37 steps---delayed response

[Israel Stein]

At 05:29 PM 2/7/2008, Barbara Richmond wrote:

>What is the clearer and less potentially misleading conceptual framework?
>
>Barbara Richmond

Well, "Circles of Refinement" is a definite improvement - it more 
accurately indicates what is actually going on. But my own approach 
is based on the idea that what we call "Regulation" consists of 
several discreet stages that are quite different from each other, 
each requiring different approaches and emphases. The first stage 
consists of aligning the action to the piano - can you think of where 
the action interfaces with the piano and what points of regulation 
this stage entails? Once you have that, there is internal alignment 
of the action parts. Not much discretion here. Then - if the action 
is way out of regulation (as after being rebuilt or after decades of 
hard use and neglect) it needs to be roughed in - same idea as a 
pitch raise in tuning. Here the chief consideration is speed - not 
accuracy - and being able to eyeball plausible approximations of 
"specs" is a very useful skill. Now you have a basis on which to 
establish the basic relationships within the wippen (in the grand) 
and between keydip and strike distance to arrive at the regulation 
specs for this action and refine the regulation through that circular 
process that we keep talking about. At this stage there is lots of 
discretion as to what functions you will favor at the expense of what 
other functions. And once you have achieved what you wish here, you 
can deal with what I call peripherals - dampers, pedals, etc. The 
order of steps within each stage is determined empirically - and not 
assigned any cumulative number (like "37") or ordinal value (like 
"first, second") since in practice it will vary depending on 
circumstances and preferences.

Might look abstruse in print (it's a quick synopsis aimed at 
experienced pros - I put it quite differently for students) - but 
with an action or an action model in front of them students grasp the 
relationships between regulation points / functions and basic 
concepts of regulation a lot faster when viewing them within discreet 
and self-contained segments of the process rather than as part of a 
long sequence of "steps". I have been using this conceptual framework 
for 5 years now, in the context of PTG Convention classes and chapter 
presentations - and it works. I believe that it is a more easily 
manageable perspective for the student who has trouble understanding 
how the functions and regulation points relate to each other - and I 
have plenty feedback from classes and post-exam conversations to support this.

Israel Stein

>----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Stein" <custos3 at comcast.net>
>To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
>Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:28 PM
>Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response
>
>
>>Likewise, there is a lot clearer and less potentially misleading 
>>conceptual framework with which to present "Regulation" than "X 
>>steps". And if you spend some time analyzing screwed up regulations 
>>with students and listen to what misconceptions they came out with 
>>from some of these "step-by-step" teaching methods you might a 
>>clearer picture of  what I am talking about...
>>Israel Stein.
>
>