Excellent !!,,,, Don't dump, thump. On the other hand,, NY Times gave an exposure to the subject and maybe it started a dialogue or at least a sentiment in the public... In the last few days, I've experienced a mini surge. 2 people who had put me off this summer got back to me, having changed their minds and booked tunings. NY Times article ? maybe. T, Ayers In a message dated 8/3/2012 9:23:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lclgcnp at yahoo.com writes: Dear List, There are many fine writers in the PTG, and I'm not even a member ( but only because I can't afford it) so I'm not suggesting that this task fall to me. But I believe that it would be a wise investment for the PTG to take out a full page ad in the "TIMES", in response to that recent, depressing (IMHO) article about trashing pianos. And in this regard, I am suggesting something on the order of: PLEASE DON'T DUMP THAT PIANO! Dear Lovers of Music and Antiques, A recent TIMES article described the current phenomenon of countless, older, American pianos being tossed into the trash, merely because inexpensive, imported new replacements are available. But before you, or anyone you know, send that heirloom to be crushed in some ignominious landfill, please consider the following: America was once a "piano-centric" culture. After buying a home, the next major investment most families made was in the "heart" of it: their piano! Around which members and friends would gather for "sing alongs", and individuals spend hours, alone, in reveries of pleasure. A great portion of Western musical development, in fact, was built around this instrument and its unique capability to provide players with the opportunity to explore melody, harmony, rhythm and dynamics, all by themselves! It is for this reason that the piano was the chosen instrument of countless composers in the Sacred, Classical, and Popular veins; including those who gave us the "Great American Songbook", for which American culture remains, to this day, greatly admired! Sadly, due to the advent of radio and television, many fine instruments sat neglected for decades as their owners and children found other diversions. And today, when those who enjoyed them in their glory have long passed on, these once-sonorous beauties are producing a mere fraction of the fine tone they are capable of, and few people remain who are aware of this. But is that ample cause to simply discard them? At the peak of the piano's popularity, literally hundreds of factories arose in the U.S. to fill demand; most of them staffed by the finest of workers, dedicated to their craft, in an era when "planned obsolescence" was unheard of! As competition was intense, so was the effort to build to the highest standards, to create the finest possible "touch and tone". (And the cases were also often magnificent!) The finest woods were used, often from "old growth trees" that no longer exist, and components even signed by workers in the instruments' deepest regions, where no one might see for decades, in a beautiful script! It is reasonable to state that many such instruments, if produced today, would be sold, new, in the $20,000 to $50,000 range. It is sadly a fact that some, due to severe neglect ( such as years beside an open window or radiator, or due to invasion by rodents, etc.) are no longer the most viable candidates for restoration. But many others are, and are often discarded merely due to some misconception ( such as that a crack in the soundboard "ruins" a piano) or lack of awareness regarding the highly developed art of piano restoration today, and the availability of competent personel ready to perform it....... After this, the PTG could provide links to info on its website, including how to recognize a quailty instrument perhaps worth fixing, contact information for technicians, and etc.. I have to go do something now, so can't write more presently. But hope the above provides some ideas for how such might look. "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade!" So that article in the "TIMES" could be seen as a "Golden Opportunity" to bring attention to the restoration trade, with a full-page ad that, at all other times, would seem awkward, desperate, and out-of-place. Thumpe ____________________________________ From: Euphonious Thumpe <lclgcnp at yahoo.com>; To: <pianotech at ptg.org>; Subject: Re: [pianotech] Rebuilding criteria (yeah, I changed the subject.Re Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 9:22:02 AM I don't get why you guys can't understand this! "Refurbished" simply means that it has been furbished AGAIN! (Sheesh!) Thumpe ____________________________________ From: erwinspiano <erwinspiano at aol.com>; To: <pianotech at ptg.org>; Subject: Re: [pianotech] Rebuilding criteria (yeah, I changed the subject. ) Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 2:43:31 AM Yeah Terry Now were making some progress. I think I,ll print that. Dale Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Terry Farrell <mfarrel2 at tampabay.rr.com> wrote: In my mind, refurbish = recondition. Also, I think it is more informative to not necessarily state what is done to what parts to qualify for a refurbish/rebuild/remanufacture, but rather state what the outcome goal is and the overall approach. For example: Repair: Goal is to make the thing that is broken work properly. Refurbish: Goal is to take what you've got and make the piano work as well as it reasonably can with minimal if any parts replacement (maybe some felt, etc.). Rebuild: Goal is to approach making the piano somewhere between nearly new and very good performing. Non-wearing parts (i.e. parts that usually are in serviceable condition 100 years after manufacture) are refinished/repaired (plate, case, keybed, keyframe, action rails), ALL parts that commonly wear are inspected and either reconditioned/refurbished, repaired, rebuilt or replaced (i.e. soundboard, bridges, action parts, etc.) to the point where they can function similar to new. Remanufacture: Goal is a new piano that looks and performs at least as good as new if not better. Non-wearing parts (i.e. parts that usually are in serviceable condition 100 years after manufacture) are refinished/repaired and may be modified (plate, case, keybed, keyframe, action rails), ALL parts that commonly wear are replaced with new or better and may be modified (i.e. soundboard, bridges, action parts, etc.). How does that sound? It's still a bit nebulous/grey, but I like it! Terry Farrell On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Dale Erwin wrote: Can ya give one for refurbish. Nowthis is my personal nebulous favorite. YA know? It was refurbished? Now this can mean just about anything to anyone. Thanks Bill Dale Erwin R.P.T. Erwin's Piano Restoration Inc. Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S. pianos _www.Erwinspiano.com_ (http://www.erwinspiano.com/) Phone: 209-577-8397 -----Original Message----- From: William Monroe <bill at a440piano.net> To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org> Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [pianotech] Rebuilding criteria (yeah, I changed the subject.<G>) I think the problem with defining these terms is that they are so variable from piano to piano - it just depends upon what the piano needs. For example, I use the following definitions (which I believer are from the Piano Book): Repair: Fixing isolated or individual problems that a piano may have - e.g. a broken hammer shank, a non-functioning key. Restoring/Reconditioning: Improving the overall quality of a piano by cleaning, lubricating, resurfacing, or replacing worn felts or leathers, but not replacing parts, per se. Rebuilding: Improving the overall quality of a piano including new parts. Rebuilding may or may not involve refinishing the case. Remanufacturing: Improving the overall quality of a piano, including new parts, soundboard, refinishing the case, and possibly making design changes. You'll note, for example, the lack of reference to soundboard replacement in the rebuilding definition. I don't think a soundboard has to be replaced for a piano to be considered fully (totally, completely, whateverly) rebuilt - others may disagree. However, in some cases, the soundboard absolutely has to be replaced in order to consider an instrument rebuilt. It just depends. So I prefer to define these terms by virtue of the general process, the approach, rather than a specific list of items that must be included in order to consider the piano "rebuilt" (or remanufactured, or restored). My 2 cents, William R. Monroe On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Encore Pianos <encorepianos at metrocast.net> wrote: That was my attempt at humor. I do think those terms should be standardized as to what those terms would entail. We can't help what our customers end up thinking. Will -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Garrett Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:49 PM To: pianotech Subject: [pianotech] Rebuilding criteria (yeah, I changed the subject.<G>) Will Truitt said: "I know what a REAL REBUILD entails, but I'm not telling, and you can't pry it out of me...... :-)" Will Dagnabit! Thar it is! The same stuff.....nobody's talkin'!<G> This is an age-old problem. Is there a possibility that,...maybe...WE could do something about that? Regards, Joe Joe Garrett, R.P.T. Captain of the Tool Police Squares R I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120803/b8290326/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC