Wow. What a great post. Thank you so much, Israel, for your time, love and commitment. Good job. David Andersen On Aug 5, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Israel Stein wrote: > To the list, > > I have been watching this discussion with a great deal of interest, > because I have been involved in aspects of technician training > through my work with the PTG in various capacities for many years > now - first on the chapter level, then on the national - and > perhaps international - scene. For years now I have been observing > technical skills attained through various learning paths as > demonstrated on PTG exams and working on developing methodologies > to fill the voids left by the typical trial-and-error or > correspondence school training that most practitioners in our field > bring to the profession. So to the extent that I can, I'll share my > observations. > > My own background is an echo of what others have posted. After a > career in commercial photography fizzled out, I got interested in > piano technology (after having built a kit harpsichord - but > that's a different story.) First I tried to tech myself using the > Reblitz book - after all, how difficult could it be? I found that > book quite flawed - there were a bunch of processes and procedures > described, but no overall understanding of why one was supposed to > do things this way or that way and no good understanding of how to > judge the results (most obviously of a regulation, but in other > contexts too). It was sort of flying blind - you follow the recipe > and trust that the result is correct, because Arthur says so... I > then signed up for a correspondence course - not Randy Potter's - > and found the same problem. I was doing assignments, learning > nomenclature and processes, but the piano I was working on didn't > seem to be improving much... And I had no idea what my tuning > sounded like, objectively speaking - even though I counted beats > until I couldn't hear them any more... Then life intervened... > > Some years later I got an opportunity to move to Boston and attend > the North Bennet Street School for 2 years, and I found out that my > initial judgements about the Reblitz and the correspondence course > were basically correct. The processes and procedures being taught > in those media were hit-or-miss at best and plain incorrect in some > cases. I did have a leg up on the other students in terms of > nomenclature - quite a bit of money spent on something I would have > learned anyway... I did come away from the correspondence course > with a nice three-ring binder which still holds some of my NBSS > notes... > > At NBSS I got a good background on which to build a comprehensive > approach to piano technology - both the tuning and technical end of > it. And passed the RPT exams on the first try without a hitch > before completing my first year at school. And after a bit of > struggling (I am not very good at promoting myself) I have been > able to make a decent living at it, build two businesses - one in > Boston and after moving another one in California - worked > Steinway C & A in Boston a couple years after finishing school, and > now also hold a half-time University job which gets me health > insurance and retirement benefits - besides running a very busy > practice. > > I will concentrate on the technical end - because that's where my > testing and educational efforts have been concentrated. > > Without a good conceptual grasp of the nature of the technology on > which the piano is based, the properties of the materials from > which it is built or which are used to service it, the goals of the > procedures one undertakes and the various possible pitfalls of > various approaches one is a very incomplete practitioner. To be > fair, some self-trained or correspondence-school trained > technicians develop this knowledge on their own after years of > experience. Many do not. And most don't have nearly enough of it in > the first years of their practice - resulting in misdiagnosed > conditions, misapplied remedies, misregulated instruments and much > wasted time. And clients being charged for - what? > > In a school environment one gets to internalize all of that > theoretical and intellectual underpinning as one is learning the > tools and the procedures. And in a school environment one gets > immediate feedback on the quality of one's learning. But more on > how important that can be later. > > Soon after graduating from NBSS I got involved in PTG technical > testing - a lot more heavily than I intended to. It was a funny > story. This was the time the PTG was introducing the current > Technical Exam (late 80s) and our committee chair couldn't make > heads or tails of it - since it is based on an empirical approach > to regulation rather than just plugging in specs from a book. > Apparently a novel concept for this grandfathered RTT. So he dumped > the whole thing in my lap. I went to a convention and learned how > to run the exam from an experienced examiner... > > Boston was (still is) a very busy testing venue - so I got a good > overview of the skills that technicians of various backgrounds > bring to the trade. Later on I went on to head the Technical > Testing program in the San Francisco Bay area (we have an Exam > Board that test all comers - but basically covers the territory of > 4 chapters), and for the past several years the technical testing > at the PTG Annual Conventions. In addition, I have organized and > taught various Exam Preparatory classes (that's actually a major > con I have been perpetrating on the students - they are actually > "basic skills" classes, but nobody would sign up if I called them > that - pride...) So after a good 100+ exams administered and some > dozens of classes taught I can say without equivocation that many, > many candidates and students with a correspondence school, self- > taught or mentoring backgrounds are still quite deficient in basic > skills. > > To be perfectly fair, this is not entirely the fault of the > correspondence courses, or the learning materials. Where there is > no supervised practice and immediate feedback on technique and > methodology, the opportunities for misunderstanding and > miscomprehension are endless. I have seen this in classes I have > taught and in some post-exam interviews - where I am pretty darn > sure that what the candidate or student is doing is not what the > author or instructor meant to convey. And sometimes it is a matter > of a poor grip on a tool, or an unclear sequence of actions, or a > misapplied technique due to poor understanding of the conceptual > framework on which the technique is based, or any one of dozens of > misconceptions and misapplications that are easily corrected in > the course of continuous face-to-face instruction at a residential > program that are simply not addressed or not even noticed in > correspondence courses or self-teaching. And all materials with > which I am familiar - and that includes those published by the PTG > (which I have been for the past 3 years attempting to revise) > contain ineffective techniques and flawed approaches. They are all > based on learning recipes for procedures - and not on understanding > the underlying concepts, without which practitioners have no way of > assessing their own work or dealing with unexpected issues. To be > fair, some of the PTG materials do mention the importance of > learning the conceptual framework - but then expect the student to > extrapolate that from the procedures. Not effective... I hope to do > something about it fairly soon - if I can find the time. > > With mentoring the problem is different. All depends on the quality > of the mentors. In the past couple of years I tested several > candidates from a specific location all of whom were taught by a > mentor who appears to be superb. They displayed superior skills. > Other mentors seem to produce poorer results - and in some cases > even mislead their students with poor advice. How a beginner in the > field is supposed to judge the quality of a prospective mentor is > an insoluble problem... > > Over the years I have tested and taught candidates from NBSS, from > the Western Ontario program, from Israel, South Africa, Japan, > China, Spain, Norway. And many US-trained candidates who have not > had formal residential training. Two patterns jump right out: > > 1. Foreign trained technicians do a whole lot better than US > trained technicians. > 2. NBSS and Western Ontario graduates in general do better than > those without formal residential training. > > I don't know how those foreign technicians were trained, but the > results speak for themselves. And the graduates of the formal > training programs in general display a much more confident and > methodical approach to the exam tasks than many (not all) of the > others. I have on occasion come across students and candidates > without formal training who displayed superior skills after a > fairly short period of self-teaching. My conversations with them > usually reveal that they have undertaken a very disciplined and > methodical approach to training themselves - with substantial daily > practice sessions, not going on to the next task until having > mastered the previous one, a relationship with several mentors who > could serve as a check on their progress, etc. In other words, they > invested the time and effort in themselves to learn the craft > properly - often at the sacrifice of some income. My conclusion is > that a great many people who try to teach themselves - whether > through correspondence courses or other literature - simply do not > spend enough time or spend the time effectively enough to master > the skills. And some who do learn a number of skills never develop > the underlying conceptual framework on which effective practice > must necessarily be based. > > Disclaimer: Before Paul Revenko-Jones starts squawking, I must say > that - to my knowledge - I never tested a graduate of the Chicago > School of Piano Technology, so I can't speak to the quality of > their graduates' skills. > > OK, now to speak of some attempts at remediation. The PTG and some > of its chapters do offer a great many classes by various superb > instructors at conventions and special events, some sponsored by > manufacturers and suppliers - others non-sponsored. Eric Schandall, > Don Mannino, Rick Baldassin, Richard Davenport, David Betts, Roger > Jolly are just some of the names that come to mind - people who try > to provide that conceptual framework which is so often missing. The > problem here is two-fold - information overload and lack of follow- > up. It is just very difficult for the average student to completely > understand and assimilate all that information in the course of a > continuous two-period session. Or whatever time frame is devoted to > it at a single event. And by the time people get home and actually > get to try it out for real - some of it has already gotten fuzzy. > This is where a residential program would provide some corrective > feedback, follow-up, reinforcement - whatever. And the information > would be presented - to begin with - in more manageable portions, > with opportunities for follow up in between - not thrown at you > all at once, because of the limited time-span of the convention or > event. Again, some people are able to come away from some of those > convention classes with that lightbulb lit up and thing falling > into place - but many do not. As a result I have heard a lot of > misconceptions and bowdlerized ideas based on what was taught in > those classes - sometimes even misquoting the source. > > Just a simple example. Not too long ago someone vehemently > disagreed with something I tried to teach, stating that "So-and-so > in such and such a class said that letoff affects nothing, so how > can you say that aftertouch can be changed by altering letoff" (let > me say that I don't recommend this - I just used it as an example > of relationships within the action) . Of course, "so-and-so" did > not say that "letoff affects nothing". What he said was "nothing > affects letoff" (which is true - letoff control is mounted on a > rigid rail that never moves with relation to the string no matter > what else you do to the action in the course of regulation short of > altering action geometry) Which tells me that the person in > question misremembered what "so-and-so" taught, and did not truly > assimilate the basic relationships within the action that "so-and- > so" was trying to convey - just came away with a surface meaning of > the words. And I run across stuff like that all the time - in > classes and in post-exam interviews. > > For the past few years several of us in the PTG have been trying to > develop a methodology to convey this knowledge in a more effective > manner. We break the instruction up into more manageable chunks > that can be more easily assimilated by students and combine it > either with exercises on jigs and models (for the less experienced > students) or with actual performance of the procedures - under the > supervision of experienced instructors. Some of these classes have > been offered at PTG Annual, State and Regional Conventions, some at > chapter-sponsored events. I am in the middle of a series of all-day > Sunday classes (one per month, three months) for the San Francisco > Chapter. They do work, if the students go home and practice what > they learn at the classes. Because we do spend a lot of time with > each student on an individual basis - making sure that they > understand and follow what they have been taught by correcting any > observed technical flaws and missteps on the spot. So these classes > require a continuous commitment - and we do have people who keep > coming back and eventually > develop good skills. And they are very resource and labor- > intensive, and reach a minuscule number of people - compared to the > need. And the nominal fees which we charge for these are typically > supplemented by PTG or Chapter subsidies. In effect, the many pay > to teach the few. At some point aspirants to this profession are > going to have to realize that effective instruction requires time > and resources - and it can't all be provided by experienced > technicians at their own expense... > > I do have to say that some of the discussions on the PTG lists > (Pianotech, CAUT, ExamPrep) cover some topics quite > comprehensively. And provide some of that conceptual framework that > I keep mentioning. And often debunk some misconceptions rife in the > trade. But again, this is short of personal instruction, where one > look, a few words and a simple demonstration can correct many > errors and increase speed or effectiveness. And reaches relatively > few people. And is episodic in nature. But every little bit helps. > > Before someone starts yelping that the PTG Exams are > "unrealistically difficult" and "do not reflect real conditions" so > how can I judge effectiveness of instruction base on them - that's > nonsense. A well trained, confident technician can cope with any > situation, as long as he or she understands the basic principles of > the instrument and the craft, has a good grasp of tools and > techniques and has developed fluency through repetition. I have > seen this again and again. Most recently, a candidate who admitted > to me beforehand that he never works on vertical pianos and has > never in his life replaced a vertical shank did quite well on the > exam, just using his conceptual grasp of the issues involved and > overall technical skills. (He did have a brief demonstration of > vertical shank replacement the day before the exam). And I have > seen similar occurrences before. And the time allowances on the > exams are quite generous - again judging by the performance of well- > trained technicians (no matter how they were trained) who usually > complete the task - and quite well - with about 10-20% of the time > still left on the clock. I have seen technicians who accidentally > broke a part, repaired it and still completed the task with a good > score within the time allowed. If one is fluent in one's craft and > has a good understanding of underlying issues, one can operate > under all kinds of pressure and unfamiliar circumstances. If one's > training is too narrowly focused merely on following a series of > "steps" in specific situations, that is not professional-level > training, and people whose training does not go beyond that do have > trouble under pressure. And pressure on specific jobs or from > specific clients is just as much a part of the profession as > anything else... > > OK, sorry for some of the rambling here, but I hope some of this > stuff gives a somewhat realistic picture of the pitfalls of trying > to teach yourself a profession. And they are not insurmountable - > all it takes is time and commitment and some good contacts... And > if you can see your way to going to school - do it. It will be > worth every minute and every penny. > > Israel Stein > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC