A casual Observation... It seems to me that many of the technicians using non factory recommended techniques are missing a very large point....some of whom I'm sure are doing it on purpose because they have figured out that bullshit does baffle brains.... With application and a complete grasp of what the factory intended it is absolutely possible to make most (note the 'most') instruments perform beyond most pianists expectations....we're talking quality here.... I have seen excellent instruments drive like trucks and sound like garbage due to inept and inexperienced technicians who didn't know what the drop screw was for and couldn't fit a hammer to a string if they were shown a thousand times. Universities are taking a giant leap of faith if they believe that tuning domestic instruments prepares anyone for concert work...or rebuilding quality pianos in a professional manner...AND they are having the value of their instruments decimated as technicians do 'research'.... Sir Edmund Hilary, the first man to climb Everest, was once asked how you learn to climb mountains....he thought for a while and said..."You climb mountains"..... Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Too many out there have 'A little learning"....or am I being too simplistic....? P On May 20, 2010, at 8:46 PM, William Monroe wrote: > Jeff, > > I understand your point, but I don't understand why the endorsement wouldn't hold water? I'd respectfully suggest that "PTG" doesn't teach other ways of rebuilding & maintaining S&S. The classes teach ways of rebuilding and maintaining pianos. S&S? OK. Yamaha? OK. Kawai? OK. I think the problem is again that PTG classes teach multiple methods for dealing with commonly and not so commonly encountered problems in pianos. We apply solutions to the pianos we work on. To take that as the PTG endorsing non-S&S practices for S&S pianos is a stretch. The PTG is not the S&S rep, and has no business or need to "take a stand" for "the right way" to service S&S pianos. > > Further, having been to NY and discussed some of these issues with the guys in the selection room, and the C&A dept., and seeing that THEY don't always agree with either the "company line" for prep, or with each other is telling. We are technicians. We solve problems. Sometimes that means going outside the box. Even more troubling to me is that schools could somehow interpret a broader education, and a wider array of piano servicing skills as somehow more problematic. That is tragic. My feeling is that the PTG classes help us develop as technicians and if a school is concerned about getting a tech who will "walk the S&S line" with them, that is a philosophical question that is easily discovered in the interview process. As you said, not better, just different. To phrase another way, a tech that doesn't believe that every OEM practice needs to be adhered to when servicing S&S is not categorically better or worse, just different. The weight of the endorsement should be independent of the desire to preserve the OEM aesthetic, no? If the school is on-board with "All S&S", look for the endorsement, then ascertain whether the technician will adhere to the philosophy. > > William R. Monroe > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jeff Tanner <tannertuner at bellsouth.net> wrote: > Yes, William, I agree. > > But that's not the point. > > The point of my post was that as long as PTG classes teach other ways of rebuilding and maintaining Steinways, any endorsement by PTG of membership will not be respected by those who are on board with the All-Steinway philosophy. It was not intended at all to be a criticism of other ways of doing things. And yes, I agree that Steinway learns from those in the field who are implementing cutting edge ideas. > > My post was about whether or not a PTG endorsement will hold water with university faculties who prefer Steinway Steinways. > > Jeff > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net> > To: <caut at ptg.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:35 PM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT endorsement > > > William Monroe wrote: > I think it's fair to say that every manufacturer gets their due. Whether on CAUT or Pianotech, many (if not all) of the major manufacturers have had shots taken at them. Yamaha certainly, particularly when it comes to their small grands, and I'm sure a search would bring up many others, including Bosey, Kawai, Baldwin, etc. And, while there are undoubtedly more than just Eric Schandall at NY who may not call Steinway "the best," "the world standard," or other such lofty title, there are many that do And, when you do, you can expect to be held to that when something is substandard, particularly if its chronic. > In addition, I don't know of any PTG sponsored classes on maintenance or rebuilding instruction on ANY particular brand "as is taught by" that brands reps. Yamaha sends their reps, Kawai too. The bulk of the general class offerings are just that, general. We're exploring all the techniques out there for rebuilding, regulation, maintenance, etc., applicable to whatever piano you see fit. I think this is more a symptom of the fact that S&S are among the very few brands that are profitable to rebuild. If we could all spec rebuild Yamaha's and sell them for a profit, you'd see these techniques applied there as well. Don't you agree? Similarly not suggested as better/worse or with any disrespect. > > Very nicely stated. Thank you. > Ron N > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100520/de7bb9b7/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC