<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] NASM Standards</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> &nbs= p;  The NASM standards manual, which is in the process of being re= viewed, says the following about pianos: I. Basic Criteria for membership  10. The institution shall have facilities and equipment adequate to t= he needs of its educational program.   P 57 F. Facilities, Equipment, and Safety ----- Equipment adequate for the work of the music unit shall be provided as appr= opriate to the mission, goals, and objectives, and to the size and scope of = the music unit. Equipment includes grand pianos; upright pianos; pipe and/or= electronic organs; electronic instruments and equipment; recording equipmen= t; audio and video playback equipment for libraries, listening rooms, and cl= assrooms; orchestral and band instruments; computers; supplies; and any nece= ssary audio-visual aids.   Facilities and equipment shall be adequate to support faculty needs, all cu= rricular offerings and all students enrolled in them, and be appropriately s= pecialized for advanced work.   Budget provisions shall be made for adequate maintenance of the physical pl= ant and equipment. Acoustical treatments appropriate to music facilities sha= ll be provided. Music units with goals and objectives that require constant = updating of equipment must demonstrate their capacity to remain technologica= lly current.     Pretty slim on the piano front. But the last senten= ce quoted above seemed to me to be an opening. Why couldn’t pianos hav= e a similar sentence or two, with a “must” statement. So I came = up with the following:     Pianos must be maintained at a level consistent wit= h artistic needs, including tuning, regulation, voicing, reconditioning, and= rebuilding and/or replacement as needed. Music units should demonstrate tha= t they have competently trained staff (whether employee or contract) to main= tain their pianos at an adequate level, and that they have in place a plan f= or regular, on-going replacement and maintenance of their piano inventory.<B= R>       I thought we should provide a supporting argument, = and take the opportunity to communicate additional ideas, so I wrote the fol= lowing accompanying statement:             The= piano plays a vital role in virtually every music program, and the quality = and condition of pianos affects nearly all faculty and students on a daily b= asis. Thus, we believe that the piano merits specific treatment in the Stand= ards Manual.             In = addition to proposing this addition to the language of the Standards Manual,= we would like to offer our assistance in the accreditation process. For pur= poses of self-study, we would like to suggest establishing guidelines to ass= ist in evaluating a piano maintenance program. A very brief but effective gu= ided process would be a good place to start: 1)   The unit’s lead piano technician should be consulted i= n the process of preparing a report. 2)   An inventory should be prepared, listing pianos by make, mod= el/size, serial number/age, and use. Use should be categorized, at a minimum= , as a.    Performance b.    Classroom c.    Piano faculty studio d.    Other performance faculty studio e.    Other faculty studio f.     Piano major practice room g.    Other practice room 3)   Each piano should be rated as to its condition, and as to wh= ether it is of appropriate size and quality for its use. Replacement, rebuil= ding, and major service needs should be identified. 4)   The unit should prepare a report indicating what pianos were= purchased, rebuilt, or remanufactured within the past ten years, and should= outline plans for the upcoming ten years, including budget and source of fu= nds. 5)   A description should be developed outlining the current on-g= oing maintenance program. Questions to be answered should include, at a mini= mum: What is done on a regular basis to the pianos in the inventory in addit= ion to tuning and emergency repair? How much total time is allocated per pia= no for tuning each year? How much time is allocated per piano for additional= work? 6)   The qualifications and experience of the piano technician(s)= should be described.         The CAUT committee of the PTG would be = willing to work with NASM in developing a program whereby a piano technician= with extensive college and university experience might form a part of the o= n-site evaluation team, in complex situations where that seems to be warrant= ed. We would also volunteer to develop a process whereby we might aid in exa= mining the portion of the written self-evaluation dealing with pianos, offer= ing suggestions as to whether programs are adequate, realistic, and how they= might be improved. In general, all programs should be able to show that the= y have planned for regular replacement of instruments, for rebuilding where = that is feasible and cost-effective, and for maintaining instruments at a hi= gh performance level – particularly performance, piano faculty studio,= and piano major practice room instruments. And they should be staffed (whet= her on an employee or contract basis) with an adequately trained technician.= At a minimum, we would recommend that any piano technician in higher educat= ion should be a Registered Piano Technician member of the Piano Technicians = Guild, which means that he or she has passed a series of written, technical = and tuning exams demonstrating a basic level of competence. We (the College = and University Technicians Committee) are in the process of developing a mea= ns by which appropriate additional training can be identified and quantified= .       We have developed a document, Guidel= ines for Effective Institutional Piano Maintenance, which we believe can= be very helpful to institutions in designing a piano maintenance program, a= nd would be a useful resource in self-study and evaluation as well. It is av= ailable in pdf format at www.ptg.org/caut <a href="http://www.ptg.org/caut">= <http://www.ptg.org/caut></a> , and in printed format from www.ptg.org= .     I would welcome input on this. I think we have an o= pportunity we cannot afford to pass up, and we need to act quickly, as July = 8 is the stated deadline for submissions. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico </BODY> </HTML>