|Wietse Meinardi, Peter van Dijk||Organ building after 2000 (V)
Het ORGEL 96 (2000), nr. 3, 32-40 [summary]
In Het ORGEL 1999/5, Wietse Meinardi criticised historicism in organ building. In the next issues, Hans Fidom, Sicco Steendam, Wim Winters, Tjibbe Heidinga, Sietze de Vries, Joop A. Klaassen and Jan-Piet Knijff reacted. The discussion is now closed with another article by Meinardi and a concluding article by Peter van Dijk, editor of articles on organ building matters in Het ORGEL.
Meinardi stresses once again that Dutch organ building is one-sided and he pleads for an organ on which he can interpret a large wide range of musical styles. However, his ideal organ is not a synthesis of several historical elements, but an instrument like the organ in the Grote Kerk at Leeuwarden (Müller, 1732). He does not wish to modify historical organs according to his ideas. But he approves of the new temperament of the organ at Zuidhorn, which is less unequal than before: 'People have moved in the direction I propagate in my article.'
Peter van Dijk states that when it comes to discussing historicism, it's important to discern that restoring historical organs and building new organs are two different matters. Furthermore, he thinks that one can discern two directions in organ playing as well: some organists approach the organ as a means to play their repertoire, others approach the organ as a guide that helps to decide which music should be played in what way. Van Dijk prefers the second group. 'Each good organ is better than even the best organist even when it's small, it offers many opportunities.
In the 20th century, organ builders and organists have discovered a lot about old organs and old organ music. One of the results is that we know now that we have to be careful with our heritage: 'The next generation will first of all be interested in the monuments not in our vision on these monuments.'