Hi, Jim, After I got out of Western Iowa Tech, I thought I knew quite a bit about pianos. I quickly learned that I still had a lot to learn. I barely knew enough to pass my RPT exam. In the 35 years since, then, I would have to say that the expansion of my knowledge was based on experience, i.e. a problem occurrs that I haven't encountered before and I have to deal with it. Hopefully I fix the problem. In a nutshell that's what I mean by "experience based." A little book that was particularly helpful early in my career was a book titled The Piano Tuners Pocket Companion by Oliver Faust. On one side of the page there was a symptom and on the other was the solution. Early on that got me through a lot of repairs, but as I expanded my knowledge, I realized that repairs aren't always a simple symptom/solution question. Dampers are a good example of what I mean. You have a ringing damper, but a plethora of possible solutions including ones that don't even have anything to do with the actual damper you're working on (sympathetic vibrations or a duplex length of string). But with perseverance you figure out where the problem lies and learn what to look for. This becomes an experienced based repair that you add to your mental data bank. Experience gives you a bag of "tricks" to draw from to help diagnose problems, but these tricks of the trade aren't compiled and written down and so it's hard for beginners to get what they need to know, without going through the school of hard kocks. The problem in developing materials is multifaceted. First there's figuring out how to deal with the multilayered nature of our work. Second there's the problem of who's going to be using the materials. Let's face it, we aren't all equally gifted in the mechanical arts. Some people hardly need an explanation and others need detailed explanations and even then may screw up. So when I pose the question: What does a university tech need to know and how does he/she acquire that knowledge, I relate first to my own experience. I learned to be less compromising and more exacting in my work. If I wasn't, I'd hear about it. I went to PTG meetings and picked up ideas there. I scratched my head a lot and just spent the time it took to learn how to work on things like harpsichords, an inventory, reports, etc. etc. I persevered. But it would have been helpful if I'd had a book like Oliver Faust's that gave straightforward solutions to common problems. Also I realized that learning multiple ways of doing something, forced me to think about what works best for me. Key bushing is an example. I've tried a whole host of different ways to bush keys. I'm still looking for the perfect system. I've settled on a system that isn't particularly fast and efficient, but it gives me fairly predictable results. The first priority in concert work in getting it right. Speed and efficiency should also be there, but not necessarily. Especially for the mechanically challenged. Sometimes doing a job slowly but predictably is the only way. I don't know if my longwinded explanation helps, but there it is. I'm glad you asked, because it helped me try to try to get a better grasp of how we learn this profession. We don't write or teach in a vacuum. Perhaps the greatest challenge is getting through to people. That means we need to know how people learn so that our materials reach them. I don't know that PTG has been particularly good at addressing this aspect of learning. Sorry I took so long to reply. I've had lots on my plate this week. Retirement isn't about just sitting around and getting bored or watching a screen all day. Richard West On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jim Busby wrote: > Richard, > > > > I’m helping develop the curriculum and agree with all your points > below, but could you explain/elaborate on #2 below “CAUT classes/ > materials need to be experience based”? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jim Busby > > > > > > From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf > Of rwest1 at unl.edu > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:44 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/20071019/1fcc8cb3/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC