Jim: Let me think on this a little and then I'll get back to you in a few days. Richard On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jim Busby wrote: > Richard, > > > > I’m helping develop the curriculum and agree with all your points > below, but could you explain/elaborate on #2 below “CAUT classes/ > materials need to be experience based”? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jim Busby > > > > > > From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf > Of rwest1 at unl.edu > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:44 AM > To: College and University Technicians > Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of > Michigan,Ann Arbor) > > > > I would like to weight in with a few thoughts. > > > > 1. Education--CAUT has been doing well in recent years to develop > classes and I believe that should be the highest priority, not only > classes at the convention, but classes at every regional seminar > and at local institutions. The classes should become more or less > standardized and repeated annually. What CAUT should be asking > is: What core knowledge can be taught across the country, not just > at the annual convention. Nationwide distribution/availabiltiy > should be paramount since many technicians will not be able to > attend the convention annually or even regularly. > > > > 2. Experience--How does anyone get the experience to do advanced > work? Unfortunately most of that comes from seat-of-the-pants, in- > the-field work. When I started at the University of Nebraska, I > had been a piano technician for only 3 years with practically no > experience in voicing, and no knowledge of harpsichords or other > historical keyboards. I learned on the job. That first 5 years > was hell. The 25 years after that were great. CAUT classes/ > materials need to be experience based. We already have books that > provide general knowledge. > > > > 3. The Guidelines--One goal of the Guidelines was to inform > administrators about what the job includes so that they would > appreciate the intricacies of the job and the pay scale would > rise. This hasn't really happened; our document is seen as self > serving. Therefore the main value of the document is to inform > technicians about what they're getting into when they apply for > university jobs. CAUT education needs to continue to inform all > technicians about the nature of university work so that when the > interview comes around, they'll be able to differentiate what we do > from what all other staff people do. You can't expect a higher pay > scale when your immediate supervisor may be a staff person that > isn't making as much as what you're asking. Administrators don't > see us as any different than a stage manager, administrative > assistant, or, yes, a specialized custodian. Until that perception > changes, or until applicants refuse jobs that don't pay wages that > are competitive with private concert work, then university techs > will continue to be underpaid. > > > > 4. Testing--Until RPT is an accepted nationwide standard, I would > put testing at a low priority. If testing is the current > priority, the cart is being put in front of the horse. The > problems we have with RPT testing are IMHO greater for a CAUT > standard. The test would have to provide a better way to address > testing problems like nationwide availability, qualified and > experience examiners, testing that is fair and objective (using > ETD's when ETD's can be problematic as repeatably accurate), length > of time to give the test, using volunteers vs developing paid > examiners, etc. A complete tuning, for example, sounds good as a > goal for a testing standard, but implementing that seems to hark > back to the good ole boy days. > > > > Richard West, retired (more or less) > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Fred Sturm wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote: > > > > > Just a thought on the tuning test idea. The present RPT test is to > my mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up and execute. > Nor do I believe it should be necessary to have it such. A tuning > standard can be easily defined in terms of what decided upon sets > of coincident partials behave like when tuned. As a banal example, > one could simple ask the examinee to execute a bass tuning from say > D3 downwards in terms of exact 6:3 types. This is extremely easy to > measure afterwards and requires no prior set up... outside of a > reasonably detuned instrument. It doesn't take much imagination to > see how this principle could be applied to encompass a real tuning > that is quite acceptable in real life terms. One added benefit of > this approach would be that the examinee would know ahead of time > exactly what is expected of him/her. This is far from always the > case in the present system. I would think it would be > nonproblematic to extend this approach to a very demanding test. > > > > Cheers > > RicB > > > > Hi Ric, > > This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for > a caut tuning test. We analyze a sequence of coincident partials > for consistency. It could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you > mention. And there are many other possibilities as well. Our > initial plan is to look at double and triple octaves, the 4:1 and > 8:1 partial matches, and see how evenly they progress. If something > is out of kilter, it should show up pretty clearly. > > But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask > the examinee to do anything but tune "your best concert tuning," > explaining that we will look particularly for crystal clear and > rock solid unisons, and for evenness of stretch in the outer > octaves. IOW, no artificial constraints, just do what you normally > do in that circumstance. > > I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 > cents tolerance after pounding is pretty demanding, though well > within what I hope most of us are producing on a day to day basis. > Beta testing will reveal whether or not this is so, and whether we > might need to fudge a little to, say, 0.6 or something, and > possibly more in high treble where ETD resolution can be a problem. > > How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it > is at least an intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. On > the face of it, it seems like it should work like a charm, but > proof is in the pudding. > > Regards, > > Fred Sturm > > University of New Mexico > > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071017/0f631b8a/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC