Isarael I agree that the CAUT forum is not the place to discuss testing. But are we?allowed to discuss exams on PTG-L? The last time we tried to discuss examination requirements, we were told that PTG-L is not the forum for that, either. We can't discuss it on the?ETSC forum, because that's limited to examiners only, and then only to discuss problems with exams given, not to discuss changes in the exams. From where we sit, it seems?only the ETSC Superior Board is allowed to discuss changes in the exams, and that list is limited to the ETSC Superior?Board. So tell us, oh great one, on which forum?can the membership discuss examinations criteria? Wim -----Original Message----- From: Israel Stein <custos3 at comcast.net> To: caut at ptg.org Sent: Sun, Jul 26, 2009 8:59 am Subject: [CAUT] Testing discussion Hello, all? ? It may be a good idea to ignore what is written below, as much of it is incorrect. This is an inappropriate venue for discussing testing anyway, as no authoritative information about testing can be provided on a public list due to confidentiality concerns. All I can say is that the description of the vertical section of the technical exam provided below is not representative of how the exam is supposed to be conducted.? ? Generally, PTG testing is operating under severe limitations imposed by Anti-Trust law requirements, equipment costs and availability of equipment. There are very good reasons why testing is conducted the way it it, but I certainly am not going to discuss them here.? ? Israel Stein? ? >? > Message: 1? > Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:02:11 -0500? > From: Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu>? > To: caut at ptg.org? > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models/ RPT testing? > Message-ID:? > <OFE246E2E3.8DA3801A-ON862575FE.0067E4F8-862575FE.006865FB at unl.edu>? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"? >? > That might work with a single note action for both. But, seeing the > consistency of three notes really tells the examiner that you know what > you are doing. If just a single note on a grand, it should at least have > the pedal mechanisms. I like the three note vertical model for some > reason. I had to (yes, I'm admitting this) take it more than once!! :>) > It was far harder than the grand reg test! (I ran out of time the first go > around) In real life, we don't get to regulate verticals more than > grands, simply IMHO due to the fact that grand owners are more demanding, > have more financial means to do it, or whatever.? >? > PW? >? >? >? >? >? >? > From:? > "Jeff Tanner" <tannertuner at bellsouth.net>? > To:? > <caut at ptg.org>? > Date:? > 07/24/2009 05:15 PM? > Subject:? > Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models/ RPT testing? >? >? >? > Hey Paul,? > Great question.? > > I have a similar "concern" with the testing, but not so much with how many > notes are involved as much as what you're given to start with. The grand > portion comes from a regulating-what-you've-got starting point, while the > vertical portion is more from the perspective of rebuilding from scratch. > I didn't mind that so much as that when you're rebuilding, and figuring > out proportions, you really aren't being timed. Being timed while > figuring out proportions bothered me a bit, and took up most of my time on > that section. I scored well on the grand, but struggled on the vertical > portion for that reason. It's just something we don't do all that often > and success or failure depended on something one rarely encounters.? > > It would have made more sense to me to give me a vertical action model out > of regulation -- not completely disassembled and with no specs. That's > what we run into - verticals that need regulation, not rebuilding from > scratch. Anymore, it doesn't make sense to rebuild a vertical action > unless it is a particularly special one, and that is very rare. Makes more > sense to me to test what we run into more often.? > > As far as single versus multiples, I don't see why we need multiples on > either. If you can do one, you ought to be able to match the other 87. To > me, multiples on the vertical portion was just extra time taken up that > could be spent on getting one right. But I guess I can see maybe damper > timing with the pedal being about the only thing that needs to be > coordinated. It's not like we're weighing off the action, though, so > consistency from note to note really comes down to your ability to get the > first one good and then just reproducing that.? > > My thoughts,? > Jeff Tanner? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul T Williams > To: caut at ptg.org > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 4:50 PM? > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models/ RPT testing? >? > Too bad. I would only need a max of 6. That's my class limit due to > space....It would be great for our occasional "Associates Days" we hold > for our local associates wishing to get to the RPT classification. Really, > I would only want 3 or 4. >? > I just think that a single grand note action is not comparable to the > vertical testing unit. Why do we not require at least a 3-note grand > action model with pedals, sos pedal and unacorda pedal? One of the most > important issues in great grand action regulation is consistency from note > to note!! It really doesn't make sense that the grand action test is > actually easier than the vertical action reg test. I would think that, in > reality, the grand action reg test be harder than the vertical as that's > where the most demanding of customers and artists are. Really, what > vertical piano owner (other than a physical space issue) is really as > demanding on proper regulation as those owning a high-end grand..or any > grand, if they can't afford a high-end grand, but are still outstanding > pianists? This has always been a question in my crazy brain! Any > examiners out there that can add something to why these standards have > been set? >? > I'm sure this will turn into a great discussion! I'm all eyes! I'm truly > interested in where these testing standards were set and why... >? > Just a thought...Shields up! >? > Paul >? >? >? >? > From: > reggaepass at aol.com > To: > caut at ptg.org > Date: > 07/24/2009 02:50 PM > Subject: > Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models? >? >? >? >? > >From what I was told, they were made specially for the Renner damper > class (which Schimmel, somehow, has a finger in). Additional units may > not be available, unless a sufficient quantity were to be ordered. >? > Alan Eder? >? >? > -----Original Message-----? > From: Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu>? > To: caut at ptg.org? > Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2009 11:35 am? > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models? >? > Those were the ones! I didn't see anything in my Renner stuff here. I'll > look into Schimmel. They're probably spendy I'll bet! >? > Thanks, Alan >? > Paul >? >? > From: > reggaepass at aol.com > To: > caut at ptg.org > Date: > 07/24/2009 01:18 PM > Subject: > Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models? >? >? >? >? >? > Paul, if you are referring to the multi-note action models used in the > hands-on damper class taught by Renner USA, I was told that those were > made by Schimmel. >? > Alan Eder? >? >? > -----Original Message-----? > From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>? > To: caut at ptg.org? > Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 10:54 am? > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Cool grand action models? >? > Renner, I believe. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu >? >? >? > On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Paul T Williams wrote: >? > Hi All, >? > I was checking out the pics on the blog from GR. That hands-on class that > had all those multi-note grand action models look very cool. Who makes > them, or who know where to get some? I would really like to use them for > my Univ class I teach every spring and could teach students better than > using the single note models I have. >? > Thanks! Wish I could have been there! >? > Paul >? > = >? >? >? > -------------- next part --------------? > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...? > URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090725/5529d471/attachment-0001.htm>? >? > ------------------------------? >? > _______________________________________________? > CAUT mailing list? > CAUT at ptg.org? > http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut? >? >? > End of CAUT Digest, Vol 9, Issue 54? > ***********************************? >? > ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090726/434df921/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC