37 steps---delayed response

[David Ilvedson]

Israel,

Obviously, a short email message can't convey your approach and no offense, but I don't 
get how this is a clearer and less potentially misleading conceptual framework.    In your class you would have to list your stages and all that is included in each stage, right?    Certainly things have to be done in the right order.   You don't align hammers to strings without tightening action screws, etc.   Surely, you have class handout?   

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Israel Stein" <custos3 at comcast.net>
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Received: 2/7/2008 7:45:55 PM
Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response  


>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.
>>
>>