> So, what you are saying that if I can't tune aurally then I should not > be tuning at all. What I wrote really doesn't need your "interpretation." Apparently you had difficulty in understanding what I actually wrote. Let me try and clarify. What I am saying (Did say) is that if you can't tune at least the midrange and unisons aurally with a certain amount of competence; and demonstrate at least a modest understanding of the basic tuning concepts e.g. intervals, beats, checks, etc., you shouldn't be an RPT. I never suggested you stop tuning, only that you stop complaining about not being GIVEN a credential (RPT) that you haven't EARNED. > If that's the case, you are about to start a major war between each > tuner's opinion. > > Again, you mention peers, sure most of my peers in this area have tuned > aurally - to pass the test - but they have all switched to tuning with > some form of ETD. OK, do you have a point? This supports the idea of learning the foundations and understanding the underlying principles of tuning, don't you think? If most of your peers only learned to tune aurally to pass the test, they have failed. The point is learning, Duaine. You (and they) should be able to see the value in the learning process. As another wrote, it's what makes us more valuable. If you are unwilling/unable to learn a skill set, why on God's earth should you be given a credential that says you are?!?!?! > Again, you mention clients - I don't know where you are and who you tune > for BUT none of my clients have EVER asked if I could tune aurally. To answer directly, it matters to few of my clients and some of my peers, but mainly to me. I did have to educate myself to become RPT. I did have to stop using an ETD to learn aural skills well enough to pass. To me, it shows my commitment to continued learning. To peers (and the occasional client), they know I have "at least" those skills required to pass the exam. Duaine, if being an RPT matters so little to you, why do you care that the PTG won't lower the qualifications to GIVE you the RPT status (without the learning)? This all began with you saying guys like you with no aural skills should be allowed to be RPT. So, if you don't want to be an RPT anyway, why argue about it's qualifications?!?! Does it really make sense, Duaine, that if someone can't meet the standards set forth for a qualification that the standards should be ignored? > This argument is getting so &*&^% old !!!! > Duaine Yes, here we agree; so why did you start it? Arguments often get old when one side of a debate fails to LISTEN to the other perspective. In my world, Duaine, RPT is about education, learning. Most of the RPT's I know don't stop there. We keep working to learn more and more, all the time. Without the learning it get's boring quick. William R. Monroe > > William Monroe wrote: >> No Duaine, >> >> People like you should be excluded from RPT precisely because (your >> description, mind you) you can't tune aurally and have no >> understanding of the basic tuning concepts e.g. intervals, beats, >> checks, etc. RPT is a designation that is defined in part by >> affirming to ones peers, clients, etc that one can tune aurally - at >> least to some measured degree, even with an ETD. > <snip> >> >> Good luck in your growth. >> >> William R. Monroe > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC