CAUT Guidelines

[Jeff Tanner]

Hello list,
I have to unsubscribe from time to time to be able to get work done around
here.  So I had been off the list for quite some time until about 3 or 4
weeks ago and decided to try the "digest" form (and not get the pianotech
list -- 61 new emails on Monday morning just isn't the way to start the
week!).  I think I picked up in the middle of this discussion of the CAUT
guidelines.

I ordered a copy of the guidelines last week and got them yesterday ($5 +
$2 S&H for those who've been talking about the price).  I had seen them
years ago, but didn't actually own a copy.  Didn't take me long to enter
all the variables and find out that we're horribly understaffed here!
(like I didn't already know)

But one thing I was curious about.  How were the values derived which are
assigned to the climate control variable in the formula?  I look at the
first variable, "Condition", and see that a piano in poor condition can be
given a factor of .25, and one in fair condition gets .50 (this is a
useable instrument).  But the most weight that can be assigned to a
building with poor climate control only affects the equation by a value of
.70.  I fully realize that these were not arbitrary figures and that much
study went into their creation.  But some things have changed in regards to
institutional climate control since the formula was first adopted and I
wonder if this variable needs to be addressed.  Consider:

I am in a 5 year old building which has one of the newer HVAC systems as
required by that federal mandate Walter Deptula mentioned in his article in
the January 2000 PTJ (constantly imports outside air).  I understand it is
not the original system, but that it replaced the original one after this
legislation was passed.  I was told the original system did a decent job of
climate control.  These new systems, however, effectively turn a 30 million
dollar building into a five-story canopy tent.  The building is now
"controlled by climate".  Tuning stability is simply not a possibility (I
started to say for 90% of the pianos, but then realized that even the
recital pianos which are tuned almost daily aren't immune to the tuning
instability brought on by the sudden drastic humidity changes).

Here in my part of the world, it is possible see not so uncommon weekly
swings of 20-30% humidity with annual differences of around 50% and more.
It isn't uncommon to see overnight swings as high as 15 to 20%, and during
Winter, it can even be higher (I had a 3-day-or-less drop of 29% last
February in my recital hall, where climate control was supposed to be the
best in the building).  If I tune recital pianos in the morning, the
humidity by the time they are played in the afternoon can be 10 to 15%
different (the recital hall is used as a classroom 4-6 hours a day, so the
lights have an effect -- it's not a large room).  Just in the last week in
the recital hall alone, I've measured 47%, 61%, 51%, and 62% in that order.
And all this is with help from 6 "climate control units" which are
supposedly capable of some form of humidity control, though I haven't been
able to tell a difference since they were "installed" summer/fall 1998.

Does a factor of .70 adequately address these changes which weren't so
drastic prior to these new HVAC systems?  Isn't a piano, regardless of
condition, but which can't be kept in tune about as useful as one in "fair"
(or worse) condition?  A piano in fair condition can at least be tuned and
used for ear training and even rehearsal (when I was in college, fair to
poor was the norm for about half of the general practice rooms -- fair to
good pianos were reserved for piano majors only -- there was no "excellent"
for a number of years).  Rebuilding is likely bottlenecked as much by
budget as by tech time and then ranked by importance of the instrument.  I
can count on one finger how many pianos were partially rebuilt over a 13
year period at my Alma Mater, while the marching band got twenty-something
new Sousaphones one of those years (no - I wasn't in school that long --
just kept in touch with the tech).  Climate control affects how often that
piano has to be tuned, AS WELL AS its condition.

Here, I am one tech against 127 pianos.  As a state employee, I can only
report 37.5 hours per week.  I'm not allowed overtime.  I love my job, but
I'm underpaid as it is, and certainly not about to put in a lot of free
overtime -- there's more to this life.  In this climate, about all I can do
is try to keep the piano and voice faculty and "important" rehearsal and
classroom instruments in some semblance of tune and repair, concentrate on
our performance grands and just try to keep the rest of them from falling
apart.  Attempting to perform all the maintenance these pianos need is
futile, even counterproductive BECAUSE OF the climate.

I just don't know if 3.4 technicians could make that much difference.

I'm not trying to upset the apple cart.  Just wondering if this figure
needs adjustment for the "new" factors.
(Again, forgive me for bringing up the rear of a conversation I missed most of)
Jeff

Jeff Tanner, Piano Technician
School of Music
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
(803)-777-4392 (phone)
(803)-777-6508 (fax)