Piano Training Question (Long)

[Geoff Sykes]

The send-to address you have is correct. Which means that the email address
that you are sending FROM is incorrect. In order to post to the list you
must use the same email address that you used to sign up for the list. In
other words, the same email address on which you are receiving these posts.
Hope that helps.
 
-- Geoff Sykes
-- Los Angeles
 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Magness
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:12 PM
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: Piano Training Question (Long)


"Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org> This is what I have in my address book
it looks exactly the same as the address at the top of the replies. My
previous posts were at 1:52AM and 3:15 PM today, I would have though one or
both would have showed up by now. The first from this AM I copied and pasted
into a reply when I realized it wasn't going to show up. 


On 8/5/07, John Ross <jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca
<mailto:jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca> > wrote: 

Check that the address in your address book, is correct.
Also sometimes there is a delay, between posting your message, and seeing it
on the list.
 
John M. Ross
Windsor, Nova Scotia, Canada
jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Michael Magness <mailto:ifixpiano at gmail.com>  
To: Pianotech List <mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>  
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Piano Training Question (Long)

 
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
<mailto: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>
[mailto: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  <http://www.ifixpianos.com/> 
email mike at ifixpianos.com  <mailto:mike at ifixpianos.com> 




-- 
Michael Magness
Magness Piano Service
608-786-4404
www.IFixPianos.com <http://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/d0ab3688/attachment-0001.html