NASM review

[Mark Cramer]

Fred,
I am in the middle of a budget proposal, both short and long-term, so I've
had to go through a similar process. Can you tell me what the NASM is? Also,
are there other agencies such as MTNA that audit college music programs (and
their pianos)? We may or may not have thse in Canada.

BTW, for our budget proposal, our Dean arranged a meeting between ourselves
and the President, and Vice-President of Finance. Knowing the shortness of
my own attention span, I kept the presentation to 10 minutes worth, and used
overhead transparencies to underscore the points, i.e.:

Pianos under 7 years old:	1
Pianos under 15 years old:	16

and so forth.

The presentation was held in a faculty studio. On the left side of the room
was that prof's current 1904 S&S "O" with "lumpy" pyralin key-tops, and
well-worn and beaten mahogany cabinet.

On the right side, was an identical ribbon-mahogany 1911 "O" which I had
just finished (at 10:00 AM that day). It has a brand new hand-rubbed, satin
finish, gold-plated brightwork, and of course, a new soundboard,
action-rebuild, and all the trimmings. The detailing (by no coincidence)
allow it to pass for "new."

The visual comparison was dramatic. A particularily gifted first-year
student gave a mini-recital to highlight the "new" piano's quality of sound.
Finally, substantiating figures where displayed on the overhead to
illustrate the savings of restoring quality instruments to full enjoyment.

I believe this presentation gave our administration what they needed, in
order to understand the role of piano service in a quality music program.

What will come of it? I'm not sure. The more time I spend in an institution
(no, not that kind of instituiton! <G> ), the more complicated it seems. I
will share our progress on CAUT, and certainly appreciate the way we're able
to pool our efforts and experience.

One more annecdote: The prof with the 1904 "O" knew it was in rough shape,
but had previously been hesitant to part with it. Fearing not being able to
get another "Steinway," I think.

The 1911 had been in an un-locked practice studio for years, and had the
"history of the world" etched into it's finish. I had planned the overhaul
two years ago, as a "surprise," and actually began the work last October.

The unveiling (and surprise) was to happen the day after the budget
proposal, when the prof would return home from vacation. As it happened, she
arrived half-way through the presentation! There was no "red bow and ribbon"
on the piano, though the look of astonishment on her face was priceless!

The poor-old 1904 "O" is now stuck in an un-locked practice studio, awaiting
the grafitti artists pen,... or,... some good news about the budget!  :>)
Here's hoping!

Mark Cramer,
Brandon University



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-caut@ptg.org [mailto:owner-caut@ptg.org]On Behalf Of Fred
Sturm
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 3:44 PM
To: caut@ptg.org
Subject: NASM review


My music department is undergoing NASM accreditation review this year
(what fun for us all!) I have been lobbying my chair for some time that
we should use this as an opportunity to try to squeeze money for new
piano purchase out of the university (the department will never have an
adequate budget, and we've bought a total of two pianos in my 15 years
here). So, of course, the chair asked me to write an evaluation of the
piano situation.
	I thought I'd share an outline of what I did in case it might be useful
for others involved in the same.

I) Current condition
A) Inventory: I described the number and type of piano owned by the
department in some detail, including dates of purchase. (As in many
universities, most of our inventory was purchased when the building was
built, over 35 years ago). I opined that the types, numbers, quality
level and models of pianos we have are generally appropriate to a music
department of our size and type.
B) Condition of inventory: I restated in general terms the age of our
inventory - average age of grands, average age of uprights, % over x
years old. I noted how many (very few) had had any degree of
rebuilding/replacement of parts. I opined that the general condition of
the pianos was far below acceptable standards for a music department of
our size and type.
C) Personnel: I described my workload as a ratio of pianos per FTE (80
for .5 FTE = 160 per 1 FTE). I compared that with the Steinway
Guidelines recommendation (40/FTE), the CAUT Guidelines (60 to 80/FTE),
and the results of the CAUT 1990 and 2000 surveys (90 - 95/FTE).
D) Humidity: I described the range of humidity in the building, noted
the size of changes I have measured within a 24 hour period. I described
the affects of this instability of tuning and on deterioration of
instruments.
II) Recommendations
A) I recommended instituting a regular replacement budget. I proposed as
a goal arriving at and maintaining an average age for uprights of 20
years, with a maximum of 40. For grands I recommended an average age of
30, maximum of 60, with an additional budget for periodic parts
replacement. I crunched figures and came up with an annual budget to
arrive at and maintain these average ages. (Pretty easy. Take the total
replacement value of the upright inventory. Double the target average
age. Divide this number into the total replacement value. Similarly for
grands, but I added a budget for parts).
B) Personnel: I recommended increasing my half time position to full
time. Alternately, I suggested hiring contract technicians to do
practice room tuning and/or contracting out some rebuilding.
C) Humidity: I recommended including some degree of humidity control in
any future upgrade of the building's HVAC system. Alternately, I
recommended budgeting for humidity control systems to be installed in
many of the pianos.

	So there you have it. Hope it's of some use to one or more. Wish me
luck (the most I'm really hoping for is a one time, fairly major
replacement budget. But who knows?)
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico