While I think it's admirable to suggest that we should be focusing beyond the "credentials", I believe credentials to be important in fully establishing a profession. Most of us wouldn't visit a non-credentialed Doctor, Lawyer, etc.. And, I think once we accept the necessity of credentialing, it's pretty clear that most of us who continue to pursue our education at Conventions, seminars, etc., really are focused on so much more than the RPT credential, and in a very healthy, positive, holistic way, as you mentioned. I think the credential is a good thing for the organization as a whole, and ultimately, it will be recognized much more widely than now. We're working on doing just that as an organization and I think it's positive for us all. William R. Monroe On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, <sytekdavies at btc-bci.com> wrote: > Well I, for one, as a non member of PTG, hold the standards and methods of > the organization in very high esteem. I support the Journal et al. My > personal desire would be to see the organization move (evolve or DEvolve, > that is the question and probably open to a variety of opinions) away from > the big emphasis on testing/credentials. > But yes, the personal challenge of becoming excellent that PTG issues to > all techs elevates the trade. And some of the best learning experiences I've > had I owe to senior PTG members. > Perhaps a third catagory for "supporting professionals" would bring in new > members drawn solely to the obvious educational benefits...just my > respectful musings... > Rick Davies (RPD at Forums) www.actionpianoservice.com > > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect > ------------------------------ > *From: * William Monroe <bill at a440piano.net> > *Sender: * pianotech-bounces at ptg.org > *Date: *Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:56:10 -0600 > *To: *<pianotech at ptg.org> > *ReplyTo: * pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject: *Re: [pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion > > It seems to me that the "point" of the RPT tuning exam is (at least one > point) is allowing candidates to demonstrate that they have a certain level > of control over where they place *anthing* on the piano. It may not > represent where any one of us might prefer to tune the entire piano when all > is said and done. It does however, set forth an objective criteria, and > asks each candidate to demonstrate how accurately they can produce the > result that is being asked for. Can you tune a 4:2 octave, etc.? Can you > control your tunings enough to get clean single octaves in the high treble. > The test asks each of us to be able to demonstrate particular skills sets > that are necessary for the tuning process. > > I don't understand why the standards are considered meaningless by any. It > seems very reasonable to me, very objective, to be asked to demonstrate that > you indeed have a level of control that allows you to execute to achieve a > particular standard, to achieve a particular result, for testing purposes. > When it comes down to it, that's all we can really judge anyway. When we > start talking of degrees of stretch for octaves, width of fifths and > fourths, how to handle the breaks so they sound best, subjectivity is the > rule, and would be, I think, unquantifiable. > > William R. Monroe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110201/8568459a/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC