JIMRPT@AOL.COM wrote: > In a message dated 11/01/1999 7:01:09 PM, Richard B. wrote: > > <<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 ?>> > > Richard; > They also fail on not being able to set a temperament regardless of pitch, > and not being able to tie a knot in a string, and in not being able to > properly regulate an upright, etc.........so what is 'your' point? Come on Jim.. really... I fail to understand your particular resistance to this. Neither the spliceing or regulation have anything to due with tuning and are thus placed in the technical test. Temperament is in the tuning segment as it should be, being part of the actual tuning skills. That is precisely my point and I cant see that it is too hard to see. > > Are you suggesting that setting an accurate pitch, which happens to be > A#440 at this time, is more suited to some other portion of the test, if so > which portion? I have already answered this question. > The technical, which has to do with action/keys/dampers only. For the first this is simply not true and you know it. You yourself mentioned string spliceing. For the second I must say learning to grind down a tuning fork is more akin to these kinds of "technical" elements, then it is to the process of tuning a piano. In fact the only thing the skill of calibrateing a tuning fork has to do with tuning a piano is that it is to be used as a reference pitch. Central enough to the process in as far as that goes... but it does not change the fact that the two skills are completely seperate things and as skills in themselves have nothing to do with each other. > > Or the written, which of course is written only. Doesn't it make more sense > to have the testing of pitch setting in the only portion of the 3 tests that > deal with 'sound', i.e., the tuning test? No it does not. And to reduce the examination of the tuning process to simply having to do with "sound" doesnt really hold water. > I fail to see the difficulties you > are coming up with as having any validity, unless I am missing something. And I for my part fail to see the difficulty you have in seeing that these two skills are have nothing in common, as skills. Can you honesly tell me that learning to file a fork so that its frequency matches some visual reference source has anything in common with learning to aurally tune a piano ?? > > A person taking the trouble to take the RPT exams has shown their > willingness to subject themselves to certain standards and expectations. > Those standards and expectations include having appropiate tools to take the > tests and do the actions as required...this includes a properly calibrated > tone device, be it fork or tone bar, or electronic tone generator. This, one more time Jim.. is not at issue here. No one has ever questioned this. How many times to I need to say that I do not advocate removing the requirement as a prerequisite to RPT status. Lets drop the side issues that we are in fact in aggreement about in the first place ok ? > If the > person taking these tests has not made the commitment to provide these things > for themselves should we change other portions of the test and say something > like..."well since you don't have end nippers for cutting center pins we are > gonna put this in another section of the test"? I think not. According to Kent, we essentially do just that. Read his last post. > > It is the "responsibility" of the testee to provide whatever tools they > personally need to take and pass the test, if they choose to abdicate this > "responsibility" then they should not pass the test...period. You seem to be > trying to hoist the tuneing examiners on their own petard by saying that if > they are gonna provide a tone source for the testee anyway that the test is > somehow flawed............not accurate, true, or even very objective in my > opinion. My point is simply that if you are going to require this on the basis of your paragraph immediatly above, then it is meaningless to turn around and just throw the whole thing out the window. > > > As is not uncommon this thread has been blown out of preportion to its true > importance. Calibrating a fork is 'very basic'. Knowing under what conditions > your fork is at A440 or C523.5 is 'very basic'. Setting a pitch accurately is > 'very basic'. I would tend to aggree, yet the importance of being able to do this should not be less because of that, as Dr Colemans last post so finely illustrated. Yet this argument again does not address the issue at hand. > > If a person can not do these 'basic' things then I see no reason why they > should be surprised to fail a relatively straightforward, simple and immently > fair tuning exam. Again you are talking and mixing two seperate things. It is perfectly reasonable to see that a person can have developed a high level of skill in setting a piano to a random pitch fork and tuning the piano to that random pitch, while at the same time having no idea about how to calibrate a pitch fork. Not knowing how to do this later says nothing about the former. > Most people fail this exam the first time through due to > nerves not lack of skill or uncalibrated forks, my opinion. It just ain't > that hard!!!!! Ok... and this relates where to our subject matter ? > > It is PTGs responsibility to provide a decent work and testing environment > along with qualified , helpful testers..... along with prior knowledge of > what will be tested and how it will be scored.....I think we do a very very > good job at fulfilling our responsibility. Jimminees Christmas.... so do I... All praise to these fine people. Nobody is slanting the PTG here. I am just pointing out that the test can be improved upon in this specific way, something that given your passion on the importance of this skill you would think you would be interested in. No need to defend the honour of the PTG Jim.. the organization and its members are of impeccable quality and character. > > It is the testees job to provide themself with the knowledge and mechanical > means to pass the tests. If the testee fail in their responsibility then > that is what they do................. fail.................................. No argument here. We are not talking about this... we are talking about how most effectively to deal with the requirement of pitch source accuracy. > > Jim Bryant (FL) Richard Brekne I.C.P.T.G. N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC