David and list,
I feel compelled to respond and I'll do my best to stay positive.
First, I think it admirable that you and perhaps most others are
interested in furthering their skill levels. I think that the present
classifications fall short only in that I have seen not a few examples
of RPT work that was not up to the "minimum standard" that you are
striving for. If more classifications are introduced into the fray, will
the public know any more about them than they know about the RPT
designation now?
I have been an associate member since joining the guild in '84. I
take my work seriously and do continue to try and improve my skills as a
tuner/technician. I have seen no real need to pursue upgrading to RPT
just so that I can have or employ the right to use three letters after
my name. It is enough for me that I have the information and skills and
know how to use them. The vast majority of my client base has no clue
what the designation RPT is much less what the PTG is.
Regarding the what if statements in general; I feel that your
intentions are good and in an ideal world the implementation of them
would be a worthy pursuit. The world we now live in has as a basic fact
of life that some , even those who hold high qualifications, do sloppy
work. Forcing upon someone a mentor or sponsor would not guarantee
accountability in this profession any more than it does in any other.
Ever been to a bad doctor, lawyer, dentist, mechanic lately?
Summarily, I feel that you can't change a persons attitude toward
the quality of work they choose to do simply by changing their
designation in a virtually unknown (to the public) organization. I
support the guild in the theory of furthering the education of it's
membership that actually cares to learn. This like any other profession
will have it's stragglers. Some of them may even be able to pass the
test but it will not guarantee any level of competence or workmanship in
the field. I hope that I did not ruffle too many feathers here. I have
the highest respect for you all.
Sincerely,
Greg Newell
P.S. flame suit ready ... if you must.
David Renaud wrote:
> Warning:
>
> The following IS NOT meant to criticize Associates
> in any way. I know some associates that are very
> good tuners, and some that are very good technicians.
> The following post is meant to address a specific problem.
> In fact.... I believe serious associate members suffer
> because of a few. The suggestions addressing the
> following problem would improve their stature, respect, accelerate
> training,
> encourage more to become RPT's, and raise standards.
>
> Problem???
> ------------------------------------------
> I show up to tune Yamaha grand.
> Client complains about last technician.
> Client just spent money on regulation.
> Piano desperately requires regulation,
> voicing, seating strings........very funky sound,
> irregular touch, potentially very nice instrument.
> I do not ask who it was, thinking it unprofessional,
> but suggest that hiring an RPT, of which there
> are "X" number in our region, might help him feel
> more secure that a min. standard was being given.
>
> Reply: " I did hire an RPT" ......and the name.
>
> The Associate had promoted himself as a member
> of the guild, without info. concerning designation,
> according to client.
>
> This type of misunderstanding hurts RPT's everywhere.
> Shoddy work by an Associate hurts the reputation of
> Associates everywhere.
>
> I'm sure others can share stories, but we don't
> need to hear them, lets not start beating on all Associates,
> on account of a few stories and start generalizing.
> I want this thread to expand on positive suggestions.
>
> General Observations relating to this.
> ------------------------------------------
> Please correct me if I am wrong about these statements.
>
> Absolutely anyone can show up, pay money,
> and be an Associate. As I told the client, you
> pay and become an Associate tomorrow.
>
> The new Associate may or may not be interested
> in future training, there are no obligations.
>
> It is difficult to discipline, chastise by committe,
> or by board, because any problem then becomes a
> public affair. Has to be very serious to do anything.
> (One on one would be much easier)
>
> Note: I was content as an associate for many years,
> before moving on. RPT's in the local were very
> patient, much credit to them.
>
> Suggestions....Thoughts----What ifs
> ------------------------------------------
>
> What if,
> there was an informal interview,
> and written test, where the cadidate
> had to demonstrate, some basic abilities
> just to prove they have taken some initiative
> in the field, and have begun the journey.
> Very basic.
>
> What if,
> There was a min. number of meetings
> an associate has to attend per year to
> maintain the status.
>
> What if,
> an RPT sponsor is required, making
> one on one private follow up,
> and encouragement easier.If this
> is formalized, more interaction would happen
> naturally. Perhaps the sponsor could oversee
> the first few regulations, hammer jobs....etc.
> inasmuch as directing the associate to past journal
> articles, inspecting first jobs, and having
> authority to request one of those jobs
> should be redone if requiring improvement..
>
> Benifits:
>
> If these or similar practices were implemented,
> Associate would mean more then it does now
> , the many serious associates out there
> could guarantee their clients more accountability,
> guarantee the designation means they definitely are
> involved in ongoing training, and be able to involve
> a specific third party overseer if they want to.
> Some clients might like knowing the job is to
> be inspected by a third party. Some associates
> may be attracted to the accelerate training
> opportunities this might present.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> One way of implementing this, that I have never
> yet heard suggested, would be to leave designations
> exactly as they are, but add a third category for
> Associates that will make a minimum commitment
> to attendance at training, accountability, sponsorship,
> informal testing.
> Most associates could move up their designation
> immediately just by formally making the commitment,
> and having a sponsor. Perhaps then remaining Associates
> could no longer advertise as members, but this new
> category could, and it would mean more. The
> associates that are left might be piano dealers,
> or others with an interest in pianos, but have
> reasons not to persure the service angle as a
> professional career for themselves personally.
> A hobbyist might remain in this designation,
> because they want to support the orginization,
> participate in some meetings, but do not wish
> to becoming a professional piano technician.
> Their designation would no longer be lumped in
> with those wanting to move ahead.
>
> The people that would benifit the most from this
> would be serious associates. It would encourage
> RPT's to become more involved with them, and
> give the position more stature.
>
> Once again: You may flame me for my ideas,
> should they deserve criticism on their own grounds,
> but lets stay away from generalizations. Other
> ideas on how to deal with the problem as I describe
> it.
>
> Sincerely
> Dave Renaud
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC