I don't believe so. In the history of music there is after all an orderly succession of events. In Western civilisation, in any case, melody came about first, then harmony and finally the concern for timbre, still later, the concern for rhythm, for which I hear some responsibility. We need to take that into consideration and the organ must imperatively follow this evolution whether it wants to or not. There's no need to have 200 stops on an organ to create nuances, for often it's enough to add or subtract that one stop specially appropriate to the atmosphere sought.
Nuance is a concept which too many organ builders gorget, especially in America.
Hence, organ builders ought to be inventive people and not repetitive ones. I wondered whether music wouldn't gain on one hand what it lost on the other. We mustn't always be looking for whatever may be reassuring to us. Neither should we use one stop or another because others do it that way or because it was well thought of to do it in order to reproduce what was one done. Bach's works for example, seem rythmical, precisely because they do not contain rhythm.