Is there still a German Meister test? David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no> To: caut at ptg.org Received: 10/12/2007 2:49:02 PM Subject: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of Michigan,Ann Arbor) >Hi David >I of course dont remember the Craftsman test... but I know a bit about >the German Meister test... and you sure as heck have to show you know >and can a whole lot of things pianowise. A fair share of bonified math >and physics university level is required along with all the rest. But >to be sure... I tend to agree with you that American wise... the RPT >test was in general an improvement if only for no other reason then to >bring a minimum set of standards that are more or less equally applied >in all instances. Fairness was one of the primary goals as the story >has been told to me. >Still Jons post points out the weakness in the scheme... namely that the >RPT designation has led to a all to often false sense of authority when >in reality it is a very good journeymen designation... but not more. I >really dont think there should be much to dispute about that statement. >We end up where we always have... some wanting some kind of >credential... others prefer the keep educating line without such >certification goals... yet all wanting to find a way of reaching the >University Administration and public at large with our appeals as to how >important our work is and how well the <<deserving>> tech should be paid >and treated. >The problem is that we provide no tangible transferable method or means >of telling them who the <<deserving>> techs are and arent... we >essentially leave that up to them to figure out. >So... perhaps here is something... a route we can pursue with a greater >chance of finding agreement. How about coming up with a document that >simply recommends to University administrations what a Head of Piano >Technology Department should be able to do. We wrote this huge thing >describing how much time so and so many pianos requires to keep serviced >at a so and so level.... I wonder how many Admin types got past the >first page ? Yet a one page document that describes what the tech >should actually be capable of... that might get read seriously... might >set a standard for all these job listings... and might be a place to >start all this. >Just a thought. >Cheers >RicB > I don't buy that...PTG is us. RPT or Associate. The whole idea > was improve the overall quality of piano tuners. If a tech becomes > a member he is more likely to go to meetings and conventions and > upgrade his skills. I remember my Craftsman test eons ago...I > tuned a horribly out of tune piano and the "Craftsman" said OK, you > in. This was in North Dakota. When I took the test the 2nd time > California, I just had to do a few repairs, file a hammer and I > can't even remember if I tuned a piano...I was established...sort > of. I finally took the RPT test and it was a much improved test of > skills. > "it used to be that you had to actually prove skills via a > rebuilt or restrung piano with a new block and attending finish > work. RPT is paperwork albeit tuning skills." > Does anyone else remember this testing for Craftsman? I sure don't. > David Ilvedson, RPT > Pacifica, CA 94044 > From: "Jon Page" > "Our consensus is that we should test for the skill level > appropriate for a concert tuner." > What does this mean? In simplest terms: > These tests are good for proving one's ability but when you stop and > look at it,who's going to say they want to jump through these hoops > for half pay. It's like asking how long can you hold your breath > while standing on you head in 2 feet of muck., so the guy who holds > it longer gets the job. OOooooooo sign me up for qualifying. It > only proves that one has a high threshold for BS. > I don't mean to sound negative but an improved skills test is a > result of the 'dumbing-down' of the classification "Craftsman" from > by-gone years. RPT is (pardon the expression) just to keep 'asses > in the seats'. When I started, the requirements to attain this > status was far beyond what qualifies for RPT. it used to be that you > had to actually prove skills via a rebuilt or restrung piano with a > new block and attending finish work. RPT is paperwork albeit tuning > skills. > Personally, I have no desire to attain RPT status because I do not > like to or want to tune pianos. So why take a test to qualify me for > something I am not interested in?? Heck, some of my workload is > fixing the work of RPT's!!!!! > The Happy Associate, > Regards, > Jon Page
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC