> 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.<< Ed, I agree with Richard, the conventions work exceedingly well as they are. Nothing is perfect and there will always be complaints, but the conventions formats fill the bill for the vast majority of the PTG members. Is it perfect? > 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. I have seen many an instructer get bogged down equally by both Associates and RPT's. The Associates do not have a monopoly on elementary questions. I have also seen supposedly knowledgible members stifle classes with their "valuable" and sometimes competitive comments, evaluations and wanderings, apparently in the class not to learn but to show how much they know. The bottom line is it is up to the instructor to handle the class and if the questions get out of hand it is his fault, not the students. > 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. Ed, unlike Universities, the PTG does not have comprehensive enough testing (except perhaps the tuning exam for tuning ability) to evaluate any members higher technical abilities. I find the rating of classes and allowing each member to evaluate his own skill levels very effective and in general the problems you cite miniscule. > > >>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. Yes, and what is your point? Do you actually think only the Associates ask elementary questions? So ALL of the Associates around there 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). That is why the class ratings let each man choose his skill level. Who are the beginners? What about the RPT who is an experienced tuner but has never strung a piano, put in a soundboard, rebuilt an action, felted a lyre, voiced a hammer? Does being a RPT make you a veteran? I know several RPT,s who have passed the tests in record time but have very little experience, would you consider them veterans? > > 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? That is a question we all need to keep asking. What is going on that keeps the RPT,s from climbing in significant numbers. There are a couple of reasons I personally have not yet taken the tuning exam (I have taken the written and technical), the first is I have no interest in doing outside tunings for a living, so it is not a practical priority in my own "real world," it would be a political one. I am strapped as it is with restoration work and volunteering in this organization so the hours of practice it will take for me to be proficient enough to pass the exam is prohibitive, so far. Do you think adding another exclusion for Associates is some kind of incentive? Do you actually think that is what it will 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. Obviously the resistance comes from those who would be excluded, if the idea of having RPT only classes was based upon anything more than status alone, then perhaps it would be worth considering. The truth is the technical abilities of PTG members is in no real way defined by their title. > 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 Ed, I would rewrite your statement to say; Associate and RPT are NOT the same status and they don't create the same impression in the PTG organization. The simple truth is the vast majority of the people in this trade, and I also might add the public, do not have any perception of the status you are talking about. Let me be perfectly clear as to my position on the PTG, it is a much needed organization that does, at least for me, an incredible job. I try to give back as much as I can, but if you think I will change my position on these issues just because I have become a RPT you are dead wrong, status for status sake alone will never interest me. We need realistic testing over a wide variety of tuning, technical and rebuilding skills to be able to actually evaluate a persons status in this trade. A seemingly insurmountable task I know but as I see it the only way. David Koelzer Vintage Pianos DFW
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC