Gnashing over"No"

[A440A@AOL.COM]

As Jed Clampett would say, "Hooo Dawg!!"  
    In response to the suggestion of class restriction or division,  a small 
chorus of opposition arises.  Let's look at what we got.... 

   Richard writes: 
>  For the life of me I cant see how the interests of the PTG in this
matter could possibly be better (or more fairly) served then
they are now. If it aint broke... dont fix it.<< 

    I have seen a man with a car that smokes, gets half the milage it should, 
and leaks everywhere but the owner tells me that it needs nothing, cause it 
ain't broke......"Broke or not broke" is an overly simplistic way of looking 
at anything.  
     I am suggesting ways to seek improvement.  If one believes that the 
convention's organization is ideal, then of course, they will seek no change. 
 I, on the other hand, know that I have left more than several "advanced" 
classes feeling like I wasted my time in them because the instructor got 
bogged down with basic questions and never finished his lesson plan.  In 
this, I am not alone.  I believe we should investigate things that may 
improve the current state of affairs. 
    We should also remember that the attendees at the Convention represent a 
small percentage of the Guild, and the Guild membership, itself, is a small 
percentage of  people that are working on pianos.  Why is this so?  Why do 4 
out of 5 Guild members not go to the convention?   I submit this as reason to 
continully investigate what can improve the attraction.  

RicB again: 
>To what end should we move towards more elitist and more non-inclusive 
classes ?

    My original post suggested a dual considerationl; a restriction of 
certain classes and the addition of basic versions of these classes.  The 
idea is to present teachers, (who are usually not professional teachers) with 
a more defined target.  Is there any university or college that doesn't 
require prerequisites for certain advanced courses?  No, of course not. 
Efficiency in teaching demands some grouping of skill levels within the 
classroom.  I am casting about for increased efficiency and the addtion of 
several RPT-only classes needn't cause such alarm over "elitist" directions.  
Colleges don't let freshmen attend post-graduate courses, for good reason.  
 
>>An instructors hotel expenses should be covered, and

then the travel expenses, and then of course why should

exhibitors really not get the same treatment... what real

benefit is it for them to pander up to this small group of

semi-professionals any ways ??? 

    Who are you are calling "semi-professionals".  The majority of RPT's I 
know are full time piano people. 
   Exhibitors are there to advertise and sell their products, why pay them to 
do that?  The logic of that question totally escapes me.  

>  And why should Yamaha and Steinway, or anyone else bother showing up

and treating us all to these receptions..< 

   See above.  The factories know that we are influential in sales.  

 

>I suggest if anyone wants to get paid for their schooling

efforts, then they arrange a tour of localized seminars

around the country and see how much interest you can drum

up. << 

  There are more than a few of us doing just that. Chapters I have visited, 
so far, all seem to feel like they got their money's worth.  

Carl writes:  
>For every "RPT only" class taught I should as an associate get a ten dollar 
reduction on my registration fee. Agreed?< 

   no, not at all.  The knowledge available at the convention should be more 
valuable to the general associates than RPT's.  Perhaps associates should pay 
more, since the learning may be more valuable?   
Carl continues: 
> 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).< 

      I know of nothing that supports this. The RPT's I know seem to be more 
conservative than most, but that may be because of ages involved.  Also, I 
don't think I know how any associate should live their lives better, but I 
often know how they could regulate, tune and voice better.  

Inre the Santa Clara chapter, Carl writes: 
>>RPT's being more experienced than associates may be true in your chapter, 
but not in mine. <<

  That must be a strange set of circumstances.  The RPT's I know are 
generally more experienced than associates. If the associates in this chapter 
are more experienced than the RPT's, then WHY are they not upgrading to RPT 
status?????  Something odd about that.   

Charles writes: 
>>I attended Jim Coleman's "Advanced Aural Tuning", one of only seven
courses in Chicago marked "Advanced".<snip> The
point is that Jim didn't need to restrict his class to RPT's to keep it on
track. << 

  Agreed,  however, Jim is a master teacher, with 40 years of experience 
doing it.  As such, he doens't represent the average.  If all teachers were 
as capable as Jim, there would be no need of this conversation, at all! 

David writes: 
>>    I know many an "Associate" with years of high quality rebuilding 
experience. These "Associates" have the ability to comprehend the "higher 
knowledge classes" you are qualifying only RPT.  I have taught many a class 
(and I would say not very complicated classes) the elementary questions were 
asked by both "Associates" and "RPTs."  In my view the only dumb question is 
one not asked.<< 

     There are always exceptions, and in my experience, associates with years 
of experience are the exception.  However, around here, the associates are 
beginners.  
 
>>By the way I am an "Associate", how are you going to qualify the classes I 
teach??  I will tell you straight out that my classes are not advanced but 
what if they were?  How would you reconcile an "Associate" who teaches an 
advanced class?<< 

   My suggestion wasn't to limit who teaches, but who attends.  The point is, 
if you are teaching a basic class to a room full of people with years of 
experience, they will go to sleep.  If you are teaching an advanced class and 
have a number of beginners that continually ask questions of the most basic 
kind, you will not give the veterans the most bang for their buck(time).   
   
David again: 
>>Oh yes, and about providing an impetus for upgrading,,, oh well never mind, 
I'm just wasting my time. << 

   Why are these associates with "years of experience", (yourself included),  
not becoming RPT's?  If a convention had five,(out of maybe 40) classes that 
were RPT-only, would you just quit the Guild? Would you wail and rage about 
the unfairness of the closed door? Or would you finally decide that the 
effort to become an RPT was worth it?   What does it take?  

   All in all, no matter how good, any convention's offerings can be 
improved, but not without change. Change always causes heat.   My suggestions 
were merely a consideration, and the majority of resistance seems to come 
from those that would be excluded.  To them I say,  If you are so experienced 
it should be a snap.  
     Associate and RPT are NOT the same status and they don't create the same 
impression in this trade.  I know this because I have been both.  If you get 
the chops up and submit yourself to the testing required to become RPT's, you 
will find out the same thing.
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT