This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment I agree whole-heartedly with what Ken is saying here. If the admin. and faculty don't see what is possible with proper staffing levels- i.e. a group of excellent, well maintained instruments, and what is probable without enough staffing - i.e. the poor pianos everyone complains about, they will never be able to make the best decisions regarding what it takes to keep the body of the piano inventory in the first category. If all the pianos are just so-so there is little motivation to change anything...complacency sets in. Its the "just the way things have always been, so why do we need to change" syndrome. Nobody wants to make waves unless they have to. Of course, there has probably been an underpaid technician in the mix who has martyred him or herself just to maintain the mediocre status-quo. It has been my experience that it takes a near crisis for things to change in institutions, especially State-operated ones. Take proper care of the important instruments and let the others slide, or nothing will ever change. The guidelines should be the ideal. If you aim for the stars, you might at least hit the moon instead of not even getting off the ground. When I started at Miami University (Ohio) there were 150 or so pianos on the inventory I was supposed to maintain as well as repair band instruments. 30 - 40 of these pianos were in the dorms and around campus, and were the worst collection of junk you could imagine. I waved the guidelines around and told them I wasn't going to do the dorms because the Music School pianos would suffer. They (much to my surprise) rolled over and said OK! They never asked me to repair any band instruments afterwards either. Plus, a local technician got the gig tuning in the dorms. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eric Wolfley, RPT Head Piano Technician Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Eschete [SMTP:k-eschete@nwu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 6:21 PM > To: caut@ptg.org > Subject: Re: CAUT Guidelines > > To All: > > Faced with the situation of having too many pianos and not enough > technical > staff, there are two options: > 1) The technicians can try to do the best they can to keep all the pianos > going. Like tuning an equal temperment, they shave a little maintenance > time off of each piano and hope that nothing really sticks out. > 2.) The other option is like tuning a Pythagorian temperment, where no > maintenance time is shaved off of the more important pianos, and the > effects of not having a large enough staff are concentrated into a section > of the inventory (the Wolf). Some of the pianos are really, really good, > and some are really, really, really bad, making it quite clear why a > larger > staff is needed. > > Demonstrate what IS NOT getting done due to a lack of staff so that > everyone can HEAR the difference. Figure out how much NOT doing > maintenance work is costing the University. (Example -- an old Steinway B > in good playing condition is worth say $20,000.00. Once it is allowed to > fall into un-playable condition, it is only worth $7,000.00. Not doing > the > work will cost the University $13,000.00 in equity. Doing the work with > in-house staff will cost them about $5,000.00 but that will still raise > the net equity value of the piano by $8,000.00. Then we can talk about > replacing that Steinway, but don't get me started..... > > The Steinway and CAUT Guidelines are useful tools; but in the end, I think > it's the money that talks. This is how I'm going to try it. I'll let you > all know if it works for me. > > Ken Eschete > Northwestern University > Evanston, Il > > > > > To All- Rolf is on the right track. It was with the persistence of an > >Associate Dean and myself that the Guidelines and a former, institutional > >maintenance plan developed by Steinway were used to get a third, > full-time > >position at Oberlin; and it wasn't long after the appearance of the third > >position that faculty and staff realized how necessary the third position > >was. > > > >Ken Sloane, Oberlin Conservatory > >============================ > >--On Sun, Apr 2, 2000 11:31 AM -0400 "Rolf von Walthausen & Nancy Larson" > ><pianos@traverse.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 Donald R McKechnie <dmckech@ithaca.edu> wrote: > >> > >>>I have some thoughts that might get the ball rolling on the formula > issue. > >One > >>>of the criticisms' administrators will have is the Base component. No > >matter > >>>how well the argument is made on having 60 as the Base, they will see > that > >as > >>>unrealistic. One solution would be to change the base number. On a > >computer > >>>database, using the formula, one can easily change to whatever Base you > >want. > >>>Going up to 100 is pushing the limit in my opinion. I have done this > with > >the > >>>inventory here at IC. The results show 4 technicians at Base 60 and 2 > at > >>>Base100. What about the remaining variables in the formula? Are they > good > >or > >>>in need of change? > >> > >> I have been using the Guidelines extensively (and successfully) with a > >> number of institutions since their adoption 10 years ago, and would not > >> want to see us back away from the recommended ratios. I actually find > >them > >> quite realistic, functioning at the very least as attention-grabbing > >> starting points that can be used to guide admistrators towards applying > >the > >> Workoad Formula to their own specific situation. What I like about the > >> recommended ratios is that they represent the ideal. By going through > the > >> process of applying the workload formula, both administrators and > >> technicians can move towards an understanding of the compromises that > need > >> to be made regarding expectations for a given amount of allocated time > and > >> resources. Staffing levels at _greater than_ the recommended ratio of > >> technicians to pianos will result in a less-than-ideal maintenance > >program, > >> but at least a standard has been established and compromises > understood. > >> > >> > >> The interesting thing about the recently-created document published by > >> Steinway (referred to by Richard West in a previous post) is that if > one > >> applies their 'formula' to a given inventory of instruments, the > results > >> are amazingly similar to the recommended ratios found in the PTG > >> Guidelines. I find the Steinway "Guidelines for Institutional Piano > >> Service" affirm the basic relevancy of the PTG "Guidelines for > Effective > >> Institutional Piano Maintenance", and therefore can be used as > supporting > >> documentation. > >> > >>>In my quest to have an assistant technician hired here at IC, I have > used > >the > >>>Guidelines as part of my justification. No success so far but I believe > my > >>>full argument does not get in the hands of the powers that be. > >> > >> I know it has been said before but persistence over the long haul seems > to > >> be the key to success with using the Guidelines. Cultivating > supporters > >> among faculty and staff and finding/promoting the idea to the right > >'powers > >> that be' is crucial. It is often a multi-year process that consists of > >> maintaining constant dialogue with students, faculty, staff, > >administration > >> and board of trustees, and setting smaller mid-point goals along the > way. > >> > >>>Is it possible to add some sort of generic template to the > >>>Guidelines that will bolster the effectiveness of the document? Any > ideas > >>>welcome. > >> > >> Ken Eschete's idea of using charts and graphs sounds really good. > Perhaps > >> something along these lines could be incorporated into an appendix or > >> supplement without having to publish an entirely new document? > >> > >> Looking forward to hearing more ideas. > >> > >> Rolf von Walthausen > >> Interlochen Center for the Arts > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > Kenneth P. Eschete > Northwestern University > k-eschete@nwu.edu > ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/e6/8e/71/9e/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC