Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)

[Carl Meyer]

Dear Avery (curious) Todd

I appreciate your curiosity, but I'm told that it's killed a lot of cats.

You've confirmed my belief that RPT's generally tend to be Liberals (I know how you should live you're life better than you do.)  Associates tend to be conservatives (Don't bug me, I want to peel my own banana).

So yes, I can learn from other classes.  But if I can't go to the classes I want, why should I go?  If your intent is to reduce the attendance at natl. I see your point.  Perhaps the support associates have given to the PTG in spite of the few who continue to denigrate us should come to a screeching halt.  Your collapse would be interesting to behold.  Those few could learn from the patience and longsuffering of most Associates.  

RPT's being more experienced than associates may be true in your chapter, but not in mine.  I'll admit to being biased, but I do consider experience along with things like ethics, emotional stability, personality, attendance at meetings, willing to participate and so forth.  Some who have 20 years experience really have one year experience 20 times.  I don't learn much from them.

Don't take this personally.  Your post just gave me an excuse to sound off.

Regards

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avery Todd" <avery@ev1.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)


> Carl,
> 
> And there are no other classes from which you could learn? Just curious.
> 
> Avery
> 
> At 01:33 PM 07/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >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).
> 
> 
>