Accu-Tune :( [revisited]

[Richard Brekne]

kam544@flash.net wrote:

> >... as long as significant numbers amoung our
> >ranks hang on to concepts like "Its the end result that counts...
> >not whether the tooner has a brain"...
> >... and hey... who was it who said not so long ago...
> >--
> >Richard Brekne
> >RPT, N.P.T.F.
>
> Dear Richard, List,
>
> Your continued comments along these lines have bothered me ever since you
> reopened this pet peeve of yours, as well as your indirect reference
> concerning someone else's judgment.  I wanted to respond, but at the time I
> had nothing constructive to offer of value

Surely you didnt mean to say "pet peeve"... that isnt really a very polite way
of describing someones sincere opinions and thoughts on a matter that is of
some import to us all.  And I am sorry you saw some reference to someone elses
judgment. There was none. There was indeed an expressed difference of opinion
with another list member I have personally a lot of respect for... but that was
all.

> The PTG tuning exam does not require an examine to support how they arrive
> at the ability to pass, only that it be passed by 80% or better in all its
> relevant areas.  And there is only one area where an aural requirement is
> given, that being a temperament.

If you are saying by this that the PTG examination makes no attempt to verify
the examinees aural skills or theoretical knowledge, then you are in error.
Further you are in error about the temperament only area of the piano.

> And as you well know, there is no one in the room during the actual exam,
> so no one is judging the examine as to approach or method of madness in
> producing a passing percentage.  The bottom line is whether the examine
> does, in fact, pass by that 80% in all the areas.  This is what's known as
> an end result

You will excuse me if I take exception to this line of reasoning. No offense
meant now Keith. The very fact that aural skills are required demonstrates
this. Of course one has to pass... to pass.  Scores are simply an indication of
how successfully  the examinee can desmonstrate what is required of him/ her.

>
> In light of this information, how do you reconcile embracing the title of
> Registered Piano Technician (RPT), when in fact the PTG tuning exam does
> not require such evidences as you propose constitute a real piano tuner?

Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong as well.

> And how do you reconcile being associated among the ranks of other RPTs',
> of which you willingly became a member by taking the examinations, with the
> full knowledge that this association did not in the past require, and does
> not now require, all the others who currently bear the title RPT, and those
> to come who will bear that title, to demonstrate what you deem so vital for
> credibility?
>

Keith...in the first place... nowhere in these previous posts was there any
mention of the RPT exam. I would personally consider the subject matter of the
validity of the RPT exam or lack there of as a seperate thread. Further I had
no idea ahead of time what the exam specifically required of me. Thirdly I am
proud to associate myself with such a fine organization. That doesnt mean I
have to be in aggreement with everyone... We do have the right to our own
veiwpoints now dont we ?

>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Keith McGavern
> Registered Piano Technician
> Oklahoma Chapter 731
> Piano Technicians Guild
> USA

Sincerely

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no