[CAUT] Steinway stretch (was Re: Steinway Verticals)

[David M. Porritt]

I'm all for constant improvement in the test.  As long as it eliminates (as much as possible) the subjectiveness of what's good or bad in the examiner's opinion, is fair and can be given in a time frame appropriate for the volunteer test givers.  Sometimes when we wax eloquent about improving or upgrading the current test we don't consider the additional time these "improvements" would take.  

An extended family member of mine is currently working on taking the test to become a licensed stock broker.  It is an all-day test.  The cost, however, is $1,200.00 a try.  I suppose we could head in that direction, but we probably should take it in small steps.  

Hey!  Licensed Piano Technician.  For those who don't like Registered or Certified how about "licensed"?

dave  :-)


__________________________________________
David M. Porritt, RPT
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
dporritt@mail.smu.edu


----- Original message ---------------------------------------->
From: Fred Sturm <fssturm@unm.edu>
To: "dporritt@mail.smu.edu, College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org>
Received: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:09:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway stretch (was Re: Steinway Verticals)

>On 11/30/04 4:41 AM, "David M. Porritt" <dporritt@mail.smu.edu> wrote:

>> I tend to agree that the test emphasizes aspects that are less-than-absolute
>> requirements in the real world.  However, it is a test and needs certain
>> objective elements.  You can't have the standard for the test to be "Octaves
>> stretched somewhat" or "pretty much equal" temperament.  The alternative to
>> the test as it exists now would be to go back to the good old boy system of
>> evaluation.
>> 
>> dave
>Hi Dave,
>    I certainly agree that one has to set a standard, and it has to be firm.
>And I would even agree that, generally speaking, the PTG test standards for
>ET and octaves are good ones. However, where I see a problem is in the
>emphasis. In the 25 years since the test appeared, what has been made
>tighter? ET standards in temperament and midrange (multipliers increased).
>What has become looser? Stability standards (when stability is checked, you
>are no longer responsible for precisely where those notes are).
>    And, of course, the emphasis in a majority of articles about tuning is
>toward finer and finer nit-picking of ET progression, and looking at single
>octaves in isolation (whatever width they may be - rather than looking at
>the piano as a whole and its entire stretch over three and four octave
>spans), giving the impression that by paying closer and closer attention to
>these details you will create better tunings.
>    In fact, I'd argue that the opposite is true. Focusing too much
>attention and time on that nit-picking stuff leaves less time and attention
>available for what really matters: unisons and stability. So I'd suggest
>there is a second alternative to the current test, in addition to "good old
>boy." Relax ET standards a bit (not more than where they were in the 1980's)
>and create a much more rigorous unison and stability standard. My druthers
>would be three octaves of unisons, stability tested _before_ being read.
>Regards,
>Fred Sturm
>University of New Mexico

>_______________________________________________
>caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives