<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">  <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" TYPE="CITE">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 me that doing what we recommend costs more and makes pianos last less long - or at least makes the components of pianos last less long. Regular hammer filing makes hammers die quicker; repinning shanks to maintain frictional parameters means more rapid replacement of shanks and flanges; regular re-stringing means more rapid replacement of pinblock; etc.</blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> I find these two positions rather mutually exclusive. It seems argued (and echoed thus by a few others) that we can not show that a piano will << last longer >> with maintainance. And the reasoning for not being able to show this is claimed as being to difficult, to costly... along those lines.  Then these same turn around and claim that the opposite is true. How can these <<show>> that to be true any better ?? As far as the basic postulation... its frankly so counter intuitive to think anything else it suprises me that its even an item up for discussion. Of COURSE anything  << lasts >> longer if it is properly maintained. Sure... you can find all kinds of perspectives and angles to look at this basic truth which show really no more then this, as with all other things, is not just a matter of black and white. But that doesnt change the facts. That being said...there exist a level of performance for concert instruments that is too costly to maintain over time. I think, however... if you are going to take that takt... you must be ready change out heavy use concert instruments every 2 or 3 years. The alternative (maintainance) is affordable and can provide very fine quality for many years. This is illustrated well by the point made below about hammers getting beaten in... in a previous post this same makes a point that hammers that are worn thus if reshaped cause sooner replacement of hammers. Similar points are made about the shanks. Seems to me that the criteria for needing to change parts in this case is actually the moment those zings, dings, wobbles and bobbles first appear. And clearly...any administrator who sees the truth of the matter, that an instrument will loose that initial first top 2-3 percent of its performance capacitiy forever and then can be held at 95 % motor for several years without buying a new instrument, will opt for maintainence. Typically, when a new concert instrument is first in order.... the old one still has many potential years of use left as a practice instrument, or in the room of a professor for instruction purposes. It will serve those purposes better if it has been well maintained from the get go. Counting beans is not just a matter of knowing whether or not you have x amount of beans. Its knowing whether or not they they are drying out, dried out, shriveling, shriveled, molding, molded, and rotten to the core. A bit of care goes a long ways to keeping a bean healthy for many years.       <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid"> <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" TYPE="CITE">    Now there are schools where quality rebuilding and maintenance isn't part of the picture, and where, particularly with regard to performance pianos, there is a tendency to replace more often than necessary. The hammers get beaten in, some zings appear, key bushings get sloppy, knuckles and tails 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 prominent pianos, leaving next to nothing for maintenance and replacement of the rest of the inventory.   In that kind of circumstance, you can certainly argue that hiring a 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 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> </blockquote> </blockquote> -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>  </html>