning .The Appeal exists to raise money to complete the restoration, so please explain why donors money has been used to transport unfitted pipes to Liverpool from Huddersfield and Petersfield, and why funds have been used to move pipes within the existing structure as minor maintenance?
I have heard that the organ will cost 1.5 m to restore. Is this true?
Twenty years ago, Fred Clarke and colleagues were suggesting a total restoration cost of over 1 million pounds. Enquiries to large well known and successful organ builders suggest that the now quoted figure is unrealistic, and presumably does not include the total dismantling of the existing structure, supplying a new frame and 32ft pipes. Your figures are totally misleading.
As any restoration must be subject to a tendering process, please advise how many organ building firms have been asked to tender and has any quote exceeded a sum of 1 million pounds, and that they are members of the I.O.B.
When I last looked at this site, there were a number of negative allegations directed towards the current Appeal Committee and the organ builder. Why have these been removed ?
Ignoring the fact that you were forced to apologise profusely for allegations that former Committee members were accomplices, what were the negative allegations ? You cannot make general statements like this without revealing the offending wording. If only to allow the accused persons an opportunity to defend themselves.
I would question the statement that your web site no longer includes negative material. That is far from the truth, I am afraid.
Is the unofficial site connected to the Appeal or the Palace in any way? Are the private Appeal documents it publishes genuine ?
The unofficial web site does not need to be approved by the Appeal, indeed if it were, it would not be so effective. The Palace Trustees have no interest in approving web sites. Having read the unofficial web site it would appear to me that the authors are attempting to show why the existing Appeal has been such a dismal failure, and that dirty tricks employed time and time again have destroyed any hopes of you being trusted with the execution of the restoration of the organ.
No documentation is private if it is not marked “private and confidential”, and the said documents were addressed to a public organisation .
Ian Bell’s report has not been used out of context, and is copied in full, and he has no say in the matter as it was paid for.
At no time has the Appeal provided any evidence that the unofficial web site is inaccurate, and the genuine documentation cannot be ignored. If you dispute this then take action.
So what about the claims that Henry Willis & sons have “stolen” two ranks of pipes from the Choir Organ?
I would suggest that this matter has caused more concern amongst the organ world than any other previously quoted matter.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Choir organ was fully paid for, and that the
removal of two ranks of pipes without the knowledge of the owners was disgraceful.
No-
I have heard that part of the building frame is unstable and about to collapse. Is this true?
My recollection of the reference to the building frame was that Ian Bell suggested that it was not up to his standards, so you refer to him as a detractor of the Appeal and of the organ building firm. I suggest that this is an insult to an advisor who clearly is independent of the Appeal. I suggest that you remove this statement before he gets to hear about it.
At the time the Appeal insisted that the frame was inspected, and it was recommended that stabilisation work be carried out, but it was obvious to the organ world that the frame would have to be dismantled, as it was only ever temporary, a situation not realised in 1990,
Solo soundboard,
As the relocation of the soundboard is maintenance, legally the Appeal would not be allowed to fund these works. No doubt the accounts will confirm this.
I have heard claims that all the existing work will eventually have to be done again. Are these true ?
The problems of the Great Hall were well known to the organ builder when he accepted the Appeal’s money for partial restoration.
I have copies of messages in Orgue, the Mander web site and private e-
No doubt you will once again accuse Ian Bell of being a detractor.
Finally, I conducted a survey recently, with for and against the restoration happening. The figure for “against” was a staggering 85%, all because the people had been impressed, but very concerned at being directed to the unofficial web site. I can tell you that those web masters whoever they are deserve a medal.
I will be fair, and will copy your reply to Firoka, and the AP Trustees, and to the various web sites, so that you can have your say.
Colin Richell.
Ex Treasurer, Concert Organiser, Friends’ Secretary, Trustee, and Fund Raiser, Organ Appeal.
PS If no reply is received I will assume that you have accepted my observations.
