Hi Richard, Good post. I agree with you about trying to get classes out into regionals. That has certainly been in the works, and has happened at least a few times. Takes a lot of energy and work to make that happen. Also agree about "experience based." That has been the focus for the most part as we have developed classes. And the aim has been to develop a series of classes to be offered regularly. As for Guidelines and tests/endorsement/certification, I would like to present the notion that these are tools. As such, they have many uses. For example, The Guidelines "Workload Formula" that people seem to focus in on is really designed as a tool to organize your work. If you go through and answer those questions for each piano, you will set priorities, decide about future planning (rebuild, replace, etc), evaluate the humidity control situation, etc, etc. That use is far more important than its use to come up with an ideal range of staffing, IMO (though I don't think it does a bad job of that, either). Testing and whatever we want to call "caut certification" (the term endorsement is currently preferred) is another tool. If a system of testing is developed and put into place, it will create a meaningful measurement of skills that pertain to caut work. A caut who passes those tests and obtains that endorsement can use that tool to sell him or herself to a college or university. A music department can use that tool as a way of finding a qualified technician. A music department and its current employee (contract or employed) can use it as a way of upgrading and measuring the upgrading of skills, and potentially job description and salary. SOmeone thinking about caut work can use the tests to see if he or she has the skills to enter the field, and can use the skill set and levels as a goal to attain. Now whether or not the organization as a whole wants to undertake this is perhaps another question, and one that will be debated intensely I am sure. But even just the process of discussing the creation of tests will help us in the long run, as it will force us to focus on just exactly what skills a caut needs to have. Which leads to answering the question of what training needs to be offered. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:44:24 -0500 "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote: > I would like to weight in with a few thoughts. > > 1. Education--CAUT has been doing well in recent years >to develop classes and I believe that should be the >highest priority, not only classes at the convention, >but classes at every regional seminar and at local >institutions. The classes should become more or less > standardized and repeated annually. What CAUT should be >asking is: What core knowledge can be taught across the >country, not just at the annual convention. Nationwide >distribution/availabiltiy should be paramount since >many technicians will not be able to attend the > convention annually or even regularly. > > 2. Experience--How does anyone get the experience to do >advanced work? Unfortunately most of that comes from >seat-of-the-pants, in- the-field work. When I started at >the University of Nebraska, I had been a piano >technician for only 3 years with practically no > experience in voicing, and no knowledge of harpsichords >or other historical keyboards. I learned on the job. > That first 5 years was hell. The 25 years after that >were great. CAUT classes/materials need to be >experience based. We already have books that provide > general knowledge. > > 3. The Guidelines--One goal of the Guidelines was to >inform administrators about what the job includes so >that they would appreciate the intricacies of the job >and the pay scale would rise. This hasn't really >happened; our document is seen as self serving. > Therefore the main value of the document is to inform >technicians about what they're getting into when they >apply for university jobs. CAUT education needs to >continue to inform all technicians about the nature of >university work so that when the interview comes around, > they'll be able to differentiate what we do from what >all other staff people do. You can't expect a higher >pay scale when your immediate supervisor may be a staff >person that isn't making as much as what you're asking. > Administrators don't see us as any different than a > stage manager, administrative assistant, or, yes, a >specialized custodian. Until that perception changes, >or until applicants refuse jobs that don't pay wages >that are competitive with private concert work, then >university techs will continue to be underpaid. > > 4. Testing--Until RPT is an accepted nationwide >standard, I would put testing at a low priority. If >testing is the current priority, the cart is being put >in front of the horse. The problems we have with RPT >testing are IMHO greater for a CAUT standard. The test > would have to provide a better way to address testing >problems like nationwide availability, qualified and >experience examiners, testing that is fair and objective >(using ETD's when ETD's can be problematic as repeatably >accurate), length of time to give the test, using > volunteers vs developing paid examiners, etc. A >complete tuning, for example, sounds good as a goal for >a testing standard, but implementing that seems to hark >back to the good ole boy days. > > Richard West, retired (more or less) > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Fred Sturm wrote: > >> On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote: >> >>> Just a thought on the tuning test idea. The present RPT >>>test is >>> to my mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up >>>and >>> execute. Nor do I believe it should be necessary to >>>have it >>> such. A tuning standard can be easily defined in terms >>>of what >>> decided upon sets of coincident partials behave like >>>when tuned. >>> As a banal example, one could simple ask the examinee to >>>execute a >>> bass tuning from say D3 downwards in terms of exact 6:3 >>>types. >>> This is extremely easy to measure afterwards and >>>requires no prior >>> set up... outside of a reasonably detuned instrument. >>> It doesn't >>> take much imagination to see how this principle could be >>>applied >>> to encompass a real tuning that is quite acceptable in >>>real life >>> terms. One added benefit of this approach would be that >>>the >>> examinee would know ahead of time exactly what is >>>expected of him/ >>> her. This is far from always the case in the present >>>system. I >>> would think it would be nonproblematic to extend this >>>approach to >>> a very demanding test. >>> >>> Cheers >>> RicB >> >> Hi Ric, >> This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for >>a caut >> tuning test. We analyze a sequence of coincident >>partials for >> consistency. It could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you >>mention. >> And there are many other possibilities as well. Our >>initial plan is >> to look at double and triple octaves, the 4:1 and 8:1 >>partial >> matches, and see how evenly they progress. If something >>is out of >> kilter, it should show up pretty clearly. >> But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask >>the >> examinee to do anything but tune "your best concert >>tuning," >> explaining that we will look particularly for crystal >>clear and >> rock solid unisons, and for evenness of stretch in the >>outer >> octaves. IOW, no artificial constraints, just do what >>you normally >> do in that circumstance. >> I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 >>cents >> tolerance after pounding is pretty demanding, though >>well within >> what I hope most of us are producing on a day to day >>basis. Beta >> testing will reveal whether or not this is so, and >>whether we might >> need to fudge a little to, say, 0.6 or something, and >>possibly more >> in high treble where ETD resolution can be a problem. >> How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it >>is at >> least an intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. >>On the face >> of it, it seems like it should work like a charm, but >>proof is in >> the pudding. >> Regards, >> Fred Sturm >> University of New Mexico >> fssturm at unm.edu >> >> >> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC