>...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... Dear Richard, List, Yes, I did mean to say 'pet peeve', and I wasn't attempting to be polite or impolite. Since I have been unable to distinguish your sincerity in this matter, I posted what I did with full knowledge and no malice. If it got your attention, than I did no less than how you managed to get mine. No offense meant now, Richard, prior or following. >...There was indeed an expressed difference of opinion >with another list member I have personally a lot of respect for... but >that was >all. Thank you for this clarification. >...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. I didn't say that. I said, and I quote, "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." I make no implications of anything other than that single fact. It would be obvious that if someone passes a test, they must know something more than someone who fails a test. >Further you are in error about the temperament only area of the piano. Yes, you are correct. I am in error and appreciate you bringing that to my attention, and I apologize to the Pianotech List for the misinformation. The following is more accurate. Of the eight areas tested in the PTG tuning exam there are three that require aural activity only with a qualifier on item 1: 1) tuning A440 (can use an electronic fork) 2) & 3) temperament range (octave of choice C3-B4) and mid-range (C3-B4). The other five areas: bass, treble, high treble, stability and unisons, can be done any way the examinee sees fit. >>...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 You can take exception, but that does not negate this line of reasoning. How an individual manages to accomplish these eight tasks does not require them to explain it or prove their method of madness to anyone, only to accomplish it by an 80% margin. >...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. Which is, the end result. >...Since your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong as well. Just saying so doesn't make it so. If you would care to elucidate how any premise that I have mentioned is wrong, please do so. I have shown my ability and willingness to you, and to this list, to submit in the light of evidences presented that are indeed factual. >...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 ? All these comments, of course, are self-evident, and you'll find no disagreement from me regarding them. As I originally indicated, I posted what I did because I felt it was of a constructive nature and offered a new perspective. Otherwise, I would not have commented at all, as I have no personal interest in your criteria of other people's piano practices that may fall outside the domain of what you might deem acceptable. That was resolved within me earlier because of threads that occurred on Pianotech previously on subjects of a similar nature, and I accept, and still do, your position on such things. Sincerely, Keith McGavern Registered Piano Technician Oklahoma Chapter 731 Piano Technicians Guild USA
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC