Can somone help me out? My posts get thru when I answer but not when I originate and send anyone know why? On 8/5/07, Geoff Sykes <thetuner at ivories52.com> wrote: > > Thank you Israel! > > <- Insert hearty round of applause here -> > > It wasn't until I was well into the Potter course that I realized that > there > even were legit schools for piano technology. But even if I had, age, time > and resources would have prevented me from attending one of them. Potter's > course, in retrospect, was a great primer on piano technology. If nothing > else it provided me with enough of a foundation in the craft that I could > attend chapter meetings and conferences, hold reasonably intelligent > conversations and actually understand and absorb what was being discussed. > I > have had the extreme good fortune to receive much hands on training from > several notable members of the Los Angeles and South Bay chapters. And > now, > three years after completing the Potter course, and getting ready to take > my > second stab at the tuning exam, I am more and more realizing just how much > I > have learned and mastered since I began. I'm also realizing that as good > as > I think I know I am now, even once I pass all three RPT exams I'm still > going to be just a novice. There is no replacing good mentoring, practice > and years of experience in mastering our craft. And I am looking forward > to > years of continuing this learning process. I echo what Alan Barnard said: > "...it has been the PTG that made most of the difference. I would not > trade > my membership in this great organization and the association of my dear > friends and colleagues for anything!" > > -- Geoff Sykes > -- Los Angeles > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On > Behalf > Of Israel Stein > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:55 AM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Piano Training Question (Long) > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- Michael Magness Magness Piano Service 608-786-4404 www.IFixPianos.com email mike at ifixpianos.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20070805/cd7ea7f6/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC