Jeff, I think you are right on in your questions and concerns. The same ideas have also occured to me. It may be that we should have an additional category for performance pianos, for instance, under "acceptable standards." It's hard to know what value to assign it, though. Some schools tune performance pianos daily, others on a more "as needed" basis. And it depends how "performance oriented" the school is (though this is covered somewhat under the Base Workload variable). The quality vs condition question is a very muddy one. If quality is "poor" (not even worth reconditioning), does that mean we are really going to spend more time on it? Partly that depends what standard we are trying to meet for the individual piano. But really, practically, the highest quality pianos (worth complete rebuild) are the ones that eat time - because we rebuild them. So in a sense, it seems the numbers are the reverse of what they should be. In offering my draft of revised input numbers, I didn't address these issues. I'd love to see some suggestions as to how to do so. Thanks for bringing it up. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico Jeff Tanner wrote: > > List, > First, thanks to Fred and others for all the hard work on the new Formula! > I really like the idea of optional Base Workloads and what these numbers > have to show to administrators about how we would rank among our peers. > > I'm in the process of inputting my inventory into the new formula and I've > come across a couple of questions on how one might enter variables for the > formula. Forgive me if these questions have been dealt with previously. > > First question, and this may be being picky on my part, involves comparing > actual performance pianos which require daily attention with piano faculty > teaching studios and even perhaps practice pianos reserved for piano > majors. Shouldn't teaching studio instruments be assigned an Acceptable > Standard value of "Excellent/well tuned, voiced and regulated" (0.7)? If > so, given that obviously you wouldn't service them daily as the performance > pianos, does this category adequately address the daily attention required > by the performance piano? Or, should you simply assign a "Good/acceptable > musical level" rating (1.0) to piano faculty teaching studios, which would > make them equivalent to any other instrument in classrooms, practice rooms, > etc.? > > Second question involves the "Quality" category. Are these variables > inversely assigned for pianos which actually need more attention? Example: > you've got an instrument which needs partial rebuilding (Condition rating > of "Fair/needs partial rebuilding" - 0.6). If you assign this piano a > Quality rating of "Fair" (0.7) or "Poor" (0.3), the results show you need > more technicians to service a piano you do not deem worthy of the work it > needs - work you would likely never perform. If, rather, this were an > instrument you would assign a Quality value of "Excellent" (1.3), this > variable has the effect of decreasing the number of technicians needed > rather than increasing it for work needed to be done that you would > actually perform. > > I think what I'm trying to say is that as long as a piano is in good or > excellent condition, the Quality variable gives accurate results, but when > the instrument actually needs work, this variable appears capable of > producing inverse results from what is needed in reality. > > Am I making sense? Thinking too much? > > What's the possibility of establishing accepted standard values for the > Quality variable for common makes/models of pianos, and perhaps the > "Acceptable Standards" variable for various situations? I might say a > Baldwin Hamilton deserves a quality value of 0.7 (worth reconditioning), > while another tech gives it a 1.0 (worth partial rebuilding). You might > say a general practice room instrument only deserves a "Fair" acceptable > standard while another tech gives it a "Good". Leaving these two variables > up to the opinion of one tech over another sort of blows a hole in the > consistency of the application of the Guidelines. > > Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and questions, > Jeff > > Jeff Tanner > Piano Technician > School of Music > University of South Carolina > Columbia, SC 29208 > (803)-777-4392 (phone)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC