[CAUT] CAUT testing model

[reggaepass at aol.com]

 Fred,

Good sounding, solid unisons are of the utmost importance.  However, I question the implications of testing people under severe time constraints and poor working conditions.   Sure, if one is going to do the concert tuning thing out in the big bad world, these WILL be the conditions at times.  But as CAUT-erizers, doesn't it send the wrong message to suggest that these conditions are acceptable on an ongoing basis?  I think that  runs the risk of casting ourselves as people willing to be insufficiently supported in the pursuit of our professional goals. How do we expect to be better compensated if we are willing to accept not-good-enough working conditions as an acceptable standard?   Raise your hand if your goal is to become the piano technician equivalent of the American Tourister suitcase being thrashed by a gorilla in commercials from days gone by.

Alan Eder


 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: caut <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT testing model













On 10/25/07 3:06 PM, "Kent Swafford" <kswafford at gmail.com> wrote:




Concert tunings are "no excuses" situations, in just the same way that the pianist's performance will likely be "no excuses." People depend upon us to produce a presentable tuning, no matter what, in the time available, under the conditions that prevail, regardless of any adversity. Concert tuning is about continuously deciding what will yield the biggest improvement given the time and resources available. "Taking a little extra time and trouble to make sure we got it as good as possible" is what you do in your other tunings when time is plentiful, to _prepare_ for concert work, so that you will know what it takes to produce a certain result efficiently. Concert tuning, in my experience, doesn't exist absent a certain level of stress. (You can look in the archives for my description of tuning for Olga Kern, for example.)



So, with tongue in cheek, I would suggest that in formulating this test, don't forget that you will need to simulate normal stage activities such as loading in the artist's equipment, setting lights, putting the shell in place, checking the sound system, vacuuming the carpet in the aisles of the hall, mopping the stage, the artist's request to voice down the high treble and regulate the pedal to an unusual spec, and for good measure, the stage manager walking up and notifying the tech that his time has been cut short by 15 minutes because the artist wants to warm up, and, oh, the artist asks that you do an extra special fine concert tuning tonight.



All in a day's work, right?



Kent




    Tongue in cheek or not, It is certainly our reality that the fairly standard window for getting the “concert tuning” done is one hour (and circumstances dictate that it is often less). And I think there is a general expectancy that this can happen in the “real world” - as, for instance, when touring groups come to town, and that is what they expect to schedule for the local piano tuner in their setup time. We (Don, Ken and I) certainly took that as our starting assumption in modeling a test. We thought that, practically speaking, we should probably expand the time to 1.5 hours, given that the test piano would be unfamiliar, and thinking I suppose that there would be resistance to setting “too high a standard.”  And I guess I’ll also throw out the notion that too tight a window might be too much of a burden on our colleagues who are “aural purists,” including our esteemed colleagues at U Michigan. But personally I would have no problem with narrowing the window to one hour, to reflect the “boots on the ground” reality.

    Where I would have a problem is if narrowing the window of time was accompanied by weakening the standard of quality, as in the notion expressed by at least a couple of people: “give them X time and see how much of an improvement they can make.” I think the attitude underlying such an approach is counterproductive. It assumes that we endorse understaffing. It assumes that fast and sloppy is okay, and preferable to somewhat slower but very high quality.

    Given a choice of someone who is a bit slower, but can be counted on to produce meticulous work, and someone who is really fast but produces unreliable work that is “almost good enough all the time,” I’ll take the slower one. As an organization, I think we need to stand for top quality, professional quality, state of the art. I have the distinct impression that “concert quality” tuning across the country is at a pretty high level, based on concerts I have attended, Performance Today broadcasts (recent public performances at all kinds of venues around the world, including fairly obscure universities and colleges and performance venues) and recordings. My ears tell me that a standard of unisons (and stability, as it lasts through the performance) well within 1.0 cents is the norm. I hear some voicing I think really ought to be improved, but by and large the tuning quality is very high indeed for the most part. There is a very noticeable difference between unisons averaging within 0.5 cents (or so) and unisons averaging within 1.0 cents (or so).

    So I want to argue very strongly that whatever else we may do in terms of setting a standard for “caut tuning,” we should stick to as narrow a unison standard as we can, bearing practical and political hurdles in mind. I’d be interested in hearing responses to this specific position.

Regards,

Fred Sturm

University of New Mexico 





 


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071027/60a9193b/attachment.html