<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4>Israel,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2><FONT size=4>I just have to chime in here.  Comments interspersed</FONT>.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> <BR>> Actually, David, wrong on all counts. No handouts, no sheets, no <BR>> lists in my classes. They learn by doing - you get an action model <BR>> and you learn how to regulate by regulating. I give them a short <BR>> verbal introduction  What typically happens is that I explain to them <BR>> the various stages - and most everyone (except for the rawest <BR>> beginners - the class is not aimed at them)  can right away tell me <BR>> themselves what functions are dealt with in each stage. It's just <BR>> logic - don't need a list. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4>If it is "just logic," I fail to see how an outline or "list" can be an impediment for all but those same "rawest beginners."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> After that they dive right in, sink or <BR>> swim. With plenty one-on-one coaching and occasional short <BR>> discussions of what was done, how and why it works or doesn't... And <BR>> they learn to see whether or not something was done from the results <BR>> - not from checking an item off on a sheet.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4>What you describe is precisely how the 37 steps works.  It is by the results that we determine whether or not something was done properly.  Similarly, you're not taught to perform steps that are done.  Check them, yes, add redundancy, no.  There are no check boxes in that system either.  The steps sound to me much like your system, only you have it subdivided into a few larger categories as well.  Semantics IMO.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> That's what I keep trying <BR>> to tell you - the action itself can tell you what needs to be done <BR>> when.  I just show them where to look and how to read analyze the <BR>> relevant information.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4>Again, same thing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> If you want to <BR>> conceive of it as the first stage of regulation - fine. But <BR>> conceptually it is once again a totally different beast from aligning <BR>> parts, or working out specs, requiring a different mindset and <BR>> approach. Anything broken or worn or loose or tight or dirty? Fix it. <BR>> There's lots of truth in Cy Schuster's little joke about the "very <BR>> first step" - tightening screws has more to do with fixing and <BR>> cleaning than with regulating.<BR></FONT><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4><BR>Right.  In the Yamaha system, the same thing is stressed.  Those tightening screws and repairs are emphasized as things that must be taken care of before any serious attempt at regulation can occur.  Again, seems like semantics to me.</DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> If you toss away your linear thinking and really get into this <BR>> scheme, you will see that within each stage, the precise order of the <BR>> individual steps is not all that crucial - you are going to have to <BR>> go back and forth somewhere, it's a circle - not a line... From the <BR>> messages posted by the likes of David Andersen and Roger Jolly it's <BR>> obvious that different circumstances require different orders - they <BR>> are determined empirically, by observation. I try to teach the <BR>> students what to observe and how to go from there... </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4>One needn't toss away linear thinking altogether.  After all, it is important in many places.  I think that having a linear system works well, provided you have the insight to recognize where attention is needed.  It is an outline of an efficient, well-thought system. One doesn't have to marry themselves to it.  Just as you say below, "any idiot" can understand the where exact order is essential.  That same idiot should be just as capable of knowing that if the piano is not in the shop, you probably don't need to sweat your hammer alignment and you can go ahead and level the keys.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> And where the <BR>> exact order is important - well, it's pretty obvious. Any idiot can <BR>> understand and remember that you can't set key level before bedding <BR>> the keyframe. Don't need a list for that... But does it really matter <BR>> whether you level the keys first or space the hammers to strings <BR>> first? Has more to do with how your shop is set up and whether or not <BR>> you use lead weights or transfer jigs than with anything else...<BR>> <BR>> The point of this conceptual organization is that students deal with <BR>> a small number of function in each stage, thoroughly learn the <BR>> relationship between these functions and how they affect each other <BR>> and are then able to erect their own order of regulation suited to <BR>> each particular situation they encounter. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=4>Again, I think you could similarly break down the 37 steps, or any other system or that matter, into a smaller number of stages.  David's point I think, and I agree, is that any student in your class who takes notes will invariably have a list of stages, subdivided into component parts.  They may not be numbered, but so what? </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2>> And the relationship <BR>> between the stages is just common sense logic. So who needs a list <BR>> and a pre-determined order of steps?<BR>> <BR>> Israel Stein<BR>> <BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2><FONT size=4>Don't get me wrong Israel, I think what you're doing has merit, and makes good sense, but I think that disparaging the other system is fruitless.  It's just a different way of thinking, organizing the process.  And, as I said before, all but your "rawest beginners" will recognize that one can diverge from this list as convenience or needs require given a particular situation.  I don't think it requires great capabilities for abstract thought, as you say.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2><FONT size=4>William R. Monroe</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style" size=2><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>