<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content=Word.Document name=ProgId> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR> <META content="Microsoft Word 10" name=Originator><LINK href="cid:filelist.xml@01C3319F.39B721D0" rel=File-List><o:SmartTagType name="PersonName" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType> <STYLE>  </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US style="tab-interval: .5in" vLink=blue link=blue> <DIV>I'll bet that having any certification beyond RPT will have to have Council approval and a note from our mother.  The only other certification that exists now is CTE and they aren't allowed to advertise that fact.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 6/13/2003 at 11:30 AM Jim Busby wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid"> <DIV class=Section1> Bill,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Great comments. That’s exactly what we need to discuss. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> My first experience with the new CAUT guidelines and an administrator was less than positive. He took one look and said he would rather have a recommendation from the music people who understand the issue more and could study the guidelines.  (I think the number of pages bothered him…Didn’t want to look at it, even though he asked me to get him a copy.) They indeed have their minds on other things.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We definitely need more clout, recognition, or perceived qualifications. It will be a long term effort. I especially like the idea of some kind of CAUT organization and accredited specialist. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <st1:PersonName>Jim Busby</st1:PersonName> <o:p></o:p> BYU<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Bdshull@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:53 AM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: Re: Let's cut to the chase was Re: Guidelines comments <o:p> </o:p> All, It's hard to know where to start in the middle of this thread - We need to address some of the other big problems which, when addressed, will give the subject relating maintenance to longevity more punch with our administrators.. Right now we don't have the attention of school administrators - with some exceptions, administrators don't seem to have sufficient reason or motivation to properly fund and staff for piano service. The fundamental problem is that across the board we face an institutional inertia.  Beyond the classic, intrinsic difficulty of obtaining funds for rebuilding which can't seem to fit into the budget model of new purchasing and annual maintenance is an even more fundamental issue:  School institutions do not have the motivation to address these issues.  Institutions - i.e. school, NASM, etc.  And there is an institutional inertia on our side too.  This year NASM was very clear in its correspondence with us:  administrators have too many other problems than to begin a dialogue with us on piano maintenance.  They don't want to be saddled with pressure to spend more on pianos and piano maintenance.  If that is the position of the dominant accreditor of schools of music in the US, I think we need to recognize the enormity - and importance - of our task.  It involves a long-term commitment to: developing accredited specialists in university piano service (i.e. a CAUT curriculum within the Annual Institute and a CAUT creditial); Actively, persistently promoting the properly trained CAUT RPT to:   university administrators   piano faculty   state officials overseeing the establishment of criteria for piano service personnel   piano manufacturers, whose retailers increasingly determine the choice of piano          service personnel at universities. Continuing to provide documents (such as the Guidelines and the ensuing companion documents, and other publications), as well as dialogue (such as the CAUT list, the annual CAUT forum, and state and regional CAUT events) to establish and develop a body of CAUT knowledge and practice. This is why we need to figure out ways of working with our own (CAUT and PTG) institutional inertia.  The PTG is only beginning to realize that university piano service is at the forefront of the marketing work of the PTG.  There is no annual budget for marketing the RPT to the university administrators, but the home office found funds for a one-time mailer to administrators this last year.  This is the kind of thing that needs to get into the consciousness of the efforts being made to do long-range planning.  It is not just a marketing issue, it is a training issue, a credentialing issue, a fundamental issue of identity, even.  The driving force dictating the selection of piano technicians at universities is often related to the success of the retail piano establishment with its college sales.  The retail side needs our help in defining acceptable university piano service. Surveys and studies need to be conducted, but they cost money and require human resources.  One fundamental issue is, How many pianos does a university actually need?  Many schools may be overstocked, sometimes with high maintenance pianos (old unstable ones, or new unstable ones).  How does anyone know if there are too many pianos?   NASM has no recommendations about this.  I hope that we will develop numbers relating maintenance to longevity, so that when the time comes that we have made sufficient impact to be heard, the numbers will be there to use. Bill Shull In a message dated 6/13/03 7:29:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dm.porritt@verizon.net writes: <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> Hammers are different, players are different, acoustics are different (this affects how hard people will play it), people's opinion of what's worn out are different, sound boards efficiency are different, hammer bushings are different,...... A piano is either suitable for a purpose or it's not.  The artists know, the technicians know and that's the criteria for doing maintenance.  What we seem to be trying to do is to objectify the criteria enough to explain it to the non-artist who controls the money.  I frankly don't think that can be done.  Either the artist has credibility with the non-artist or he doesn't.  I don't think this can be reduced to an auditable data stream.  Further, our failure in this attempt will weaken our credibility. dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 6/13/2003 at 3:53 PM Richard Brekne wrote: <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> I aggree with this Wim. These questions should have reasonable answers, and they would be valuable to be able to put on the table when dealing with admin folks. I just put a brand new set of hammers on a Hamburg C in October. The instrument has been used on average 5 hours a week since then. Just two weeks ago I had no choice but to file down a bit as the grooves were 2 mm deep already. These were 1/2 high Strike Weights. We all throw in data like this to a central data base.. and those answers will reveal themselves. All we need is way of archiving the information so it is easy to arrange in meaninful ways. RicB Wimblees@aol.com wrote: <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> IBean counters not withstanding, this is still a question I would like to have answered. Airplanes fly a certain number of hours before they are reconditioned and eventually put in the graveyard out in Arizona. We get a maintenance schedule for our cars. But what are some guidelines for pianos? How many "hours" of playing do a set of hammers get before needing to be replaced? How many times can we restring a piano in the original pin block. When does a soundboard need replacing? How many times can a piano be rebuilt, with a new soundboard and pin block and strings? Last year this subject was talked about briefly, but I don't think we ever got a definitive answer. I realize these are all questions with lots of answers, based on usage, climate control, budgets, etc. But this is the kind of information that would be useful, even to techs out in the field. Any one want to give some answers? Wim   <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> -- 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> <o:p></o:p> **************** END MESSAGE FROM Richard Brekne ********************* _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>**************** END MESSAGE FROM Jim Busby ********************* </BODY></HTML> <PRE> _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________</PRE>