workload formula revisions

[Michael Jorgensen]

Hi Fred,
      I agree with the concerns.  The quality category is problematic and so is
the upright grand time demand ratio.  "Retail value of the instrument new" number
could cover that.   A Yamaha P22 is not a U3.  A new concert grand costs five
times a new C1 which costs about twice a U1  or three times a P22.  These costs
mostly represent the time the manufacturer invested and to a much lesser degree
material.   The time they invested could correspond to the time we should invest
to maintain at a reasonable level.  Use level, climate, condition,  and acceptable
standards would be the only other needed categories.
-Mike

Fellow Cauts,

>         Last fall I suggested a couple revisions to the "draft revised workload
> formula." I have received no feedback to date, so am reposting in hopes
> somebody will have something to say. Well, I know plenty of people will
> have plenty to say, so what I am really hoping is that some of you will
> take the trouble to write it down and post it <g>.
>         With respect to "quality," I have come to the conclusion that the whole
> category is unworkable, at least as it is currently described. I
> understand the initial notion: that a lower quality piano will require
> more work to get it to a given level of performance than will a higher
> quality piano. But in practical terms, pianos one would describe as
> "Poor, should be replaced" are generally placed where they have very low
> priority, and given minimal attention; "fair, worth reconditioning"
> pianos are generally uprights, and get mostly tuning, general
> maintenance, and low priority reconditioning - much less time than
> rebuild; "good, worth partial reconditioning" and "excellent, worth
> complete rebuilding" pianos get the most service day to day, and are
> most time consuming from the point of view of major overhaul work.
>         So the input numbers produce results opposite from what
> experience
> would dictate. I don't like the idea of reversing the input numbers - it
> seems like a rather strange "message to send." Instead, I think the
> category should be eliminated and some of the concepts merged into
> "acceptable standards."
>         A preliminary draft I would suggest follows (including the
> notion that
> the performance piano should reflect its workload better):
>
> Acceptable Standards
> 0.1 Top performance: Piano is maintained in meticulous condition at all
> times: tuning, voicing, and regulation at highest possible standard,
> with daily or near daily attention; rebuilding on an accelerated
> schedule so that piano is kept virtually "like new." (Generally concert
> instruments in recital hall)
> 0.4 Near top performance: Piano maintained as above, but with weekly to
> bi-weekly attention, and somewhat slacker rebuilding schedule.
> (Generally piano teaching studios and the like. In some situations may
> apply to concert instruments).
> 0.7 Excellent: Piano kept near performance level - well
> tuned, voiced, and regulated. Monthly attention. Rebuilding on a regular
> basis.
> 1.3 Good: Piano needs to be kept at an acceptable musical level -
> adequately tuned, voiced and regulated. Bi-monthly attention.
> Reconditioned on a regular basis.
> 1.8 Fair: Piano need not be kept constantly at an acceptable musical
> level - tuning allowed to deteriorate before retuning, voicing and
> regulation low priority. Once to twice a semester attention.
> 2.5 Poor: Piano use not at all critical - may be neglected to the
> point of tuning once a year and "fixing what's broken when you get
> around to it."
>
>         The foregoing is what I posted last October. One additional change I'd
> like to suggest at this time, with respect to the "Grand/Upright"
> category. I think those numbers should be altered a bit. Currently it's
> 1.2 upright/0.8 grand, with the idea a grand takes maybe 1.5 times the
> work of an upright. I'm thinking, to reflect some of the feedback I've
> received for the formula as a whole, that this should be changed to
> either 1.1 upright/0.7 grand, or possibly 1.2 upright/0.6 grand.
> Amazingly enough, such seemingly tiny changes can alter the final
> results by a considerable amount.
>         What do you think? Comments/suggestions?
>         For purposes of seeing how this works in the database, enter a
> default 1.0 for every piano under "quality." Enter the additional inputs
> under Acceptable Standards by keying in the numbers for those pianos
> which meet the criteria. And enter the grand/upright inputs manually
> (sorting first will make it pretty fast).
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico