<div> Barbara! You've stolen my dubious thunder. I've been using that phrase in classes now for three years. :-) Paul </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Richmond <piano57@insightbb.com> To: ilvey@sbcglobal.net; Pianotech List <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 8:09 pm Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response <div id="AOLMsgPart_0_26011926-c3d1-4c33-af90-2755b374ebf5" style="margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> I think people don't realize that 37 steps (which, btw, I see more as  chapter  titles) is a way to become familiar with piano regulation functions and  not an end unto itself. After becoming familiar enough with regulation,  and how the action works, anyone can let the "piano tell them" what it  needs. We are Piano Whisperers! ;-)    Barbara Richmond, RPT  near Peoria, Illinois    ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Ilvedson" <<a href="mailto:ilvey@sbcglobal.net">ilvey@sbcglobal.net</a>>  To: <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>>  Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:52 AM  Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response    > Israel,  >  > Obviously, a short email message can't convey your approach and no  > offense, but I don't  > get how this is a clearer and less potentially misleading conceptual  > framework. In your class you would have to list your stages and all  > that is included in each stage, right? Certainly things have to be done  > in the right order. You don't align hammers to strings without  > tightening action screws, etc. Surely, you have class handout?  >  > David Ilvedson, RPT  > Pacifica, CA 94044  >  > ----- Original message ----------------------------------------  > From: "Israel Stein" <<a href="mailto:custos3@comcast.net">custos3@comcast.net</a>>  > To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>  > Received: 2/7/2008 7:45:55 PM  > Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response  >  >  >>At 05:29 PM 2/7/2008, Barbara Richmond wrote:  >  >>>What is the clearer and less potentially misleading conceptual framework?  >>>  >>>Barbara Richmond  >  >>Well, "Circles of Refinement" is a definite improvement - it more  >>accurately indicates what is actually going on. But my own approach  >>is based on the idea that what we call "Regulation" consists of  >>several discreet stages that are quite different from each other,  >>each requiring different approaches and emphases. The first stage  >>consists of aligning the action to the piano - can you think of where  >>the action interfaces with the piano and what points of regulation  >>this stage entails? Once you have that, there is internal alignment  >>of the action parts. Not much discretion here. Then - if the action  >>is way out of regulation (as after being rebuilt or after decades of  >>hard use and neglect) it needs to be roughed in - same idea as a  >>pitch raise in tuning. Here the chief consideration is speed - not  >>accuracy - and being able to eyeball plausible approximations of  >>"specs" is a very useful skill. Now you have a basis on which to  >>establish the basic relationships within the wippen (in the grand)  >>and between keydip and strike distance to arrive at the regulation  >>specs for this action and refine the regulation through that circular  >>process that we keep talking about. At this stage there is lots of  >>discretion as to what functions you will favor at the expense of what  >>other functions. And once you have achieved what you wish here, you  >>can deal with what I call peripherals - dampers, pedals, etc. The  >>order of steps within each stage is determined empirically - and not  >>assigned any cumulative number (like "37") or ordinal value (like  >>"first, second") since in practice it will vary depending on  >>circumstances and preferences.  >  >>Might look abstruse in print (it's a quick synopsis aimed at  >>experienced pros - I put it quite differently for students) - but  >>with an action or an action model in front of them students grasp the  >>relationships between regulation points / functions and basic  >>concepts of regulation a lot faster when viewing them within discreet  >>and self-contained segments of the process rather than as part of a  >>long sequence of "steps". I have been using this conceptual framework  >>for 5 years now, in the context of PTG Convention classes and chapter  >>presentations - and it works. I believe that it is a more easily  >>manageable perspective for the student who has trouble understanding  >>how the functions and regulation points relate to each other - and I  >>have plenty feedback from classes and post-exam conversations to support  >>this.  >  >>Israel Stein  >  >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Stein" <<a href="mailto:custos3@comcast.net">custos3@comcast.net</a>>  >>>To: <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>>  >>>Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:28 PM  >>>Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response  >>>  >>>  >>>>Likewise, there is a lot clearer and less potentially misleading  >>>>conceptual framework with which to present "Regulation" than "X  >>>>steps". And if you spend some time analyzing screwed up regulations  >>>>with students and listen to what misconceptions they came out with  >>>>from some of these "step-by-step" teaching methods you might a  >>>>clearer picture of what I am talking about...  >>>>Israel Stein.  >>>  >>>  >  </div>  <div class="AOLPromoFooter"> <hr style="margin-top:10px;" /> More new features than ever. Check out the new <a href="http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003" target="_blank">AOL Mail</a>! </div>