Guidelines comments

[Wimblees@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 6/12/03 12:35:22 PM Central Daylight Time, fssturm@unm.edu 
writes:

> 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
> 

Unfortunately, trying to convince bean counters that the school needs to 
spend money on piano tuners is going to fall on deaf ears, if we can't show them 
it is going to save them money. Just telling an administrator that WE say one 
full time piano tuner is needed for 70 - 100 pianos, because WE say what needs 
to be done to keep piano working the way WE say they should work, is just not 
going to cut it. I think we have to show, with actual case studies, that 
investing in a piano tuner is going to save them money in the long run. We have to 
show, in writing, with examples, that, to paraphrase the Fram Oil Filter 
commercial "you need to pay a piano tuner now, or you will have to buy new pianos 
sooner." 

If we can show that a qualified piano tuner can postpone the purchase of new 
pianos by 20 or even 40 years, they might listen. But just telling them that 
investing in a piano tuner is going to make the pianos play and sound better, 
only a few piano professors are going to agree with you. But the bean counter, 
and maybe even the rest of the department, is going to say, so what, I'd 
rather have the money for scholarships, or some new music, or a new desk in my 
office.  

The new Guidelines are very good, and helpful, and hopefully it will give a 
few department chairs the ammunition they need to get a qualified piano tuner. 
I'm trying to suggest a few ways to make the guidelines even better. It will 
require some more work on our part. But we've gone this far, so why not go the 
extra mile, and make it even better?

Wim 

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/12/71/2b/15/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--