At 05:29 PM 2/7/2008, Barbara Richmond wrote: >What is the clearer and less potentially misleading conceptual framework? > >Barbara Richmond Well, "Circles of Refinement" is a definite improvement - it more accurately indicates what is actually going on. But my own approach is based on the idea that what we call "Regulation" consists of several discreet stages that are quite different from each other, each requiring different approaches and emphases. The first stage consists of aligning the action to the piano - can you think of where the action interfaces with the piano and what points of regulation this stage entails? Once you have that, there is internal alignment of the action parts. Not much discretion here. Then - if the action is way out of regulation (as after being rebuilt or after decades of hard use and neglect) it needs to be roughed in - same idea as a pitch raise in tuning. Here the chief consideration is speed - not accuracy - and being able to eyeball plausible approximations of "specs" is a very useful skill. Now you have a basis on which to establish the basic relationships within the wippen (in the grand) and between keydip and strike distance to arrive at the regulation specs for this action and refine the regulation through that circular process that we keep talking about. At this stage there is lots of discretion as to what functions you will favor at the expense of what other functions. And once you have achieved what you wish here, you can deal with what I call peripherals - dampers, pedals, etc. The order of steps within each stage is determined empirically - and not assigned any cumulative number (like "37") or ordinal value (like "first, second") since in practice it will vary depending on circumstances and preferences. Might look abstruse in print (it's a quick synopsis aimed at experienced pros - I put it quite differently for students) - but with an action or an action model in front of them students grasp the relationships between regulation points / functions and basic concepts of regulation a lot faster when viewing them within discreet and self-contained segments of the process rather than as part of a long sequence of "steps". I have been using this conceptual framework for 5 years now, in the context of PTG Convention classes and chapter presentations - and it works. I believe that it is a more easily manageable perspective for the student who has trouble understanding how the functions and regulation points relate to each other - and I have plenty feedback from classes and post-exam conversations to support this. Israel Stein >----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Stein" <custos3 at comcast.net> >To: <pianotech at ptg.org> >Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:28 PM >Subject: Re: 37 steps---delayed response > > >>Likewise, there is a lot clearer and less potentially misleading >>conceptual framework with which to present "Regulation" than "X >>steps". And if you spend some time analyzing screwed up regulations >>with students and listen to what misconceptions they came out with >>from some of these "step-by-step" teaching methods you might a >>clearer picture of what I am talking about... >>Israel Stein. > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC