<HTML>In a message dated 6/12/03 12:35:22 PM Central Dayligh= t Time, fssturm@unm.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I don't know, Wim. I can't see = how we can argue that a piano _lasts_ longer if we do the recommended maintenance as you describe. In fact, it seems to <= BR> me that doing what we recommend costs more and makes pianos last less long <= BR> - or at least makes the components of pianos last less long. Regular hammer = filing makes hammers die quicker; repinning shanks to maintain frictional <B= R> parameters means more rapid replacement of shanks and flanges; regular re-stringing means more rapid replacement of pinblock; etc.   Now there are schools where quality rebuilding and maintenance isn't = part of the picture, and where, particularly with regard to performance pianos, <= BR> there is a tendency to replace more often than necessary. The hammers get <B= R> beaten in, some zings appear, key bushings get sloppy, knuckles and tails <B= R> are glazed - the piano just isn't that wonderful instrument they picked out = so carefully. Better get a new one. I've seen that often enough, and I expect many others have as well. It means piles of money goes to replacing <= BR> prominent pianos, leaving next to nothing for maintenance and replacement <B= R> of the rest of the inventory.   In that kind of circumstance, you can certainly argue that hiring a <= BR> qualified tech would save you money. But for the most part, I think the only argument that makes sense is that you have to invest in maintenance by = a skilled tech if you want to have instruments at a quality level adequate <= BR> to higher education needs. Period. Keeping pianos a performance level requires a constant investment of time and skill. Regards, Fred Sturm Universidad de Nuevo Mexico </BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately, trying to convince bean counters that the school needs to spe= nd money on piano tuners is going to fall on deaf ears, if we can't show the= m it is going to save them money. Just telling an administrator that WE say = one full time piano tuner is needed for 70 - 100 pianos, because WE say what= needs to be done to keep piano working the way WE say they should work, is = just not going to cut it. I think we have to show, with actual case studies,= that investing in a piano tuner is going to save them money in the long run= . We have to show, in writing, with examples, that, to paraphrase the Fram O= il Filter commercial "you need to pay a piano tuner now, or you will have to= buy new pianos sooner." If we can show that a qualified piano tuner can postpone the purchase of new= pianos by 20 or even 40 years, they might listen. But just telling them tha= t investing in a piano tuner is going to make the pianos play and sound bett= er, only a few piano professors are going to agree with you. But the bean co= unter, and maybe even the rest of the department, is going to say, so what, = I'd rather have the money for scholarships, or some new music, or a new desk= in my office.  The new Guidelines are very good, and helpful, and hopefully it will give a = few department chairs the ammunition they need to get a qualified piano tune= r. I'm trying to suggest a few ways to make the guidelines even better. It w= ill require some more work on our part. But we've gone this far, so why not = go the extra mile, and make it even better? Wim </HTML>