Richard writes:
<< I remember a previous discussion you and I had about HT's where we both
seemed very very much aggreed that any tuner should be required to have a
workable knowledge of basic HT principles... or at least a theoretical
familiarity with them. I am curious as to how you can have what are two
apparently conflicting stands on this.>>
Greetings,
I don't believe I have ever said a tech should be "required" to have a
working knowledge of temperaments( my memory is no longer perfect, of
course). I have always pushed the point that being able to offer more than
one way to tune a piano makes a technician more valuable. This allows
initiative to be profitable for those willing to broaden their horizons.
Lawyers, electricians, and plumbers, as well as doctors, are all involved
in questions of peoples life and limb,(or in the case of lawyers, freedom).
There is a compelling reason for the government to protect the public from
those that would endanger them. This doesn't hold for piano tuners,
painters, or many other crafts. If we have a certification board for piano
techs, then we need one for interior designers, car mechanics, window
washers, refrigerator repair, and thousands of other ways people go about
making their living. Anathema!
Often, the cry for government oversight comes from those that fear
cheaper competition. I don't want that "protection", but I do need the
freedom to make my way on my own. That was a primary reason for going into
this field, ( along with the encouragement of Kelly Ward) and I oppose any
move that would take away the autonomy that I believe the vast majority of us
enjoy.
At the bottom of this discussion is the question of where accountability
should
come from. To trust the government to police the field is very different
than having the market do so. I believe that the market is the better judge
of quality than a government appointed board.
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC