<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Ed Sutton wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><div><font face="Arial" size="2">Jeff-</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">I think you get my point. It's a small number</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">Consider the recent discussion about the "antique piano market." Small markets are irrational.</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">The power systems of academia (including state politics, from the governor on down) control what happens in the music department. It isn't market driven.</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">My personal belief is that the most powerful thing CAUT might eventually accomplish would be to get an assessment of the condition of the pianos and the technician included in the NASM accreditation process. This evaluation should be done by a real technician, not by a Doctor of Piano Performance. Schools take accreditation reviews seriously because they must. It's part of the academic system they use to acclaim their validity.</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; ">Ed Sutton</span></span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: normal;"><br></span></font></div> </span>My best guess is that there are probably 200 - 300 employee positions for piano techs in higher education (some less than full time). Some of the big schools have multiple techs.<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The NASM battle is a difficult one. I made a pretty big effort a couple years ago when they were doing a major review of their manual. I presented what I thought was a very reasonable proposal (in specific language to add sentences to specific clauses in their handbook) just to add some kind of evaluation of the condition of the pianos and the adequacy of their care to the picture (not trying to set a standard, just adding pianos to the things being looked at and reported on). I submitted it through the channels provided, and received not a peep in response. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>From much experience with NASM (my chair is heavily involved, serving as an evaluator), I think it unlikely that this will be a successful venture - they are focused on academic standards, adequacy of the curriculum, faculty qualifications, that kind of thing. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep hammering away when the opportunity arises, but I am skeptical about the potential results. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>It is possible right now to have evaluation of the condition of pianos and of their care be part of the self-evaluation portion of the accreditation process. That is up to the individual music department, and at its initiative.<br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think that our best approach is to demonstrate quality, in a very broad, grass-roots way. When schools (and individual faculty) see what pianos can be like when they are well-serviced, they will demand it (faculty will demand it when they move to a different school).  When pianos are simply tuned and repaired, kept working on a level consistent with common in home usage, that's what people get used to, and they don't even know things can be better. The other side of this coin is to be able to identify technicians who have the skill to provide the level of service. And there our efforts to provide training and some sort of certification (endorsement) may give us a way of marketing to the higher ed audience: "You need a qualified tech to provide the level of service appropriate for a music department. How do you find one? Hire someone with a caut endorsement."</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>"Employed" cauts are a small part of the picture. The real issue is providing adequate, comprehensive service to music departments, most of which contract their piano work. The norm, I believe, is contract per service, where a set number of tunings are done per year, and other work is only done when specifically authorized. This is a terrible model IMO. We need to find ways to design piano service contracts so that the comprehensive service needed is built in. I'm not talking about major rebuilds, rather about keeping up with brushing knuckles, refining regulation, filing hammers and voicing, key bushings, that sort of thing. </div><div><br></div><div><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Regards,</div><div>Fred Sturm</div><div>University of New Mexico</div><div><a href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br><div><div><br></div></div><br></div></body></html>