Winner of the President's Award 2003

Considerations for the Ethical Conservation of Historic Musical Instruments

by J. Sinclair Willis, FRSA, FISOB, FIMIT.

Background

In days gone by organ builders presumed that they were entitled to "improve" or "modernise" the instruments on which they worked.

The great Victorian organ builders saw no problem in "improving" most of the old English organs to bring them into the 19th Century, but as a result much of this country's older musical heritage was lost.

How many organs by Schmidt, Harris, Schreider, Bridge, Byfield, Jordan, Snetzler, England, Green, or Elliot (to name but a few) exist as originally conceived by their builders?

Although there are still people today who are quite happy to irreversibly alter the work of our predecessors by introducing new materials, new actions and new pipework, this is becoming more rare as accepted conservation ethics are being adopted internationally.

We should all be concerned that our great great grandchildren have access to historical organs that are in their original forms, without modern additions or alterations, and this paper is intended as a guide to basic conservation issues.

Considerations

There are, I think, two considerations here. The first is "how do we persuade the owners and custodians of historical instruments to conserve them rather than modernise and alter them?"

The answer is surely that if they want a modern instrument they should buy one. Some of the finest contemporary organ builders in the world are based in this country and their work too, in time, will become historically important.
The second consideration is what we, as the persons responsible for the care of so many of the country's organs, can do to protect their historical integrity.

Ethics

Musical instruments, with some exceptions, are functional objects that cannot be used for the purpose for which they were intended without physical interaction with people.

This they have in common with many other cultural properties including clocks, weapons, vehicles, domestic utensils, tools, machines, and scientific instruments.

Therefore the ethics of conservation for musical instruments have much in common with the conservation ethics of other artifacts.

The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) has a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice, perhaps the most relevant of which are:

Respect for the "aesthetic, historic, and physical integrity of the object"

• That "although circumstances may limit the extent of treatment, the quality of the treatment should never be governed by the quality or value of the object"
• That one "avoid the use of techniques, the results of which cannot be undone if that should become desirable"
• That "a conservator may supply little or much restoration, according to a firm previous understanding with the owner or custodian" but that he may not modify "the known character of the original"
• That a "written report (supplemented with photographs) detailing the object's condition, the proposed treatment, and the actual materials and methods used in the treatment be made and provided to the owner."

On the basis of the above, conservators of musical instruments could reasonably work to the following guidelines:
No historical object should be restored to a state of functional operation unless there is a reasonable prospect that the result will meet with the minimum standard of its original maker, or of a competent historical user, and that it will be properly maintained thereafter.

All aspects of a functional object should be given equal consideration when planning and carrying out its treatment. These include:

• Original Function
• Later historic functions
• Original decoration
• Changes in decoration during any later period of historic use
• Visible or suspected evidence of its history or design, manufacture or use.

Taking a 16th Century barrel organ as an example, restoration to a functioning condition should not be considered unless an extremely important historic, technical, or aesthetic quality can only be determined through the actual operation of the instrument and this information cannot be gained in any other manner.

There are a number of factors, which if present, indicate that a functional restoration is probably inadvisable:

• The object is unique
• The object has original ephemeral features which will be lost or altered
• The condition of the object is such that an accurate achievement of its original quality of function is unlikely
• The function is so well understood that no new information is likely to be gained
• The object is fragile and subject to significant wear during use
• The use of a copy would be possible
• The skills and other resources required for restoration, maintenance and use consistent with historically appropriate standards are unavailable or only marginally available
• The resulting functional use will not be recorded in any permanent form accessible to others

Factors that, if present, could indicate that a functional restoration may be considered are:

• The object is mass-produced, or many similar examples exist
• The object has previously been restored and many of the ephemeral features have already been lost
• The object can easily be put into working condition without loss of substance or ephemeral features, such as adjustments and clearances
• The original function can be re-established and new information gained as a result
• The object is sturdy, durable, and not subject to significant wear during operation
• The use of a copy would not give results equivalent to those produced by the restored original
• Skills and other resources are available to restore and use the object so that it will operate in a manner consistent with the standards of a historical maker or user
• A permanent and accessible record will be made of the resulting functional use through sound recording, filming, video-taping or other suitable means.

Dealing with insects

If an organ conservator is working to an accepted code of ethics then he or she must use the methods, techniques, and materials that suit.

The woodworm problem is just one example.

