Make that the school of hard "knocks." What a place for spell check to fail me. Hope it was good for a laugh. Richard On Oct 19, 2007, at 9:29 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote: > Hi, Jim, > > After I got out of Western Iowa Tech, I thought I knew quite a bit > about pianos. I quickly learned that I still had a lot to learn. > I barely knew enough to pass my RPT exam. In the 35 years since, > then, I would have to say that the expansion of my knowledge was > based on experience, i.e. a problem occurrs that I haven't > encountered before and I have to deal with it. Hopefully I fix the > problem. In a nutshell that's what I mean by "experience based." > > A little book that was particularly helpful early in my career was > a book titled The Piano Tuners Pocket Companion by Oliver Faust. > On one side of the page there was a symptom and on the other was > the solution. Early on that got me through a lot of repairs, but > as I expanded my knowledge, I realized that repairs aren't always a > simple symptom/solution question. Dampers are a good example of > what I mean. You have a ringing damper, but a plethora of > possible solutions including ones that don't even have anything to > do with the actual damper you're working on (sympathetic vibrations > or a duplex length of string). But with perseverance you figure > out where the problem lies and learn what to look for. This > becomes an experienced based repair that you add to your mental > data bank. > > Experience gives you a bag of "tricks" to draw from to help > diagnose problems, but these tricks of the trade aren't compiled > and written down and so it's hard for beginners to get what they > need to know, without going through the school of hard kocks. > > The problem in developing materials is multifaceted. First there's > figuring out how to deal with the multilayered nature of our work. > Second there's the problem of who's going to be using the > materials. Let's face it, we aren't all equally gifted in the > mechanical arts. Some people hardly need an explanation and others > need detailed explanations and even then may screw up. > > So when I pose the question: What does a university tech need to > know and how does he/she acquire that knowledge, I relate first to > my own experience. I learned to be less compromising and more > exacting in my work. If I wasn't, I'd hear about it. I went to > PTG meetings and picked up ideas there. I scratched my head a lot > and just spent the time it took to learn how to work on things like > harpsichords, an inventory, reports, etc. etc. I persevered. But > it would have been helpful if I'd had a book like Oliver Faust's > that gave straightforward solutions to common problems. Also I > realized that learning multiple ways of doing something, forced me > to think about what works best for me. Key bushing is an example. > I've tried a whole host of different ways to bush keys. I'm still > looking for the perfect system. I've settled on a system that > isn't particularly fast and efficient, but it gives me fairly > predictable results. > > The first priority in concert work in getting it right. Speed and > efficiency should also be there, but not necessarily. Especially > for the mechanically challenged. Sometimes doing a job slowly but > predictably is the only way. > > I don't know if my longwinded explanation helps, but there it is. > I'm glad you asked, because it helped me try to try to get a better > grasp of how we learn this profession. We don't write or teach in > a vacuum. Perhaps the greatest challenge is getting through to > people. That means we need to know how people learn so that our > materials reach them. I don't know that PTG has been particularly > good at addressing this aspect of learning. > > Sorry I took so long to reply. I've had lots on my plate this > week. Retirement isn't about just sitting around and getting bored > or watching a screen all day. > > Richard West > > > On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jim Busby wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> >> >> I’m helping develop the curriculum and agree with all your points >> below, but could you explain/elaborate on #2 below “CAUT classes/ >> materials need to be experience based”? >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Jim Busby >> >> >> >> >> >> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf >> Of rwest1 at unl.edu >> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:44 AM >> To: College and University Technicians >> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of >> Michigan,Ann Arbor) >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071019/e72fd7bf/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC