Improving the Journal

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: June 09, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: theRe: need more info in the journal


>
> That being said, I would also like to see more articles in each journal,
but
> I have no idea what kind of pool the editors have to draw from.  If more
> technicians would spend some time sharing their ideas and expertise in
> different areas, perhaps the editorial staff would be in a better position
> to make long term decisions about the volume of material they can include
in
> each issue.



To whom it may concern,

I can't speak for Bob Hohf, the Journal's current technical editor, but as
one who does contribute the occasional article to the Journal, I can tell
you that writing for it is a largely thankless task. Unless you're a very
fast writer -- I am not -- and depending on the amount of work and research
going into the piece, compensation for a technical article can work out to
maybe $5 or $10 an hour. If you're lucky, and the topic is an easy one you
may do a bit better, but not by much. And, of course, this does nothing to
compensate for the time invested in developing the technique or the
knowledge that enables one to write anything even semi-intelligent in the
first place.

Now, what is the average charge for tuning a piano these days? And how long
does it take? What is the average shop rate? How many of the folks
complaining just now about the Journal would be willing to tune a piano for
$10 or $20? Most, if not all, Journal authors would be far better off --
economically -- keeping their techniques and their knowledge to themselves.
Obviously, many potential writers realize this and they remain potential
writers instead of published writers.

And, when I'm told that contributors to the Journal should actually be
willing to pay for the business exposure they're getting by having their
work published (no, this wasn't by anyone connected with the Journal) this
option seems rather attractive.

The obvious solution, of course, is to pay authors more, but that would
raise the cost of the Journal and ultimately somebody has to pay the bill
either though subscription fees or higher PTG dues. Sure, there are some
economies that can probably be made, but there's a limit somewhere. And,
yes, I know there is room for refinement in ways that won't substantially
raise costs -- there always will be. None of us are professional writers,
editors, graphic artists or publishers. In the end, though, how many of us
are willingly going to volunteer to pay more for an already expensive
Journal?

The same thing is true of instructing at our conventions. In this case there
is no pay for services at all and only partial compensation for the expenses
of attending the convention and presenting a class that, one hopes will be
of financial benefit those attending. Nothing at all is done to compensate
instructors for the many hours that go into preparing for his or her class.
But if a class is not presented at what the attendees consider to be a fully
professional level everyone will hear about it. Again, the obvious solution
is to raise the rates for the convention. PTG does not charge enough by half
for convention registration and most of us know it even though we're not
willing to acknowledge the fact. Any talk of raising the rates to anything
remotely comparable to those charged by other similar organizations is met
with a firestorm of protest.

As you say, David, if just a few of those complaining about the lack of
content in the Journal would take an active interest in getting involved in
its publication it would be a better Journal. This doesn't necessarily mean
writing for it, there are many other tasks for which volunteers and/or
contributors are needed. Even writing the occasional thoughtful and
constructive letter to the editor can help. There have been some
constructive ideas making up this thread, but they're being sent to the
wrong place. If a few of these posts were to be re-written with about 90% of
 the whining taken out and converted to constructive and helpful criticism
and sent in old-fashioned letter form (Yes, snail mail!) to your
Communications Director and your Journal editor -- trust me, here --
positive changes would be made. Especially if a few of those letters are
accompanied by offers to help out some.

Complaining is easy. Joining the effort to really make the Journal better
will cost you something. It will take your time and effort. And it will
leave you vulnerable to the same type of criticism some of you have so free
with. So, it will give you the opportunity to develop a thick skin. That
might be helpful during your next stringing job!

Anyway, we can't have this thing both ways. Either more folks have to get
involved -- at sometimes great personal cost -- or we'll all have to be
willing to pay more money somewhere along the line.

OK. That's the end of my rant for today. I'll shut up and go back to working
on my convention class now.

Del