Guidelines comments

[Isaac OLEG]

Fred, Wim,

out of the performance level, I am persuaded and very sure that
maintenance allows for instruments that last longer.

I understand thaw Fred is trying to "defend the devil", but for me ,
new tuning pins allows for less ovalisation of the block, hammer
voicing protects the strings, and so on.
I follow too much instruments where I know that if I where not doing
the (often minimal) job to keep the in shape, nobody would be playing
on them actually .

I strongly argue that when a certain level of good function is
obtained, the instrument age far way less. That this level is near
performance level is another point, then it is up to us to have the
skill to bring to performance level instruments that are sometime far
from it, and in as little time with limited budgets.

But all of this is not really impossible I believe. (while of course
it is a full time job sometime !)

Greetings


PS I have another 'bad mouth thought" some time the pianos may keep a
better shape if no tech where working on them (I know it is really bad
taste at this time !)

Isaac OLEG

Entretien et reparation de pianos.

PianoTech
17 rue de Choisy
94400 VITRY sur SEINE
FRANCE
tel : 033 01 47 18 06 98
fax : 033 01 47 18 06 90
cell: 06 60 42 58 77

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org]De la part de
> Fred Sturm
> Envoye : jeudi 12 juin 2003 19:36
> A : College and University Technicians
> Objet : Re: Guidelines comments
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>