Liquid-based chemicals saturate the porous fibres of timber and leave a residue, thereby altering the original.
Alternatives to woodworm fluids exist and are preferable in the conservation of historic pieces. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen or methyl bromide can be used to kill wood-boring and other insects, and will not alter the original form of the instrument or its components by leaving a residue. Also, freezing of parts in a domestic or commercial freezer will have the desired effect without damaging the original.

Cotton and woollen components are often infested with mites, moths, or other insects and these can also be deep-frozen to kill them.

I would not recommend the deep-freezing of complicated jointed artefacts, such as the barrel of a barrel organ which may consist of several materials. The moisture content of the various timbers, paper, metal and leathers could expand and contract at different speeds and damage the object.

Materials

The use of epoxy resin or other hardeners to strengthen or augment worm-eaten timber can not be justified as this destroys original information about the component and therefore the integrity of the instrument.

The conservation alternative is to destroy the insects and store the object, with documentation.

A new replacement part will do the job better and the original object is still available for study and reference.

Modern materials (which you either find in an instrument or are tempted to use) can also pose a threat.

Lead is severely affected by even small amounts of volatile acids. Leather, cotton, and wool are also affected, but to a lesser extent.

The following timbers all give off large quantities of acidic volatiles, and their use should be avoided:

• Red cedar
• Southern yellow pine
• Douglas fir
• Cypress
• Redwood
• Oak
• Butternut
• Hickory
• Pecan

Timbers that do not give off large quantities of acidic volatiles are:

• Poplar
• Basswood
• Mahogany
• Birch
• Beech
• Balsa

If the use of a potentially harmful material cannot be avoided, a good coat of paint can often seal in the problem on new materials.

As alkyd paints; silicone paints; epoxy ester paints; aluminium paints; polyurethane and most other varnish (including latex) give off more acidic volatiles than the timber you are painting you will need to take care when selecting a paint to use. Only latex semi-gloss interior paints, such as vinyl/acrylic and acrylic paints should be used (unless you have a sufficient budget for moisture cure urethane paint which provides an even better barrier).

Shellac varnish is also a good barrier, although several coats are needed to properly seal the surfaces.

The emission of acidic volatiles decreases with age, so old painted surfaces and old timbers should not be a threat. Indeed, the use of old "re-cycled" timber in conservation and restoration work is not only more appropriate than using modern materials, but can also be safer.

Generally, exterior grade plywood contains phenol-formaldehyde that does not hydrolyse and give off harmful gas.

However, interior grade plywood, chipboard, hardboard, fibreboard, etc. which is bonded with urea-formaldehyde, cross-linking oils, etc., unless 100% sealed, will emit formaldehyde and will have a detrimental long-term effect on metal pipework and other susceptible components in the instrument.

Leather is a different problem entirely. Mould can be treated but it will probably return if any spores are left in the building and the R.H. is above 65%.

If leather is stored below 30% R.H. it will become brittle, and, as with so many other parts of an organ, a fluctuating R.H. can also be harmful. Environmental control is the only real answer, but unfortunately, this can rarely be achieved in churches.

Corrosion in iron or lead can be active or inactive, and you need to be able to recognise the symptoms before deciding on the treatment. This is a particular problem in old barrel organs where the metal pipes are in oak rackboards, or have been glued into position. Often this “tin rot” is so advanced that even the removal of the pipes is impossible without them falling apart. In this case, it is certainly inadvisable to attempt any form of restoration, although the pipes can be conserved by storing them in an airtight container. If the instrument is to be restored to playing condition, the answer to this problem is simply to make new pipes and a new rackboard!

Metals can be painted or coated to prevent water vapour and oxygen from reaching their surfaces, but in cases where iron cannot be painted, it is best treated with a solution of tannic acid, distilled water and ethanol or dilute phosphoric acid (H3PO4).

If the iron wires are not serviceable (i.e. they will not hold the buttons or exert the correct pressure on the reed tongues) then they will have to be replaced for a working restoration.

Any such components should be photographed, removed, packed and documented before being sealed in a container that should be fixed somewhere in the organ where it will be left alone.

Different materials in different circumstances require different treatments. It is really only possible to recommend a course of action after an examination of the instrument in question.

If these guidelines are followed, and the conservation or restoration work is fully documented with photographs, sound recordings, etc. future generations will thank us for the part we have played in preserving our organ building heritage.

© 2003 John Sinclair Willis
 

© 2003 J. Sinclair Willis and The ISOB All Rights Reserved