kam544@flash.net wrote: > >> ...Is it how many are done per day, week, month, year? > >> Is it how much one receives in payment? > >> Is it how satisfied the customer is? > >> Is it ................ ? > > > >These are irrelevant to the question "what is a piano tuner" > > How are these considerations irrelevant? > They are irrelavant because they do not describe what a piano tuner is... sheeshh... > >>...Is there a line that exists somewhere between someone being able to tune a > >> piano, and being a piano tuner, that I am not aware of, other than to be > >> able to do it, and declare it so? > > > >The key phrase here is "declare it so". In order to do so you have to have > >certain > >knowledge about tuning in general. If not then the statment is meaningless. > > Would not that knowledge reveal itself, however accomplished or method of > operation used, by leaving a piano in a tuned state.? Yes... but that is not your point... your point is to reverse the order to "prove" that leaving the piano in a tuned state neccessitates adequate knowledge of tuning. It does not. And like it or not Keith.. this is entry level logic. Stated other wise... that condition A leads to condition B is in no way a guarentee that if condition B exists then so does condition A. > > >Keith... it would seem your definition of a piano tuner is simply whoever > >decides > >to call themselves one. > > No, that's not correct, Richard. My definition, in its temporary briefest > context, that I choose to accept at this point in time, and one I am > reasonably comfortable with, until someone can come up with some more > defining is: > > Someone who is actively tuning pianos and leaving them in a reasonable > tuned state and choosing to use whatever method of operation to accomplish > such an act. That, my freind is very close to the same thing, the only qualifier being that the person has learned how to operate a tuning machine and set tuning pins. If thats what the person can do, and nothing else... then that person qualifies as a piano tuner by your definition. > > >You sight qualifications such as how many instruments a > >person "services", "how much money made" Whether or not the piano is > >indeed in > >tune regardless of how it was tuned. And of all things something as vague as > >whether the customer is satisfied or not. > >I am indeed sorry, but as a serious attempt at finding any real criteria for > >assessment of knowledge and skills neccessary to qualify for the title > >Piano Tuner, > >these above fail miserably. > > I honestly don't see how these questions fail miserably and don't have some > merit for consideration from your viewpoint. Because they do not describe the job of a piano tuner... (with the one execption which in itself is not enough to confirm a persons knowlede of the trade either). You cant seriously mean that we could test an individuals skills as a piano tuner based on how much money he makes at it. > >I also must say that I find it no less then alarming > >that you consistantly leave out any requirement for actual knowledge of > >the trade > >or trade skills from your "qualifications". Are we really to be expected to > >confere the PTG stamp of approval on anyone who presents themselves with a > >machine, > >a customer list, an income statement, a report of hours worked, and one single > >tuning skill ... namely that of being able to set tuning pins ??? > > > >Give me a break with all this. > > > >If we are serious about all this then it should not be so difficult to at > >least be > >in aggreement that the prosepective tuner should be able to display that > >he / she > >actually knows something about the job. What about the following skills... > > > >the ability to count beats per second. > >the ability to hear and identify beat rates of different coincident > >partials for > >any given interval > >the ability to determine varying degrees of stretch. > >the ability to isolate tuning concerns from voicing or regulation concerns. > >the ability to indentify, isolate and minimize the effect of false beats > > All of the previous is addressing the application of testing standards > within the Piano Technicians Guild domain. For the record, Richard, I have > no problem having testing standards for those who want to bear the title of > Registered Piano Technician (RPT). > > What I am addressing, Richard, are the numerous individuals throughout the > world who do succeed in accomplishing reasonable, stable piano tunings on a > daily basis, that do receive compensation for such activity, that do > satisfy their customers, that are not members of, or affiliated with, the > Piano Technicians Guild (PTG), that do use various approaches to > accomplishing these tunings, whether it be aural only, aural with > electronic assistance, electronic with aural assistance, electronic only or > or even some other means of which I am currenly unaware. > > All I'm asking is, what are these persons to call themselves, if not piano > tuners? Thats not really what you have been pressing Keith... be that as it may... I dont personally give a darn what they call themselves. But if they want to be accredited then they have to prove themselves, and they cant do this by use of an ETD alone. Thats what this is discussion is about. And also personally... and this opens a completely different subject matter... I would prefer, given the relative ease of the PTG's seiries of tests, that anyone who intends on earning money for doing this job we do be required by law to demonstrate at least this level of competance. It is by no means a difficult task for anyone with even the most basic levels of accomplished skill. > > > Keith McGavern > Registered Piano Technician > Oklahoma Chapter 731 > Piano Technicians Guild > USA -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC