[CAUT] Guidelines/piano ages...

[Fred Sturm]

On 1/24/05 2:42 PM, "Porritt, David" <dporritt@mail.smu.edu> wrote:

> Fred:
> 
> We are taking quite a different tack here at SMU.  I personally believe
> that our 34 Steinway grands are at least as solid as new ones, and that
> we can get better return for our money by rebuilding them than by
> trading them.  I don't do the rebuilding as we send them out to
> rebuilding shops although I sometimes do the action rebuilds.  I don't
> think it's hard to make people understand the cost benefit of doing
> this.  As to outsourcing the rebuilding work that should come under the
> same budget as purchasing new, albeit at a better return for the money.
> 
> 
> We did buy two new "B"s and two new "M"s this year trading off some
> brands of pianos that I didn't see as long term instruments, but we did
> rebuild one "B" this summer that is now better than either of the new
> ones.  I for one am thrilled to death that our piano faculty understands
> the value of doing this.  Our local Steinway dealer is somewhat less
> enthusiastic about our approach.
> 
> dave
> 
> David M. Porritt
> dporritt@smu.edu
>
Hi Dave, 
    I certainly don't disagree with your approach. And I don't think we
should lock ourselves into a rigid time frame ("as soon as that upright hits
40 years old, or that grand hits 60, it's out the door"). Obviously we want
to work within whatever budget we have available, and to get as much mileage
as we can out of it. If you have a good rebuilding shop available to you, by
all means use it. And consider full re-manufacture as an alternative to
replacement. If there's nobody local, Steinway will do your Steinways (with
full warrantee).
    But I've seen a lot of institutions (including well-known
conservatories) filled with pianos that had far more "rebuilding" style work
done on them than they deserved. To qualify that statement, let's say boards
shimmed and re-shimmed, keys re-topped and re-topped and re-bushed, various
stages of parts replacement. I think we all have seen examples of this
picture. Nobody is well-served by indiscriminate rebuilding procedures,
trying to milk additional years out of decrepit instruments.
    So I'm lobbying for a different attitude: let the norm be that we will
maintain all instruments at a very high standard. That as part of this
effort we will definitely do a fair amount of partial rebuilding, especially
of grands: definitely at least one replacement set of shanks and flanges,
probably three sets of hammers, definitely at least one full and maybe two
partial restrings. More extensive work if warranted. Any quality piano is
worth having that investment put into it (I'm assuming a use level where
this kind of parts replacement is warranted. If any piano isn't getting that
kind of wear, you should probably be cycling instruments into varied
locations and uses). And that we will replace on a regular basis, this to be
planned and budgeted for at the most basic level of the institution.
    This should be the norm, rather than the attitude that all instruments
are to be given perpetual life <g>.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico