Gents, I've always found it interesting that the very folks who stand to make the most money from the longer-term use of _quality_ rebuilt/refurbished instruments in schools (especially music-specific ones) are exactly the ones who then try to cut the rug out from in underneath their own products. While someone like Tom McNeil can probably speak more accurately to the timelines involved, it seems to me as if the development of the CAUT institutional guidelines occurred right around the same time that a certain well-known maker decided to turn institutional piano purchasing into a capitalization project. I do think that Dave and Fred have made some most excellent points here. In a nutshell, much depends on the ability of the technician and the faculty to work together for their own, long-term best interest. Some aspects of rebuilding can be reasonably done in house (actions being a primary example). Others, unless the institution is most unusual, really should be contracted out...to reputable folks who are both able and willing to work within the constraints of institutional budgeting and process. Further, as Fred notes, having any sort of arbitrary standard for replacement and/or rebuilding/refurbishing is simply asking for trouble. We have all seen much older instruments that are wonderful right along side some that are truly wretched. Same, within limits, with new instruments. Particularly absurd, I fear, is the presumption that an all-something-or-other school is some how, some way, intrinsically "better" than one that is not. Rubbish...unless, of course, one is the manufacturer or dealer. While not exactly on target here, I want to call your attention to an excellent post on pianotech this morning from Robin Hufford. In it, he raises (again) for consideration the concept of the Modulus of Resilience. Where that has relevance here is in the assessment of older instruments - that is - just how much "rebuilding" is actually necessary? Sarah Fox (also on pianotech, a few days back) put this into a perspective which can be modified for use here. In considering how much "rebuilding" is necessary, the thinking (in the institutional setting, at least) really need to include both musical and technical issues as primary factors. If the board is still musically usable, why replace it? Do what is reasonable and necessary - it is not an either/or, it is a both/and. Ultimately, something can have a beautifully executed, but musically dead execution...what end is served? Another place on which to place pictures and coffee cups? Put in less prosaic terms, a B, for example, which no longer has the power to properly drive a small recital hall just might, with reasonable reworking, be just about perfect for a studio. Or, a 1098, after 30 years of grueling practice room service, gets some bridge work, some grinding on appropriate plate locations, restringing and new action parts...and, produces for another 30 years. At a certain level, much of this has to do with our own egos. What are we serving? If it is something other than the overall reasonable best that a given instrument can produce in a given place at a given time, then we need to ask ourselves how music (and, oh yes, to be sure, the budget) is being served. I admit to a fair degree of cynicism here. That is because I have seen too many instruments recreated in the image of some technician or other, rather than in being worked with to their own potential. There are times in which replacement is, to be sure, the best of all possible choices; and, we should acknowledge those times and support those decisions. There are also times when some level of refurbishing or rebuilding is the best of all possible choices; and, we will find more support for that position and work if we have been reasonable in term of replacement. (Of course, it never hurts to have the bright, shiny, new - and, therefore, obviously much superior - instruments turn out to be turkeys...) Ah, well...my rant for the day. Best. Horace At 10:20 AM 1/25/2005, you wrote: >Avery: > >I've found it interesting how the usual sales line is that if you buy a >Steinway it is an heirloom that can be kept and passed down from >generation to generation. However, once a school has one they try to >tell you that a rebuilt one is not as good as new. If a piano was in a >piano faculty studio and is ready to be rebuilt, it has to go down in >function to maybe a practice room. > >dave > >David M. Porritt >dporritt@smu.edu > >-----Original Message----- >From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of >Avery Todd >Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:54 AM >To: College and University Technicians >Subject: RE: [CAUT] Guidelines/piano ages... > >Dave, > >As would ours be! :-) > >Avery > > >Our local Steinway dealer is somewhat less > >enthusiastic about our approach. > > > >dave > > > >David M. Porritt > >dporritt@smu.edu > > >_______________________________________________ >caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives >_______________________________________________ >caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC