[CAUT] The Piano Technician Makes More Moral Decisions...

[John Ross]

I almost erased your post without reading it, when I saw the words moral, 
and preacher.
The main message was informative, but please leave off your personal 
beliefs.
Who knows, how many might have deleted it, without reading.
John Ross
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)" <sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:15 AM
Subject: [CAUT] The Piano Technician Makes More Moral Decisions...



   Getting back to the original aphorism, conceptualizing this would bring 
clarity to a host of topics recently being discussed. If we are to determine 
whether or not the piano technician makes more moral decisions than a 
preacher, we need to determine exactly what moral decisions a piano 
technician makes. We have plenty to work with where preachers are concerned, 
but not a whole lot with the piano technician.
    Before proceeding, however moral this particular observation, Dad 
(Kenneth Sloane, RPT) never saw a whole lot of reason to fight over pianos. 
It never was worth it to him. It was so disarming. No matter how much he 
frustrated you, when you got in the same room with him, it was so tough not 
to like him. I’ve seen this happen. I’ve seen people who don’t like him sit 
down at a table with him, and they have a great time together. And all dads 
do upset sons at times. At the end of the day, people and friendship 
mattered more to him. I honestly don’t think enough piano technicians I meet 
get this, to their own detriment. A hunk of wood, iron, and steel; you want 
to disown flesh and blood over that? Get a life. Of all the people in the 
world, why do piano technicians take themselves so seriously? When piano 
technicians are laughing at you, not with you, I just laugh with them at 
myself. Who the heck am I?
   Many are familiar with an oft remembered article in the PTG published in 
the popular press, in the 90’s, I believe, about how piano technology is a 
great job because it is a low stress job. I can’t remember where or when, 
just that it was remarked about a lot. I think when we begin considering the 
idea of getting better at working with pianos through education, we get 
fearful, because when considering another perspective on things, we get 
uncomfortable about the way we do things, and the risk of forfeiting the low 
stress aspect of what we do because of considering another perspective looks 
so daunting, that we stick our heads in the sand, cover our ears, squeeze 
our eyes shut, and start screaming, “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you, I 
can’t hear you” over and over so by avoiding being challenged, and doing 
things the way they always worked before for us, we retain the low stress 
aspect of working on pianos. There are loads of successful piano technicians 
doing things this way. How can we make continuing education and testing less 
stressful? I think one way is to realize there is more than one way to skin 
a cat.
   I would like to take a by no means exhaustive look at a couple of the 
technically specific moral dilemmas of working on piano in and out of the 
University milieu.
1. As salaried CAUT technicians, there are loads of moral dilemmas. These 
have to do with the most efficient use of time. Two good examples are tuning 
and Stanwood. Am I gaining enough from the time investment?
   So many pianos need action jobs. We can come up with all sort of 
curriculum about juggling inventory. How many schools can afford to be well 
staffed enough to Stanwoodize every action or only the ones that we think 
are good enough for us to work on that don’t even need action jobs (D’s in 
concert halls, B’s in studios, or the fledgling L in the practice room with 
square hammers). We do not get paid by the hour. Why do we devote ourselves 
to Stanwood so much so that only Stanwoodized pianos are worth regulating? 
Is there a part of the inventory that is below us?
   Splitting hairs over tuning also is a time efficiency question. I’ve 
tried both aural and electronic. Mostly, aural. Both could potentially have 
time advantages. Some people don’t think in an educational institution it is 
their responsibility to explore the possibilities of both. I disagree, 
though lean somewhat heavily toward aural tuning. I just had dinner with a 
flight attendant who learned piano technology at a vo-tech school who 
finally just stopped working on pianos altogether because the moral dilemma 
of how much stretch is too much stretch became so stressful that she couldn’t 
take it anymore, and just started taking flights full time and give up the 
struggle.  She is not the first person I’ve met who attended a vo-tech 
school for piano technology only never to actually enter the profession.
   I never could think about tuning the same after taking the RPT exam. 
Education and testing permanently changes the way you look at things. It 
leads to decision making based on alternative considerations. The Tuning 
Examination; A Source Book forced me to struggle with questions I had 
avoided for years as a successful aural technician, and I am still 
struggling with them. If I want something approaching a 2:1 octaves in the 
top octave, how do I accomplish this without the piano sounding flat in the 
high treble? The Source book forced me to ask that question. Do I cater to 
popular opinion, and use narrow octaves in the mid-range, only to run out of 
stretch too soon to make the octaves in the top octave sound sharp enough 
when not over-stretched? Or do I make the octaves in the mid-range wide 
enough to the objection of both piano technicians and musicians to 
accommodate the idea of 2:1 octaves in the top octave without sounding flat? 
Morality is not popular. I know I am doing the right thing with 8:4 octaves 
in the mid-range, but some people won’t like it, or realize they like it 
until they try it for a while. What do I do? None of these questions 
occurred to me before dealing with education and testing in piano tuning, 
not to mention the cost and time these things take.
2. Fees
  As a contract and floor tuner, I always had to compare what I charged the 
dealer and institution with what I charged my personal clients. Why do I 
charge my clients more? These are more devoted to me than both the dealer 
and the institution. They provide me with the substantial part of my income. 
Is this fair? I know piano technicians will curse me, accuse my work of 
being inferior, accuse me of catering to the price shoppers, and generally I 
will be unpopular if I charge my clients something that is comparable to 
what I charge the dealer and institution, but is it fair for me to charge my 
clients more to compensate for the relative paucity of the wages the 
institution or dealer generates for me?
   I still ask this question as a salaried employee of a College. This 
parasite I am host to, when viewing the public record of salaries, why do 
they deserve such special treatment? How do I deal with the lopsidedness of 
what I can charge my clients now that I do not need them? How much do I need 
to pace myself to punish the institution for not recognizing the validity of 
my work as a piano technician? How loyal am I to the skill of being a piano 
technician when I go the extra mile for this parasitic school?
   There are loads of moral dilemmas we are faced with on a daily basis as 
piano technicians. These are just a couple examples.