Guidelines comments

[Fred Sturm]

I don't know, Wim. I can't see how we can argue that a piano _lasts_ longer 
if we do the recommended maintenance as you describe. In fact, it seems to 
me that doing what we recommend costs more and makes pianos last less long 
- or at least makes the components of pianos last less long. Regular hammer 
filing makes hammers die quicker; repinning shanks to maintain frictional 
parameters means more rapid replacement of shanks and flanges; regular 
re-stringing means more rapid replacement of pinblock; etc.
	Now there are schools where quality rebuilding and maintenance isn't part 
of the picture, and where, particularly with regard to performance pianos, 
there is a tendency to replace more often than necessary. The hammers get 
beaten in, some zings appear, key bushings get sloppy, knuckles and tails 
are glazed - the piano just isn't that wonderful instrument they picked out 
so carefully. Better get a new one. I've seen that often enough, and I 
expect many others have as well. It means piles of money goes to replacing 
prominent pianos, leaving next to nothing for maintenance and replacement 
of the rest of the inventory.
	In that kind of circumstance, you can certainly argue that hiring a 
qualified tech would save you money. But for the most part, I think the 
only argument that makes sense is that you have to invest in maintenance by 
a skilled tech if you want to have instruments at a quality level adequate 
to higher education needs. Period. Keeping pianos a performance level 
requires a constant investment of time and skill.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
Universidad de Nuevo Mexico

--On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:47 PM -0400 Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if we, as a committee, can come up with some general
> guidelines that gives more definitive information to the bean counters
> that will give them a better idea as to how long a piano will last if it
> is used x number of hours per year, and how often it needs to be
> reconditioned, or rebuilt.
>
> In other words, we have identified that pianos get light to heavy usage.
> We have also identified a standard of maintenance. All of this, along
> with the other workload formulas, gives us an idea of how many piano
> techs are needed to maintain the instruments.
>
> Now, we need to figure out how we can use this information by showing
> that a grand piano, set in above average climate condition, used heavily
> 8 hours a day, that needs to be kept in near top performance, needs to
> have a new set of hammers, shanks and flanges every (5 - 10) years, needs
> to be restrung every (15 - 20) years, a new pin block after 2
> restringing, but needs to be replaced after that. If we can show that if
> the above maintenance is not done, the piano needs to be replaced in 30
> years, instead of 50 or 60, perhaps the bean counters can see the
> financial advantage of having a qualified tech on staff.
>
> Is this worth investigating, or adding to the formula? Is this
> information useful and/or helpful in convincing department chairs and
> deans it is financially prudent to invest in proper maintenance?
>
> Wim