Hi Fred, I agree with the concerns. The quality category is problematic and so is the upright grand time demand ratio. "Retail value of the instrument new" number could cover that. A Yamaha P22 is not a U3. A new concert grand costs five times a new C1 which costs about twice a U1 or three times a P22. These costs mostly represent the time the manufacturer invested and to a much lesser degree material. The time they invested could correspond to the time we should invest to maintain at a reasonable level. Use level, climate, condition, and acceptable standards would be the only other needed categories. -Mike 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