[CAUT] Re 1/4 Tone Sharp

[Chris Solliday]

What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. or not.
 Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolfley, Eric (wolfleel)" <WOLFLEEL at ucmail.uc.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re 1/4 Tone Sharp


> Thanks Jim,
> 
> I'm sorry I mis-remembered the results of your visit here in regards to
> the broken plate. In the case of responsibility here, I don't think
> anybody would blame me if the piano broke and I certainly wouldn't be
> doing any of this work to a valuable quality instrument. This little
> Baldwin M has been used here for the past few years as the "sacrificial"
> piano for these types of uses. It still lives.
> 
> Eric Wolfley, RPT
> Head Piano Technician
> Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music
> University of Cincinnati
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
> James Ellis
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:19 PM
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Subject: [CAUT] Re 1/4 Tone Sharp
> 
> Eric Wolfley mentioned my coming to Cincinnati in regard to litigation
> over
> a broken plate.  Yes, I remember.  It was a very pretty piano, but one
> that
> was out of warranty, and one whose maker had since gone out of business.
> But those circumstances were entirely different from the one discussed
> here.  In that case, it was a pirch raise following the procedures many
> technicians now use.  The problem arose when one area technician claimed
> that the plate broke because the technician did not raise the pitch in
> small increments over an extended period of time instead of all at once.
> The tiny-small-increment philosophy had it's day many decades ago, and
> has
> since been proven to be nonsense, but that was the basis of the law
> suit.
> 
> The facts were something completely different.  I examined how the plate
> was made, and how it broke.  After I came back home and did an analysis,
> I
> concluced that I did not understand why the plate had not broken when it
> was first brought up to pitch at the factory.  One man who had worked at
> that factory said that as a matter of fact, the plates of some of those
> models did break at the factory when they were brought up to pitch.  I
> was
> told that the law suit was dropped less than 24 hours before it was to
> be
> heard in court.
> 
> The current discussion is about something entirely different.  The piano
> in
> question might do just fine, but again, it's possible that it might not.
> If I were the technician, I would handle it the easy way.  I would
> simply
> say that I did not recommend it, but that I would to it if the
> institution
> insisted, and if I did, I would NOT accept ANY responsibility WHATSOEVER
> for ANY damages that might occur as a result.  I would accept NONE of
> the
> risk, if any.
> 
> Personally, I think it's absurd that someone writes "music" that must be
> played on an instrument that's tuned outside of its normal range.  This,
> in
> my opinion, is nonsense - "The Emperor's New Clothes", etc.
> 
> I hope this helps.  Sincerely, Jim Ellis
> 
> 
> 
>