Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)

[Carl Meyer]

So, Ed, For every "RPT only" class taught I should as an associate get a ten dollar reduction on my registration fee.
Agreed?

Carl Meyer  Assoc. PTG
Santa Clara, California
cmpiano@attbi.com 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <A440A@AOL.COM>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)


> Del writes: 
> >Personally, I would like to see our conventions change some and focus more
> >directly on those who are a bit more experienced- .
>     
>    I agree. 
> 
> >This is the direction our organization has decided our conventions should
> >take and as long as that is the case we're pretty much stuck with the way
> >things are. 
> 
>    I see a circular logic there, and would hope that "we" aren't "stuck" 
> unless we want to be.  Changes come in pairs, so a task is waiting for those 
> that want a different style of convention, (see below)
> 
> >There is a strong motivation for leaving things relatively
> >alone--the status quo does work for quite a few people. 
> 
> Ain't that the truth!  However, improvement requires change, so the status 
> quo is actually regressive, and that is something that is worth looking at. 
> 
> > Changes are always uncertain. 
> 
>   yes, thank goodness.  
>  
> >And we know from experience that there will be enough folks
> >willing to devote substantial portions of their time and energy throughout
> >the year to provide a reasonably high level of technical content even if
> >they are not compensated appropriately. 
> 
>   Agreed, but with a question.  Are the conventions as valuable as possible?  
> I personally know of two instructors that presented work-changing classes 
> (for me), that no longer teach because of the cost.  There are probably 
> others, as well.  What quality are we missing because of this? 
>     There are also more than a few teachers at the convention that teach how 
> to use their products, which is well and good, since they can profit in more 
> ways than Guild compensation.  However,  what about those instructors who can 
> bring knowledge that is of great benifit to the members but have nothing to 
> sell?  
>     Without some tangible suggestions, not much will happen, so here is mine: 
>  Since it is impossible to teach a topic at a level the beginner will grasp 
> without boring the experienced veteran, there should be some classes 
> restricted to "RPT-only".   This will allow an instructor to target their 
> audience.  I think a higher quality of presentation could be had .  It will 
> also provide some impetus to the associates to upgrade their status.  
> Possibly there could be associate versions of these same classes, taught by 
> the same instructor but aimed at the tech with less background.  
>       I know that there are ratings in place to describe the classes, but 
> that doesn't stop the newbie from asking elementary questions in what is 
> supposed to be an advanced class, thus dragging the whole room backwards.  A 
> class that is more equal ,(what a political word for me to use...) allows the 
> instructor to go deeper into the specific area, without needing to give all 
> that background.  A class on voicing the hammer that I attended several years 
> ago comes to mind. This was a 90 minute class.  The first 50 minutes of the 
> period was spent on filing hammers and leveling strings!!!  The next 30 
> minutes was spent on the regulation required,  then there was 10 minutes 
> spent on altering the hammer to alter the tone.  Beginners grasped the first 
> half while the veterans slept, then they were lost in the last half while the 
> veterans debated the various ways to regulate. <sigh> 
>    
>      Maybe it could be that we would allow the associates to "audit" the 
> course, but only the RPT's could take part in the discussion in these 
> restricted classes.  Yes, it will mean denying somebody's wishes, but without 
> some kind of discipline, there is no way to focus the class. 
>     Teaching is a specific skill in its own right,  just because someone has 
> done a beautiful job of rebuilding for 40 years doesn't mean that they can 
> transfer that knowledge to another, and having classes of mixed abilities 
> just makes the job that much harder.  I think it would be easier to organize 
> the classes than it would be to train technicians to be teachers.  
> Regards, 
> Ed Foote RPT 
> (no, I got no flame suit,  I just sit there and smoke).