Let's cut to the chase was Re: Guidelines comments

[Jim Busby]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Bill,
=20
Great comments. That's exactly what we need to discuss.=20
=20
My first experience with the new CAUT guidelines and an administrator
was less than positive. He took one look and said he would rather have a
recommendation from the music people who understand the issue more and
could study the guidelines.  (I think the number of pages bothered
him...Didn't want to look at it, even though he asked me to get him a
copy.) They indeed have their minds on other things.
=20
We definitely need more clout, recognition, or perceived qualifications.
It will be a long term effort. I especially like the idea of some kind
of CAUT organization and accredited specialist.=20
=20
Jim Busby=20
BYU
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Bdshull@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:53 AM
To: caut@ptg.org
Subject: Re: Let's cut to the chase was Re: Guidelines comments
=20
All,

It's hard to know where to start in the middle of this thread -=20

We need to address some of the other big problems which, when addressed,
will give the subject relating maintenance to longevity more punch with
our administrators..

Right now we don't have the attention of school administrators - with
some exceptions, administrators don't seem to have sufficient reason or
motivation to properly fund and staff for piano service.

The fundamental problem is that across the board we face an
institutional inertia.  Beyond the classic, intrinsic difficulty of
obtaining funds for rebuilding which can't seem to fit into the budget
model of new purchasing and annual maintenance is an even more
fundamental issue:  School institutions do not have the motivation to
address these issues.  Institutions - i.e. school, NASM, etc.  And there
is an institutional inertia on our side too. =20

This year NASM was very clear in its correspondence with us:
administrators have too many other problems than to begin a dialogue
with us on piano maintenance.  They don't want to be saddled with
pressure to spend more on pianos and piano maintenance.  If that is the
position of the dominant accreditor of schools of music in the US, I
think we need to recognize the enormity - and importance - of our task.
It involves a long-term commitment to:

developing accredited specialists in university piano service (i.e. a
CAUT curriculum within the Annual Institute and a CAUT creditial);

Actively, persistently promoting the properly trained CAUT RPT to:

  university administrators
  piano faculty
  state officials overseeing the establishment of criteria for piano
service personnel
  piano manufacturers, whose retailers increasingly determine the choice
of piano=20
         service personnel at universities.

Continuing to provide documents (such as the Guidelines and the ensuing
companion documents, and other publications), as well as dialogue (such
as the CAUT list, the annual CAUT forum, and state and regional CAUT
events) to establish and develop a body of CAUT knowledge and practice.

This is why we need to figure out ways of working with our own (CAUT and
PTG) institutional inertia.  The PTG is only beginning to realize that
university piano service is at the forefront of the marketing work of
the PTG.  There is no annual budget for marketing the RPT to the
university administrators, but the home office found funds for a
one-time mailer to administrators this last year.  This is the kind of
thing that needs to get into the consciousness of the efforts being made
to do long-range planning.  It is not just a marketing issue, it is a
training issue, a credentialing issue, a fundamental issue of identity,
even. =20

The driving force dictating the selection of piano technicians at
universities is often related to the success of the retail piano
establishment with its college sales.  The retail side needs our help in
defining acceptable university piano service.

Surveys and studies need to be conducted, but they cost money and
require human resources.  One fundamental issue is, How many pianos does
a university actually need?  Many schools may be overstocked, sometimes
with high maintenance pianos (old unstable ones, or new unstable ones).
How does anyone know if there are too many pianos?   NASM has no
recommendations about this. =20

I hope that we will develop numbers relating maintenance to longevity,
so that when the time comes that we have made sufficient impact to be
heard, the numbers will be there to use.

Bill Shull



In a message dated 6/13/03 7:29:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dm.porritt@verizon.net writes:




Hammers are different, players are different, acoustics are different
(this affects how hard people will play it), people's opinion of what's
worn out are different, sound boards efficiency are different, hammer
bushings are different,......

A piano is either suitable for a purpose or it's not.  The artists know,
the technicians know and that's the criteria for doing maintenance.
What we seem to be trying to do is to objectify the criteria enough to
explain it to the non-artist who controls the money.  I frankly don't
think that can be done.  Either the artist has credibility with the
non-artist or he doesn't.  I don't think this can be reduced to an
auditable data stream.  Further, our failure in this attempt will weaken
our credibility.

dave
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 6/13/2003 at 3:53 PM Richard Brekne wrote:



I aggree with this Wim. These questions should have reasonable answers,
and they would be valuable to be able to put on the table when dealing
with admin folks. I just put a brand new set of hammers on a Hamburg C
in October. The instrument has been used on average 5 hours a week since
then. Just two weeks ago I had no choice but to file down a bit as the
grooves were 2 mm deep already. These were 1/2 high Strike Weights. We
all throw in data like this to a central data base.. and those answers
will reveal themselves. All we need is way of archiving the information
so it is easy to arrange in meaninful ways. RicB Wimblees@aol.com wrote:



IBean counters not withstanding, this is still a question I would like
to have answered. Airplanes fly a certain number of hours before they
are reconditioned and eventually put in the graveyard out in Arizona. We
get a maintenance schedule for our cars. But what are some guidelines
for pianos? How many "hours" of playing do a set of hammers get before
needing to be replaced? How many times can we restring a piano in the
original pin block. When does a soundboard need replacing? How many
times can a piano be rebuilt, with a new soundboard and pin block and
strings? Last year this subject was talked about briefly, but I don't
think we ever got a definitive answer. I realize these are all questions
with lots of answers, based on usage, climate control, budgets, etc. But
this is the kind of information that would be useful, even to techs out
in the field. Any one want to give some answers? Wim=20
 =20




--=20
Richard Brekne=20
RPT, N.P.T.F.=20
UiB, Bergen, Norway=20
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no=20
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html=20
http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html=20

**************** END MESSAGE FROM Richard Brekne *********************
_____________________________
David M. Porritt
dporritt@mail.smu.edu
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
_____________________________
=20

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/09/05/c4/c1/attachment.htm

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