Letter from Ernest M. Skinner to Archibald T. Davison

Dr. Archibald T. Davison
22 Francis Ave.,
Cambridge, Mass.

Re: Appleton Chapel, Harvard College

My dear Dr. Davison:

In the opinion of one who knows as much about tone as the next man, if 45 years experience means anything, the Swell Diapason in your organ is the purest tone, and the Great No. I is the next to it. The other two on the Great are of a more nasal variety that is supposed to make a better ensemble.

We, undoubtedly, went too far on the fluty side in years past; then along came an appreciation of the fact that the fluty side of the question was overdone, and that we should restore the mixtures and give more attention to the ensemble, but it so happens that it is just as easy to err on the too brilliant side as it is in the other direction.

The reason the Great Diapason No. 1 is said not to blend is because it has something to say on its own account, and in effect, it cannot be entirely obliterated by the balance of the material on the Great organ. If you will pull out all the Great except the Diapasons and then draw Diapason numbers 2 and 3, you will find that they are very largely swallowed up by the upper work and the reeds.

This is all very well if one’s musical aspirations are satisfied with contrapuntal music, but this is a long way from my idea of the musical wants that should attend a vocal accompaniment. I happen to know from personal contact that your Great Organ Diapason No.I makes a beautiful blend with the voices because it has something in common with the voices. To say that that Diapason No.I does not blend with the balance of the organ is equivalent to saying that your voices do not blend with the organ, because DiapasonNo.I has a normal quality that is common to voices. It is a quality neither on the sharp nor fluty side of the intermediate ground which makes the perfect diapason.

Youngsters like Covell and Gammons read up on these points and get the old world idea of an ensemble, also that of a contrapuntal specialist, and have nothing in common with the ear that loves a beautiful tone on account of its beauty. After all is said and done, I have put what you call a friendly characteristic in the organ which has given to it something of the warmth and temperamental qualities of other instruments. I have never agreed with the idea that the organ should be cold and unsympathetic, but I think it is a fair statement to say that it has been very largely of this description.

The German organ at Methuen, of which Covell thinks so much, is as hard as nails. It hasn’t a decent reed or string in the entire outfit, and yet he thinks it is the greatest organ in America. Take a tip from me and don’t rely too much on the infallible omniscience of the dilettante.

If that Great Diapason No.1 is changed, it will be over my dead body. If you would sit out in the gallery a little way from the Choir, where I sit, and hear it with the voices, you would know that it was an invaluable voice for your purpose.

Another thing of importance, as I see it, this type of diapason gives the Great organ a character distinct from that of the Swell or Choir, so that you not only have variation in the individual voices of given manuals, but you have manual distinction.

Frankly, we are being criticized at the present time because we have been turning out diapasons that were lacking in the body that the former examples had. I do not care too much for a blend that means being swallowed up. The lion and the lamb make a perfect blend, but the lamb is inside the lion. Your ensemble will be very nearly destitute of diapason quality if the Great organ Diapason No. 1 is changed.

I will get over there and see you as soon as I can. In the meantime, the Philomela couples to the Great, the Solo Tuba couples to the Great, and all the stops of the organ respond to the couplers as they should.

I do not know whether I can improve the condition of the basses or not. I have pretty nearly exhausted my resources in that direction. The acoustics of some buildings exaggerate this windy element, which it did to a remarkable degree in the 4 upper notes of the 32′ octave of the Fagotto. I practically eliminated this defect in these four pipes by doing something to these four notes which has never been done before in the history of the world, as far as my knowledge goes, and I never touched the reeds themselves.

Here’s to our early meeting.

Yours very sincerely,
Ernest M. Skinner

EMS:MBL
cc to NYO & GLC