Workload - "usage"

[Michael Jorgensen]

Hi Fred,
     I really like the idea of breaking down usage into more categories.  My
results were overwhelmingly in the light category even though  most practice rooms
are used eight to twelve hours daily.  With instrumentalists and vocalists, the
pianos are used minimally.   The only pianos I could honestly class as heavy were
all piano major practice rooms, and one of the pianos in each piano faculty
studio.
     The kind of use yields spectacular differences.   Comparing a vocal faculty
piano and a jazz band piano both used about the same in time, the jazz piano sees
much more wear..
     If we are truly honest , considering all semester breaks, holiday breaks, and
summer, there really aren't very many pianos which hit beyond the light category.

      I wonder if all of the input numbers for usage should be moved down just a
bit?

     Perhaps one hour a day or less of reasonable use should constitute light
use?   2-4 medium?   Special  discretion allowance for jazz or rock pianos?  A
very heavy category for piano major rooms?

Fred Sturm wrote:

> The usage factor of the workload formula is a very important one. There
> is a very obvious difference between the deterioration of a piano in a
> "piano major" practice room, and one in a band director's office, to
> give a couple extreme examples. This factor will mostly predict
> frequency with which reconditioning and rebuilding activities need to
> take place (including everything from filing hammers and brushing
> knuckles to action parts replacement and re-stringing. Though it doesn't
> predict soundboard, pinblock, etc replacement, as these are more a
> function of humidity and age).
>
> 1990 version
> Usage
> (1.00) Light: 0 to 4 hours per day.
> (0.90) Medium: 4 to 8 hours per day.
> (0.80) Heavy: 8 or more hours per day.
> 2002 version
> Usage
> 1.3 - Light: 0 to 4 hours per day.
> 1.0 - Medium: 4 to 8 hours per day.
> 0.6 - Heavy: 8 or more hours per day
>
> You'll notice the only differences are, once again, where 1.0 is, and
> that the differences between levels of usage are greater.
>         I had thought I would suggest adding one or two additional levels of
> usage, but Richard West forwarded a better idea from talks at the CW
> Regional. What he suggested (or passed on) is the idea of distinguishing
> between not just hours of use, but levels of use. In other words, Hard
> use (like in a piano major practice room, piano teaching studio, and
> some other venues), Medium use (as in voice studios, other applied
> studios that use piano as accompaniment, some rehearsal halls, etc), and
> Light use (as in studios of theory, history, and ensemble faculty).
> This is what Richard actually forwarded to me:
> "VI.  Usage - We wanted to change this to "Hours/Intensity of Usage."
> We
> think that this category depends not only on the hours that a piano is
> played, but also how hard the piano is played.  Therefore we suggest the
> following:
> 1.3 - 0 to 4 hours/light playing
> 1.2 - 0 to 4 hours/medium playing
> 1.1 - 0 to 4 hours/heavy playing
> 1.0  - 4 to 8 hours/light playing
> 0.9 - 4 to 8 hours/medium playing
> 0.8 - 4 to 8 hours/heavy playing
> 0.7 - 8 or more hours/light playing
> 0.6 - 8 or more hours/medium playing
> 0.5 - 8 or more hours/heavy playing"
>         While I agree with the principle, I don't like the numbers. I think I
> would suggest:
> (2.0) - 0 to 4 hours/light playing
> (1.7) - 4 to 8 hours/light playing
> (1.3) - 8 or more hours/light playing
> (1.3) - 0 to 4 hours/medium playing
> (1.0) - 4 to 8 hours/medium playing
> (0.7) - 8 or more hours/medium playing
> (0.8) - 0 to 4 hours/heavy playing
> (0.6) - 4 to 8 hours/heavy playing
> (0.4) - 8 to 12 hours/heavy playing
> (0.3) - more than 12 hours heavy playing
>         This is much more in line with my experience, where a light usage piano
> from a faculty studio has easily worn more in one year when moved to a
> high usage venue than after 20 years in the studio. I can see fussing
> quite a bit to get the numbers closer to reality.
>         As always, comments most welcome and appreciated.
> Regards,
> Fred