workload revisions

[Fred Sturm]

I've been giving some thought to Jeff Tanner's excellent comments, and
would like to offer the following practical response. 
	With respect to "quality," I have come to the conclusion that the whole
category is unworkable, at least as it is currently described. I
understand the initial notion: that a lower quality piano will require
more work to get it to a given level of performance than will a higher
quality piano. But in practical terms, pianos one would describe as
"Poor, should be replaced" are generally placed where they have very low
priority, and given minimal attention; "fair, worth reconditioning"
pianos are generally uprights, and get mostly tuning, general
maintenance, and low priority reconditioning - much less time than
rebuild; "good, worth partial reconditioning" and "excellent, worth
complete rebuilding" pianos get the most service day to day, and are
most time consuming from the point of view of major overhaul work. 
	So the input numbers produce results opposite from what experience
would dictate. I don't like the idea of reversing the input numbers - it
seems like a rather strange "message to send." Instead, I think the
category should be eliminated and merged into "acceptable standards."
	A preliminary draft I would suggest follows (including the notion that
the performance piano should reflect its workload better):

Acceptable Standards 
0.1 Top performance: Piano is maintained in meticulous condition at all
times: tuning, voicing, and regulation at highest possible standard,
with daily or near daily attention; rebuilding on an accelerated
schedule so that piano is kept virtually "like new." (Generally concert
instruments in recital hall)
0.4 Near top performance: Piano maintained as above, but with weekly to
bi-weekly attention, and somewhat slacker rebuilding schedule.
(Generally piano teaching studios and the like. In some situations may
apply to concert instruments).
0.7 Excellent: Piano kept near performance level - well
tuned, voiced, and regulated. Monthly attention. Rebuilding on a regular
basis.
1.3 Good: Piano needs to be kept at an acceptable musical level -
adequately tuned, voiced and regulated. Bi-monthly attention.
Reconditioned on a regular basis.
1.8 Fair: Piano need not be kept constantly at an acceptable musical
level - tuning allowed to deteriorate before retuning, voicing and
regulation low priority. Once to twice a semester attention.
2.5 Poor: Piano use not at all critical - may be neglected to the
point of tuning once a year and "fixing what's broken when you get
around to it."

	What do you think? Does this sound like a direction to move in?
Comments/suggestions?
	For purposes of seeing how this works in the database, enter a default
1.0 for every piano under "quality." And enter the additional inputs
("Top performance" and "Near top performance" by keying in the numbers.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico