Considerations

for the Ethical Conservation of Historic Musical Instruments

by John Sinclair Willis

Background

In days gone by we all presumed that we were entitled to "improve" or "modernise" the instruments on which we 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 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?

Unfortunately, there are many people today who are quite happy to destroy the work of our predecessors by introducing new materials, new actions and new pipework to instruments that deserve greater respect.

We should all be concerned that our great great grandchildren have access to organs built before, during, and after the Victorian era that are in their original forms.

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.

Restoration to 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 artefact 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 function is obscure and unlikely to be determined as a result of restoration
• 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.

If an organ conservator is working to an accepted code of ethics then he will obviously need to use the methods, techniques, and materials that suit.

The woodworm problem is just one example.

If you pour a liquid-based chemical over the timber it will saturate the porous fibres and leave a residue.

Alternatives exist, such as the use of gas. Some use carbon dioxide, others use nitrogen, others methyl bromide.

The use of epoxy resin or other hardeners to strengthen or augment worm-eaten timber can not be justified. All you are doing is destroying original information about the component and therefore the integrity of the instrument.

Instead you can either destroy the insects and store the object, with documentation, or simply seal it is a plastic bag and store it.

A new replacement will do the job better, and when better conservation techniques are developed the original can be re-used. If new conservation techniques are not developed at least 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.

Red cedar; southern yellow pine; Douglas fir; cypress; redwood; oak; butternut; hickory; and pecan all give off large quantities of acidic volatiles, but the least harmful are poplar; basswood; mahogany; birch; beech; and balsa.

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 can afford moisture cure urethane paint which provides an even better barrier).

Shellac varnish is also a good barrier, but several coats are needed.

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.

But interior grade plywood, chipboard, hardboard, fibreboard, etc. which are bonded with urea-formaldehyde, cross-linking oils, etc., unless 100% sealed, emit formaldehyde and will have a detrimental long-term effect.

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

This technique can also be used for simple insect-infested wooden components.

I would not recommend the deep-freezing of complicated jointed artifacts, 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 damage the object.

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 answer.

Insect traps are readily available. They are intended to attract the insects to them and thereby establish if these insects are present, and if they are, attract them away from the organ.

Corrosion in iron or lead can be active or inactive, and you need to be able to recognise the symptoms.

Metals can be coated to prevent water vapour and oxygen from reaching the surface, but in many cases, iron is best treated with a solution of tannic acid, distilled water and ethanol.

If you can also get dilute phosphoric acid (H3PO4) so much the better!

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.

Photograph them; remove them; pack them properly; document them; and put them in a sealed 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.

Summary:

• that dust, dirt, insects, and unhelpful environmental conditions should be controlled
• all items that must be replaced should be retained with the instrument and fully documented
• all work on historical musical instruments should be carried out within a recognised conservation ethic.

© 1996- Conacher & Co.