"The Future of a Profession"

Translation by Carlos Lara of Essay by Joaquin Lois Cabello

 

Coming from Tordesillas, a professional trajectory of almost fifty years has permitted me to reflect on the future of our profession in Spain, but also in Europe. Moreover though, I reflect on the repercussions that our guild has on the destiny of one part or area very important (not more or less than others) of our historic and artistic patrimony. 

 

Over the length of these more than forty years as a professional in this field, I have seen many changes of circumstances; worse times, better, lots of work, more or less uncertainty, and also different moments where there is social interest in this patrimony and the musical activities that surround it. 

 

In my first years, everything was hope, projects and dreams. Well, things could only get better, worse was almost impossible in the panorama of the restoration of historic organs. 

 

In these years, the promotion of music for the baroque organ (like the ones we have in Castilla, an authentic treasure), the formation of professional organists of very high level, of enthusiasts that are equally enthusiastic and capable, of shops and professionals with qualifications to care for this patrimony, and of students as much for the instrument as for its history and the specific repertoire for these our organs (so close to us, so glued to our culture, our distant infancy and our history,) have not stopped growing. 

 

From those years in the seventies, effectively everything has evolved and improved in many aspects, and it has permitted the professionals to work (a lot) with expectations and research, and to deepen the understanding of the historic instruments, to the construction of new organs, to spend time with and work with excellent musicians, and enjoy the effort realized through the restoration or construction of the organ. 

 

It is evident that everything is different depending on the point of view from which it is seen. It is not uniform in a national territory, not in different workshops, not for all the organ builders, and not for who is ultimately responsible for this patrimony (who is also all of society), which are the public administrators, and The Church. 

 

Regarding all these things, I want to present my vision in this particular moment, of the state of things, and the near future. 

 

We have come to know through our work how professional capacity has affected these instruments in each era, and we can very often distinguish the date of the works by their quality. There are regional eras and “professionals” that are especially pitiful. They come to coincide with periods of depressed economies, where the economic investment did not propitiate professionalism nor quality. Then persons without even barely being qualified, without any vision of the future, who were mere opportunists ready to do with very meagre available pesetas (money) the simple patching of a bellows, or to change for novelties, almost miraculous alterations or solutions that ruined many instruments. 

 

It is not a coincidence that these acts do not exist at the times when workshops with prestige and regular activity were active. When they existed, the standards of quality were imposed in a natural way, and they formed part of the culture of the historical moment, and that geographic space. 

 

Echevarría’s workshop, the same one that constructed the organs of the Segovia cathedral, did it in small towns with the same quality and care, and where another builder that was less celebrated had to compete, they did so on quality and prestige, not just price. 

 

Returning to the present moment, it is necessary to place the question in these most recent times. After years of expansion in all of the aspects of the organ world, and focusing ourselves on our professional scope, we have survived various economic crises, and most recently a pandemic. 

 

Truly, ever since the crisis of 2011, public investment in restorations (as though new organs have never existed in our lands!) has drastically diminished. This affects the expectations of workshops and the future projects, and it can end up affecting the continuation of those same. There aren’t many workshops in Spain, but it appeared that neither is there a need for more, nor bigger ones. Indeed, some maintain their existence thanks to working outside of our borders. They don’t feed the dogs with sausage there either, but working outside allows us a wider field of work. 

 

Let us focus on the conservation of our patrimony, since the existence of organ workshops and the quality of those same is only of interest in that they protect this patrimony over personal and professional interests. If it wasn’t for them, there would not be any social transcendence. We would dedicate ourselves to information, or the fabrication of slot machines, or some other activity. 

 

The actual problem for the patrimony is not the disappearance of workshops, (they aren’t going to disappear from the night to the morning), but their decay and the doubts about their continuation over time and their generational relief is. For that, a foreseeable investment and maintenance at this time is necessary, not the longed for and runaway increase that appears today to sustain all economic activity, which certainly is pleasant. 

 

In Europe, after the frenetic years of activity in construction and restoration of organs, the activity has equally fallen. With it, many businesses fell, and many other restructured to adapt themselves to the new times. As is logical, they work here and there, and also in our country. This is something that’s healthy, though as it is a sector that has not finished consolidating itself in Spain, it also has a negative influence on the panorama of the future of our workshops. 

