ETD vs Aural

[JIMRPT@aol.com]

et al;
  Following the ETD vs Aural thread with interest, as we all are I suppose.
 I was struck by the recommendation of the PTG ETS committee in this years
Council agenda book.  Now I am 'not' putting this on as political comment so
please don't take it that way.
  The ETS Committee (electronic and test standards) is composed of very good
technicians who, usually, are strong supporters of ETDs.  This years
committee is strongly pro ETD and this makes their recomendation more
significant, in my opinion.  Bear in mind that to pass the tuning tests
requires a score of at least 80% in all areas.
 The proposed language follows:
a. All candidates must take part 1, tuning aurally only, and receive scores
in pitch, temperment and midrange.
b. Following evaluation of part 1 scores, candidates may then proceed to part
2, tuning the rest of the piano by any aural or electronic method (except
that all candidates must tune unisions aurally), and receiving scores in
bass, treble, high treble, stability and unisons sections.
-----
ETS comments on their reasoning:
The committee feels it is important that the tuning exams are equal for
everyone.  More members are requesting the electronic tuning exam and it
takes more of the examiners time to give this exam presently.  This is a good
opportunity to make our aural and electronic exams more unified.
-----
 In my opinion the committee's comment/reasoning is very sound in that it
recognizes the similarities of both methods, and recognizes the differences
in both methods without showing preference for either.  The committee also is
saying that both methods are viable, which we already know, Huh ?
Just a different slant on the ETD vs Aural thread that I felt you would be
interested in seeing.
Jim Bryant (FL)