[CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor)

[Porritt, David]

I have to agree with Richard that this job is very much experience
based.  I don't know how you would incorporate any training that would
prepare one to cope with the differences CAUT position have compared to
in-home service.  Technically it's just high-level work like any well
prepared technician would find in the field.  I had demanding customers
before I started here.  One of those was the one who talked me into
applying for this job.  He's the same here as he was at home.

 

To me the differences are the relationships and expectations.  If a
piano needs work in a home, you tell the customer what it needs, what it
will cost and they decide whether they'll have it done or not.  In an
academic setting, if a piano needs work it has to be done with or
without parts budget.  In addition there are several pianos that need
that work and there's no time nor budget to have it all done.
Prioritizing it, postponing some, understanding whose priorities/egos
take precedence, what can be improved without new parts etc. is all part
of the juggling act that makes the job challenging and fun.  I can't
imagine what class could possibly teach that.  

A psychology class and real skill in interpersonal relationships would
be my recommended place to start.

 

dave

 

David M. Porritt, RPT

dporritt at smu.edu

 

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
rwest1 at unl.edu
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:44 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of
Michigan,Ann Arbor)

 

I would like to weight in with a few thoughts.

 

1.  Education--CAUT has been doing well in recent years to develop
classes and I believe that should be the highest priority, not only
classes at the convention, but classes at every regional seminar and at
local institutions.  The classes should become more or less standardized
and repeated annually.  What CAUT should be asking is:  What core
knowledge can be taught across the country, not just at the annual
convention.  Nationwide distribution/availabiltiy  should be paramount
since many technicians will not be able to attend the convention
annually or even regularly.

 

2.  Experience--How does anyone get the experience to do advanced work?
Unfortunately most of that comes from seat-of-the-pants, in-the-field
work.  When I started at the University of Nebraska, I had been a piano
technician for only 3 years with practically no experience in voicing,
and no knowledge of harpsichords or other historical keyboards.  I
learned on the job.  That first 5 years was hell.  The 25 years after
that were great.  CAUT classes/materials need to be experience based.
We already have books that provide general knowledge.

 

3.  The Guidelines--One goal of the Guidelines was to inform
administrators about what the job includes so that they would appreciate
the intricacies of the job and the pay scale would rise.  This hasn't
really happened; our document is seen as self serving.  Therefore the
main value of the document is to inform technicians about what they're
getting into when they apply for university jobs.  CAUT education needs
to continue to inform all technicians about the nature of university
work so that when the interview comes around, they'll be able to
differentiate what we do from what all other staff people do.  You can't
expect a higher pay scale when your immediate supervisor may be a staff
person that isn't making as much as what you're asking.  Administrators
don't see us as any different than a stage manager, administrative
assistant, or, yes, a specialized custodian.  Until that perception
changes, or until applicants refuse jobs that don't pay  wages that are
competitive with private concert work, then university techs will
continue to be underpaid.

 

4.  Testing--Until RPT is an accepted nationwide standard, I would put
testing at a low priority.  If testing is the current priority,  the
cart is being put in front of the horse.  The problems we have with RPT
testing are IMHO greater for a CAUT standard.  The test would have to
provide a better way to address testing problems like nationwide
availability, qualified and experience examiners, testing that is fair
and objective (using ETD's when ETD's can be problematic as repeatably
accurate), length of time to give the test, using volunteers vs
developing paid examiners, etc.  A complete tuning, for example, sounds
good as a goal for a testing standard, but implementing that seems to
hark back to the good ole boy days.   

 

Richard West, retired (more or less)

 

 

 

 

On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:





On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:





Just a thought on the tuning test idea.  The present RPT test is to my
mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up and execute.  Nor do
I believe it should be necessary to have it such.  A tuning standard can
be easily defined in terms of what decided upon sets of coincident
partials behave like when tuned.  As a banal example, one could simple
ask the examinee to execute a bass tuning from say D3 downwards in terms
of exact 6:3 types. This is extremely easy to measure afterwards and
requires no prior set up... outside of a reasonably detuned instrument.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how this principle could be
applied to encompass a real tuning that is quite acceptable in real life
terms.  One added benefit of this approach would be that the examinee
would know ahead of time exactly what is expected of him/her.  This is
far from always the case in the present system.  I would think it would
be nonproblematic to extend this approach to a very demanding test.

 

Cheers

RicB

 

Hi Ric,

            This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for a
caut tuning test. We analyze a sequence of coincident partials for
consistency. It could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you mention. And
there are many other possibilities as well. Our initial plan is to look
at double and triple octaves, the 4:1 and 8:1 partial matches, and see
how evenly they progress. If something is out of kilter, it should show
up pretty clearly.

            But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask the
examinee to do anything but tune "your best concert tuning," explaining
that we will look particularly for crystal clear and rock solid unisons,
and for evenness of stretch in the outer octaves. IOW, no artificial
constraints, just do what you normally do in that circumstance.

            I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 cents
tolerance after pounding is pretty demanding, though well within what I
hope most of us are producing on a day to day basis. Beta testing will
reveal whether or not this is so, and whether we might need to fudge a
little to, say, 0.6 or something, and possibly more in high treble where
ETD resolution can be a problem.

            How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it is
at least an intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. On the face
of it, it seems like it should work like a charm, but proof is in the
pudding.

Regards,

Fred Sturm

University of New Mexico

fssturm at unm.edu

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071015/5822469e/attachment.html