Fellow Cauts, Last fall I suggested a couple revisions to the "draft revised workload formula." I have received no feedback to date, so am reposting in hopes somebody will have something to say. Well, I know plenty of people will have plenty to say, so what I am really hoping is that some of you will take the trouble to write it down and post it <g>. With respect to "quality," I have come to the conclusion that the whole category is unworkable, at least as it is currently described. I understand the initial notion: that a lower quality piano will require more work to get it to a given level of performance than will a higher quality piano. But in practical terms, pianos one would describe as "Poor, should be replaced" are generally placed where they have very low priority, and given minimal attention; "fair, worth reconditioning" pianos are generally uprights, and get mostly tuning, general maintenance, and low priority reconditioning - much less time than rebuild; "good, worth partial reconditioning" and "excellent, worth complete rebuilding" pianos get the most service day to day, and are most time consuming from the point of view of major overhaul work. So the input numbers produce results opposite from what experience would dictate. I don't like the idea of reversing the input numbers - it seems like a rather strange "message to send." Instead, I think the category should be eliminated and some of the concepts merged into "acceptable standards." A preliminary draft I would suggest follows (including the notion that the performance piano should reflect its workload better): Acceptable Standards 0.1 Top performance: Piano is maintained in meticulous condition at all times: tuning, voicing, and regulation at highest possible standard, with daily or near daily attention; rebuilding on an accelerated schedule so that piano is kept virtually "like new." (Generally concert instruments in recital hall) 0.4 Near top performance: Piano maintained as above, but with weekly to bi-weekly attention, and somewhat slacker rebuilding schedule. (Generally piano teaching studios and the like. In some situations may apply to concert instruments). 0.7 Excellent: Piano kept near performance level - well tuned, voiced, and regulated. Monthly attention. Rebuilding on a regular basis. 1.3 Good: Piano needs to be kept at an acceptable musical level - adequately tuned, voiced and regulated. Bi-monthly attention. Reconditioned on a regular basis. 1.8 Fair: Piano need not be kept constantly at an acceptable musical level - tuning allowed to deteriorate before retuning, voicing and regulation low priority. Once to twice a semester attention. 2.5 Poor: Piano use not at all critical - may be neglected to the point of tuning once a year and "fixing what's broken when you get around to it." The foregoing is what I posted last October. One additional change I'd like to suggest at this time, with respect to the "Grand/Upright" category. I think those numbers should be altered a bit. Currently it's 1.2 upright/0.8 grand, with the idea a grand takes maybe 1.5 times the work of an upright. I'm thinking, to reflect some of the feedback I've received for the formula as a whole, that this should be changed to either 1.1 upright/0.7 grand, or possibly 1.2 upright/0.6 grand. Amazingly enough, such seemingly tiny changes can alter the final results by a considerable amount. What do you think? Comments/suggestions? For purposes of seeing how this works in the database, enter a default 1.0 for every piano under "quality." Enter the additional inputs under Acceptable Standards by keying in the numbers for those pianos which meet the criteria. And enter the grand/upright inputs manually (sorting first will make it pretty fast). Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC