[CAUT] Guidelines/piano ages...

[Horace Greeley]

Gents,

I've always found it interesting that the very folks who stand to make the 
most money from the longer-term use of _quality_ rebuilt/refurbished 
instruments in schools (especially music-specific ones) are exactly the 
ones who then try to cut the rug out from in underneath their own 
products.  While someone like Tom McNeil can probably speak more accurately 
to the timelines involved, it seems to me as if the development of the CAUT 
institutional guidelines occurred right around the same time that a certain 
well-known maker decided to turn institutional piano purchasing into a 
capitalization project.

I do think that Dave and Fred have made some most excellent points 
here.  In a nutshell, much depends on the ability of the technician and the 
faculty to work together for their own, long-term best interest.  Some 
aspects of rebuilding can be reasonably done in house (actions being a 
primary example).  Others, unless the institution is most unusual, really 
should be contracted out...to reputable folks who are both able and willing 
to work within the constraints of institutional budgeting and process.

Further, as Fred notes, having any sort of arbitrary standard for 
replacement and/or rebuilding/refurbishing is simply asking for 
trouble.  We have all seen much older instruments that are wonderful right 
along side some that are truly wretched.  Same, within limits, with new 
instruments.  Particularly absurd, I fear, is the presumption that an 
all-something-or-other school is some how, some way, intrinsically "better" 
than one that is not.  Rubbish...unless, of course, one is the manufacturer 
or dealer.

While not exactly on target here, I want to call your attention to an 
excellent post on pianotech this morning from Robin Hufford.  In it, he 
raises (again) for consideration the concept of the Modulus of 
Resilience.  Where that has relevance here is in the assessment of older 
instruments - that is - just how much "rebuilding" is actually 
necessary?  Sarah Fox (also on pianotech, a few days back) put this into a 
perspective which can be modified for use here.  In considering how much 
"rebuilding" is necessary, the thinking (in the institutional setting, at 
least) really need to include both musical and technical issues as primary 
factors.  If the board is still musically usable, why replace it?  Do what 
is reasonable and necessary - it is not an either/or, it is a 
both/and.  Ultimately, something can have a beautifully executed, but 
musically dead execution...what end is served?  Another place on which to 
place pictures and coffee cups?  Put in less prosaic terms, a B, for 
example, which no longer has the power to properly drive a small recital 
hall just might, with reasonable reworking, be just about perfect for a 
studio.  Or, a 1098, after 30 years of grueling practice room service, gets 
some bridge work, some grinding on appropriate plate locations, restringing 
and new action parts...and, produces for another 30 years.

At a certain level, much of this has to do with our own egos.  What are we 
serving?  If it is something other than the overall reasonable best that a 
given instrument can produce in a given place at a given time, then we need 
to ask ourselves how music (and, oh yes, to be sure, the budget) is being 
served.  I admit to a fair degree of cynicism here.  That is because I have 
seen too many instruments recreated in the image of some technician or 
other, rather than in being worked with to their own potential.  There are 
times in which replacement is, to be sure, the best of all possible 
choices; and, we should acknowledge those times and support those 
decisions.  There are also times when some level of refurbishing or 
rebuilding is the best of all possible choices; and, we will find more 
support for that position and work if we have been reasonable in term of 
replacement.  (Of course, it never hurts to have the bright, shiny, new - 
and, therefore, obviously much superior - instruments turn out to be 
turkeys...)

Ah, well...my rant for the day.

Best.

Horace


At 10:20 AM 1/25/2005, you wrote:
>Avery:
>
>I've found it interesting how the usual sales line is that if you buy a
>Steinway it is an heirloom that can be kept and passed down from
>generation to generation.  However, once a school has one they try to
>tell you that a rebuilt one is not as good as new.  If a piano was in a
>piano faculty studio and is ready to be rebuilt, it has to go down in
>function to maybe a practice room.
>
>dave
>
>David M. Porritt
>dporritt@smu.edu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
>Avery Todd
>Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:54 AM
>To: College and University Technicians
>Subject: RE: [CAUT] Guidelines/piano ages...
>
>Dave,
>
>As would ours be! :-)
>
>Avery
>
> >Our local Steinway dealer is somewhat less
> >enthusiastic about our approach.
> >
> >dave
> >
> >David M. Porritt
> >dporritt@smu.edu
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>_______________________________________________
>caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives