Tuning forks

[Richard Brekne]

Kent Swafford wrote:

> Richard Brekne wrote:
>
> >If the examinee can accurately match the
> >piano to the pitch source, demonstrate a suberb temperament at that pitch,
> >and
> >perform an outstandingly even tuning at that pitch, what on earth is the
> >point of flunking him ?
>
> I worry that your discussion somewhat mischaracterizes the situation.
>
> The exam rules have been under the watchful protection through the years
> by some of the finest people I know. The PTG does not set up the RPT
> exams to flunk people, but to encourage excellence. If examinees have
> practiced and studied, they can and do regularly pass the exams.

Of course it does. I would not dream of questioning the motives or intentions
of the PTG or its members. But people do fail on this point, or am I wrong ?

>
> At the beginning of the tuning exam the examinee has 5 minutes to tune
> one string of the A4. The examiners measure it and if is a failure, the A
> can be scored again later under a second chance provision.
>
> Also, this may not have been mentioned before, but examiners will often
> supply an accurate pitch source if the examinee requests it. We
> discourage this because it is better for the examinee to be using a pitch
> source with which he is accustomed.

If this is the case Kent.. then the entire reasoning for the inclusion of this
requirement is moot and nullified, and all the fine words made in defence of it
wasted. The whole point, as Jim Coleman so clearly writes, is for the tuner to
have in his possesion the skill of knowing his pitch source is accurate. Can
this then be so easily thrown out the window ? If so then why not just forget
the whole matter (which I would not support) and just let'em use any old fork ?

> But it is common for us to measure
> the accuracy of the examinee's pitch source just before beginning of the
> exam, and if it is found to be inaccurate, we generally just supply one
> that is more accurate.

Whoooahh der... wait a minute now...... given Jims, and others reasoning in
defence of the need for this requirement, this "common" practice leaves me
baffled. First one makes the requirement espousing all kinds of almost
moralising about the importance of being able to be sure of pitch source
accuracy.. then you turn around and just say... well hey.. you got a bad fork
?? here take mine then.. What is this ???? And as this practice comes to light
in the end here.. how should we feel about those fellows who spent 300 dollars
on a tuning fork due to all this discussion ???

>
>
> I hope you see, Richard, that some of your concerns are actually provided
> for in the rules.

The American test is without a doubt the best there is (my opinion anyways) I
find it odd that this point, which has such obvious flaws in logic and
placement should not be addressed, but rather left as a source of vunerablity
to such an otherwise fine testing system. My concerns are not perhaps what you
think they are. I am concerned that this issue be dealt with, but effectively
so, and from what you have just said it would seem my concerns are well founded

>
>
> Kent Swafford

Richard Brekne
I.C.P.T.G.  N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway