It seems that several of the regional seminars are having trouble making the tradition "hotel-based" seminars pay their way. A university based seminar, held perhaps on the week-end of Fall break might be able to offer new ways to learn. All those practice rooms could be used for extended hands-on repair,regulation and tuning classes, maybe leaving the school better off for the deal. Ed Sutton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred S Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor) > 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