History of Piano Tuning – Tuner’s Associations

The proliferation of pianos led to a proliferation of tuners, as we have seen.   Regrettably, some people saw this as an opportunity to make money easily, and with the purchase of a few tools – and perhaps one of the dubious teach-yourself books already discussed – regarded themselves as ready to work as a professional tuner.   A letter to the Music Trades Review in 1878 summed this up so succinctly, I quote it almost in its entirety:

‘Bogus Piano Tuners’.  Sir … can any of your subscribers suggest any means of improving the present state of bona fide piano tuners … often I have had to contend with a class of ‘bogus tuners’ who gull the public by professing to understand what they really do not.  The secret of their partial success is that those who employ them are often ignorant of when an instrument is in tune at all.   The ‘bogus tuner’ can simply sharpen or flatten a wire, and as to the number of attempts he has, the ‘wrest pins’ are often a proof.  He is totally ignorant of regulating, repairing a broken lever, a hammer shank, a sticker-hinge or the size of wire (if he have any) if a string be broken; or of curing the effects of damp, which is often very bad in country houses.   The piano is literally ruined by such individuals.   I could enumerate hundreds of cases if space would permit.

Now if a qualified tuner has to go to an instrument after a ‘bogus tuner’ and if he spends 2-5 hours hard work at it and does his work effectually and he charges five to seven shillings, he is often greeted by the remark that Mr So and So (‘bogus’) only charged two or three shillings.  Now sir, this sort of thing is my experience for over 20 years and it is time something was done to protect tuners and the public.   The following are some of the defects occurring in piano tuning with the ‘bogus’ remedies for them.   Key sticking – Remedy: ‘Cut with a penknife the mortices until the key moves up or down, backward or forward‘ [N.B. there should be no side play at all if possible.]   Broken sticker or lever hinge – ‘Adhesive margin of postage stamps’ [the Victorian equivalent of adhesive tape]. Broken hammer shank – ‘Same shank inserted with same knife, oftentimes 2″ shorter’ [a new shank should be fitted at exactly the same length as the original].

Sluggish hammer butts – ‘Split in 2 then tie with thread or twine’ [the centre pin should be replaced].

Broken dampers – ‘They may go.’

Wrest pins – ‘Require little or no muscular effort to either flatten or sharpen strings.’

Other branches of the musical trade and profession have some protection against pretenders and I would suggest that some society or old-established firms in London and the provinces should undertake to examine and test the abilities of those professing tuning, regulatory &c.  If found satisfactory a certificate should be supplied from the Society … and no tuner should be employed without one … manufacturers would have their interests greatly enhanced by having pianos of their manufacture kept in order so as to be a credit to them, instead of being condemned as ‘poor instruments’ &c., which is often the case after a few tunings by ‘bogus tuner’ …

Yours truly, A Tuner of 25 yrs experience. 

The MTR agreed:

… many of the leading members of the trade who suffer from having their pianos mauled about by unskilled people will fully sympathise with him.   But we fear the proposed examination would be impracticable …

Two years later, a tuner wrote to propose a Register of Pianoforte Tuners to which the trade world would subscribe, which he would run from an office ‘where the trade can be supplied at short notice with competent and respectable men (only such being registered) at a charge of 21/- p.a. which will entitle Subscribers to all the privileges of the office without further charge …   However, no further mention seems to be made of the matter.

In 1890, G. Vincent Ennever of Hammersmith, London proposed a tuner’s association, and issued a circular to tuners which read as follows:

The entrance fee to be paid on joining the Association is 2/6, Annual subscription 5/-.  AIMS: to form a representative body of the profession to speak with authority on behalf of same.

To take such measures as shall lead to the registration of duly qualified tuners and promote the thorough training of apprentices and others.

To endeavour by all lawful means to get rid of the class of incompetents who having received a form of lessons without any practice, are going about doing serious injury to the profession and to the public, who before engaging them have no means of distinguishing them from practical men.

To establish an employment registry whereby employers and tuners can be brought together according to their requirements without publicity.

To do all such other lawful things as may conduce to the welfare of the profession and the benefit of the public. 

Tuners were aware, therefore, of interlopers and frauds within their profession, but little seems to have come of it until 1913, when The Pianomaker announced that the Central YMCA Buildings in London had seen the inaugural meeting of An Association for Tuners in the United Kingdom. ‘One of the founders’ penned an article in the following issue (signing himself only as ‘Lancashire’) entitled ‘Why We Formed a Tuners’ Association’.   He swiftly asserts that ‘I hope manufacturers and dealers will not run away with the idea that our Association is in the nature of a Trades Union … ‘ but later states, ‘ … we wish to obtain a fair wage for our labour, but we also desire to see that the manufacturer gets value for his money’.  Because The Pianomaker was aimed at manufacturers, ‘Lancashire’ was at pains to point out all the benefits of the Association to the trade; however, the customer would also benefit: ‘we want to clear out the incompetent man and put in his place a man who can use his tools in a practical manner‘.  ‘Lancashire’ goes on to argue that the bad tuners were happy to accept a low weekly wage and therefore dragged prices down in general.  ‘To my own knowledge there are certain “slave drivers” amongst the dealers who offer 25/- a week to tuners and expect to get the same value as if they were paying 60/-.’  He goes on to argue that these dealers undercut those paying fair wages and therefore take business away from them.

The piano manufacturers Witton & Witton hosted the next Piano Tuner’s Association meeting and it was proposed ‘to invite apprentices to become student members’ – a practice still carried on by the Association today – ‘who would receive instruction in equal temperament and the theory of tuning, thus giving them a better understanding of their profession than it was possible to get in a workshop or factory.

Incidentally, the fact that a piano maker hosted the meeting would indicate that ‘Lancashire’s’ fears that the PTA might be regarded as a Trades Union by manufacturers were unfounded, although one can understand his apprehension – and any reservations on the part of the piano trade.

Another bone of contention between the piano tuners and the trade was the practice of inserting into their contracts of employment a ‘radius restriction clause’.  It is unclear whether the Piano Tuners Association was concerned with this matter, but it was certainly the cause of much unpleasantness between tuners and their erstwhile employers once they elected to leave their employ.  The radius restriction clause meant that having left a piano business, the tuner could not carry on tuning with a certain radius of his ex-employer’s business – and to prevent any altercation, the centre of the radius was often a church, rather than the shop itself, lest the owner of the piano business decide to move premises: it was reasoned that a church was more likely to remain in perpetuity than a shop.   Tuners seemed to understand the reason behind the radius restriction clause, but disagreements often arose over the radius chosen.  Court cases were relatively common wherein either a tuner and ex-employer were disputing a radius, or a tuner ignored the clause altogether.   A Mr Auty of Dewsbury took a tuner to court who had formerly been in his employ; the tuner had, whilst working for Mr Auty, been tuning in the evenings for clients of his own, claiming that since he was still in Mr Auty’s employ the radius restriction clause did not apply.   The judge disagreed and said that the twelve-mile radius was fair.  He granted the injunction and awarded two pounds damages, saying ‘dealers who have before them the report of this case will probably only have to show it to an obstreperous tuner and thus save both parties future difficulties or trouble.’

‘A Tuner Under A Cloud’ wrote to the Music Trades Review in 1894 complaining about the twenty-five mile restriction placed upon him by his employer.  He claimed that such agreements were uncommon in his native Scotland, and had signed the contract believing that he would be able to ‘buy himself out’, as one does in the armed services.  He subsequently offered his employer the sum of £ 300, or three years’ salary to waive the radius restriction, and was refused.

The MTR argued that ‘a tuner does not stand in the position of an ordinary employé … he stands … in a fiduciary position’, and defended the radius restriction provided it be fairly set:

In London, a wide radius would not be recommended, for people do not go far away for what they want.  In the country, on the other hand, where travelling tuners are employed over very wide distances, the radius indisputably must be large. 

Indeed, in 1887 a County Court had ruled against a tuner who had operated within forty miles of Bath, contrary to a radius restriction clause, and fined him two guineas.  In effect, upon severing his employment with a dealer, a tuner was constrained to move away from that area in order to be in accordance with his contract.

Another matter which seemed to have been a cause for concern was how a tuner would be able to exist if his work should be curtailed through illness.  In an article headed ‘A Provident Fund for Tuners’, the Music Trades Review discussed this ‘most desirable novelty’, deeming it a good idea, yet expressing their surprise ‘that the tuners have not organized something of a similar sort for themselves’, given that ‘their earnings hardly suffice to lay up much against a rainy day’.

The idea of such a fund was that the tuners should subscribe a certain amount on a regular basis to pay their beneficiaries a certain sum per week in the event of disability or sickness, a fixed sum to relatives on their death and a small pension (to those who paid extra) at the age of 60 or 65.

The MTR need not have worried, though, since the Secretary of the London Friendly Institution replied in the next edition that his Society had invested funds to the value of £29,000 and already had ‘artisans and tuners’ on his books.

It would appear that on occasions firms looked after such matters themselves; a Broadwoods cash book from 1896 shows a payment of 5/- made to ‘A.D. Ettrick – a decayed tuner … ‘

Some tuners simply left the profession – a tuner appeared in Wood Green Court in 1904 over unpaid debts.   The judge asked him why he was out of work, and the tuner said that he had had to leave the profession or he would have been in a lunatic asylum: ‘It was such a dreadful noise.   There are more piano tuners in lunatic asylums than any other trade’.  Intrigued, the Music Trades Review made their own enquiries and found that the London County Council said that they had admitted two piano tuners last year and the Metropolitan Asylum Board said that they had admitted one.  Neither organization had admitted any tuners the year before.

Interestingly, the founder of the Pianoforte Tuner’s Association wrote some eleven years later;