 

What any crisis or slow down in activity affects the most is the formation of new professionals. It should be considered that in our profession, there are multiple specialties, of very diverse natures and very specific. So it should be understood that the formation is very long and costly. 

 

The uncertainty should never be only of interest regarding this aspect, neither for the formator, neither for who is formed, who are both always looking at the short and long term. 

 

Even though I am extending to those professional aspects of our activity, I don’t want that the object of this essay is lost, which is the conservation of our historic and artistic patrimony, and because of this, I return to the principal actors. 

 

The Church, the bishops, the parishes, and the town councils have the custody of most of our historical and artistic patrimony. Because of this, they have the responsibility to watch over it and protect it. They cannot avoid that they are the leaders of this patrimony we speak of, but obviously they are not the owners, nor the only ones responsible for this. 

 

The other fundamental aspect is the economic resources necessary for the conservation and the revaluation of these same. 

 

By blessing or by curse (depending on how it is looked at), we have a lot of patrimony, and this requires an economic effort. It is important that its end never arrives, and it always demands for more. 

 

We are blessed that since some time, our societies have been advanced by taking the patrimony (all of the patrimony). We are not permitted the luxury of abandoning it, even though neither are we permitted the luxury of investing everything we desire in it. 

 

Because of this it is necessary to rationalize a lot the efforts, so that they are the most efficacious possible, and that there is emphasis on those that are less economically costly that are of the greatest efficacy. 

 

It is very costly to restore an artistic object, but much less is to protect it, and this is an obligatory and prior action of the restoration. An organ that is protected from leaks, humidity, construction projects on top of it, and other aggressive agents can expect many years before it needs to be restored again. 

 

It is possible that an organ without this protection is never restored. Also, it may disappear or be gravely deteriorated. 

 

In this aspect, a lot can be done with little economic effort (a little, but something). In the first place, to complete an inventory of the organs, with enough information to determine besides artistic and technical information, their state, and the risks and threats that are hovering over them. This information should stay in the power of the parish, the bishop, the town council, like the document of the receipt of the object. I clarify, that besides an adequate description of the object, the receiver of this said information should be the one responsible for what happens from that moment on with that object, so we don’t depersonalize, that organ. 

 

In this way, the responsibility of the parish should be independent of who rules it at any given moment, and it should abide by the indications of protecting the instrument. 

 

On the other side, the bishops are in fact responsible that the law of the patrimony is fulfilled, and to avoid over all the action of intruders. This is a danger that augments with professional decay. Arguments like “there isn’t money,” “this is a lost people,” “the organ isn’t that important” give rise to persons without qualifications nor responsibility having adequate access to realize work on the organs. Free or not, altruistic or not, whether charging big sums or not, the wake afterwards is the same. 

 

It is very probable that this phenomenon goes further, and it is a true scourge for our patrimony. So we should pay a lot of attention, and denounce it every time that it is produced. We should keep in mind that exquisitely protected monuments such as an organ can be acted on so they are completely destroyed while no one (or almost no one) lifts their voice, and over all, there are no consequences. 

 

This can appear to be a corporatist posture, but it is not. I only think of the protection of the patrimony. Either we protect it, or we leave it to be trampled by the horses, but there’s no middle ground. 

 

It can be thought in the emptied Spain, as they now call it, any voluntary action is agreeable, because it has been left by God’s actions, but this is not true. It is precisely in the towns where more protection is necessary, and where sometimes the most valuable pieces are. What can help the recuperation of these locations is acting at the highest level on their patrimony, which in some cases is almost all they have. 

 

In the case of instruments that are restored, the problem is different, but the effect and the form of acting is similar. 

 

In these last years, there has been quantities invested, and important efforts made on the restoration of organs. Once this work is done, in many cases everything continues the same as it was before the restoration. 

 

The activity on these organs may have been propitiated by associations (before by provincial and independent organizations), and in many cases with a lot of effort and efficacy, others with less, according to what is possible for them. But in the rural land, the parishes that gestate a stable activity on the organ are rare, and therefore they do not have the conception that the organ is a complex machine that has to be taken care of if it is desired to be used. Well, since in many cases it is not used habitually, its care does not exist. 

 

Because of this, when some association or promoter organizes an organ concert, in the best case it is undertaken that the organ is tuned, but in other cases it is not, in either case declaring the message to who is responsible that the organ takes care of itself. 

 

When the musical activity decreases for the reasons already described, the organ ends up without maintenance, and without follow up. 

 

At this point, it may also be exposed to the actions of some spontaneous person, as we have come to experience, throwing a fit because a key gets stuck (with all its good intentions), or some other unforeseen action. 

 

I insist that this is not a question of corporativism, trying to defend a professional space. It has to do with the fact that if there aren’t any professionals of adequate level, the patrimony cannot be cared for. 

 

The protection of the patrimony demands that there are adequate professionals. Adequate professionals are not formed over the course of one evening and morning. They also cannot be found in the pockets of the unemployed. In the case of organ workshops, there shouldn’t only be a master organ builder with experience, it should also include officers of different specialties that require a time consuming formation and experience. This is not possible in an atmosphere of uncertainty and vulnerability before determined phenomena like intrusions. 

 

We all recognize the news of interventions on organs by an enthusiast priest, a very able retired person, some very wilful volunteers, or some pseudo professional that once was fifteen days in an organ workshop. They, with the assistance of the internet and with a press eager for extraordinary news fabricate a colourful curriculum. 

 

These actions are sporadic, and it cannot be said that they diminish the activity of the professional workshops, but they have a very negative effect in various aspects;

 

The first over their own patrimony

 

The second over the message that is sent to parish priests, town councils, bishops, etc. that these “arrangements” don’t need an expensive professional. 

 

The third is that the workshops have to think a lot before taking on apprentices, in case that before they receive an adequate formation, they plunge into offering their services without legal barrier that can impede what they are doing. This does not facilitate a comfortable and natural transmission of the knowledge. 

 

On the other side, let us look at an example that is a bit extreme. Today there are those interested in a multitude of subjects, who through the internet can learn anything, and put it in practice if they find the appropriate opportunity. Let’s consider surgery, there may be an enthusiast who has incubated everything regarding surgery, and who could convince us that they are capable of doing a perfect intervention on us. Would any of us open that door without a recognized regulation?

 

Well, in the subject of organ building (and in other areas of the patrimony), that door is wide open. Evidently, it’s not the same thing to talk in terms of health care, but it is comparable if we establish what level of protection our patrimony should have. 

 

Of course, professionalism also has its dangers. Some try to take the waters along their own channel of needs and interests. But for established workshops that have responsibilities to labourers, fiscal responsibilities, prestige and that are implanted, it is possible to demand of them and orientate them toward responsible ways regarding the patrimony. The other option is chaos. 

 

Returning to the economy, we have the challenge of the conservation of restored organs. When economic ability decreases, there is a lot of work to do that isn’t very expensive, and this is the maintenance of organs. Moreover, when an entity considers the restoration of an organ, they should also consider the principle of its conservation. If it is not like this, it might be advisable not to undertake it.

 

The concerts with the corresponding tuning of the organ are an effective formula to conserve the organ, the organists, and the organ builders. It is also very important for the interested to hear them, and this is not expensive if we extend it in the territory, along the length of the year with a little bit of coordination and cleavage. 

 

Many of the questions are not economic; such as not letting an intruder enter to the organ, advising of a leak, to advise a promoter that it is necessary to tune an organ prior to a concert. These do not cost money, it is a question of culture and awareness. 

 

I’ve mentioned parishes, bishops and town councils. These have their responsibilities, but we are not going to leave the others that are responsible free. Authorities on the matters of the patrimony, entities of public resources, the courts, regional governments, etc. have the responsibility of financing actions regarding the patrimony, but also optimizing the funds, and coordinating with the other responsible actors. Equally, I think that doing things right is an important chapter that is not economic, instead of the will, intelligence, and of creating culture. Neither money nor laws can substitute for it. 

 

Because of this, I think that we are at a crucial point in that things can go for the better (little by little, without anxiety), or go for the worse (quickly), but they are never going to stay in a stable place. 

 

Many of the actors in these times; public administrators, parish priests, politicians, artists, musicians, societies, enthusiasts, and organ builders, have had a valuable experience that we can condense and extract the positive from, and transmit it to improve things. Without this experience, everything is lost. 

 

Tordesillas, the 26th of July, 2022. Translated and posted by Carlos Lara May 28, 2025.