Guidelines

David M. Porritt dporritt@swbell.net
Thu Apr 13 18:32 MDT 2000


Don:

I tried for a while to justify the cost of maintenance as "saving money"
because we're keeping the pianos in good condition.  However, I don't think
that really will stand up to close scrutiny.  Good quality pianos will last
a long time whether we regulate them or not.  It's just they won't serve
the artistic purpose for which they were purchased.  If we're trying to
teach students just to push the right buttons at the right time, we could
get electronic keyboards.  Allegedly we're trying to teach artistic playing
which you can't do on some of the pianos we all work on.  

Changing the oil in the car will save money in the long run and this is the
model we imply when we try to convince the bean counters that maintenance
saves money.  If the artist teachers, and artist department heads can't
convince the bean counters that maintenance is needed for the educational
value then we're probably doomed.  

Music Schools are expensive to run.  The governing boards of our schools
decided years ago to have a music department.  If they can't afford a music
department now, they need to do enough fund raising to support a music
department.  You can have 200 students in a History class, and the students
provide the books they need.  In the Music Department, a performance
teacher can only have a dozen or so students before he is full.  That's
expensive.  These students and teachers use pianos that are expensive.
Raise the money.  I never say it out loud, but my feeling is: "if you want
a music department raise the money and have one.  If you can't afford to do
it right, shut it down."  I know, I know, that's the extreme, but.....

dave

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 4/13/00 at 3:50 PM Donald R McKechnie wrote:

>List,
>
>Thanks to all that responded to my request for dialog regarding the
>Guidelines. Keep it coming! So far it appears that the formula should
>stay as is. We will keep this topic open until the end of the forum in
>Arlington. I propose that at the forum, we put the question of the
>formula to a vote. If there is any dissension from those who cannot
>attend speak now. Any revisions to the Guidelines will be completed this
>year. (I hope :-) We also need to come up with a way to get endorsements
>as was done the first time.
>
>The argument that the bean counters need to see specific information on
>how they are losing money is worth pursuing. Those that have used the
>Guidelines successfully are to be congratulated. But, it is really hard
>to break down the doors at some institutions. Believe me, I have tried.
>If something can be incorporated into the Guidelines to help technicians
>get through to the bean counters, it is worth pursuing. Please give this
>some thought and send any suggestions to the list or me. I plan to put
>some sort of chart together to add to my justification here at IC. If it
>turns out to be useful, I will share it with everyone to see if it looks
>like something we can add to the Guidelines.
>
>Ken Eschete's analogy of comparing the maintenance situation to the
>temperaments was great. I wish I could use that on the powers that be.
>Oh well, I will have to come up with something else.
>
>Don McKechnie
>Ithaca College




David M. Porritt
dporritt@swbell.net
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275



This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC