[CAUT] A clarification and a response to David Poritt

[David Ilvedson]

Exactly!

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

>Whatever!

>dp

>David M. Porritt, RPT
>dporritt at smu.edu


>-----Original Message-----
>From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
>ricb at pianostemmer.no
>Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8:10 AM
>To: caut at ptg.org
>Subject: [CAUT] A clarification and a response to David Poritt

>Hi David

>First let me say thank your for your kind spirited response. 

>Honestly tho... I really fail to see how any of what I have written
>in the past frew notes should have provoked anyone... let alone the
>violent response from David Love.  I felt, and still do that the
>context of that which was written was dead on target within the
>context of the discussion, the standpoints I cited that I assert
>David Love takes arewell documented, and not one iota of my posts
>were directed even slightly as criticisms of these standpoints. 
>Quite the opposite I underlined my disdain at the comment made to me
>by the SF tech.  I went on further to state that this kind of thing
>simply goes to show how wide the field of acceptable piano voicing
>indeed is. 

>The passion evoked here if anything simply underlines that this width
>is far greater then many of our own individual perspectives includes.
>I fail to see how anyone could possibly conclude otherwise when it
>comes down to it. Nor do I see why this should be veiwed as a flame.

>Let me clarify a point, since it seems neccessary after all.  About
>the SF tech which David Love took so illy.  I also happen to know
>three technicians in that same area, one of them a bit personally,
>who have the greatest respect for Davids work... not the least his
>voicing styles.  I personally do not know David Love... and would
>never draw any direct conclusions as to how much he does or doesnt
>know... how good his work is... or any of the rest of it.  I see no
>reason to doubt his dedication to our trade or to do what he feels is
>the absolute best for pianos.  Someone may someday show me such
>reason... but I rather doubt it. I do reserve the right to disagree
>with his stated standpoints in any polite and topical way I see fit.
>And, I must in turn afford that same respect to him and anyone else
>for that matter.

>I had thought it rather obvious that my comments were not pointed in
>a personal direction, but rather in the same path of the discussion
>as a whole. 

>David Loves position on voicing, duplex, soundboard design, and other
>issues that ultimately describe a preference for piano sound and
>performance are well documented. This is to be commended and
>respected as far as that goes.

>The only thing I ever raise my finger about is when one starts to
>assume that ones own perspectives are somehow better then others, or
>that when others perspectives do not fit ones own they are in some
>way or another always managed to be discounted in a variety of ways. 
>Often enough... as seems evident by the present discourse... this
>kind of thing happens without one even being aware of it.

>I stand by my origional assertion that there seems to be a tendancy
>amoung some techs to opt for a much quieter rounder voice at the
>expence of what some others find to represent brilliance.  I see no
>reason why anyone should take offence at that statement, question the
>its obvious validity, nor find reason for criticism one way or the
>other. Indeed... part of the beauty of our trade is exactly the large
>degree of variance in what piano sound can be.

>As for the D++ .... If I am in error then I am indeed sorry. But I
>remember rather clearly a comment or two in a not so distant past
>post where you mentioned some bitterness that some pianists would not
>give this instrument a fair chance because it was <<not a real
>Steinway>> anymore... and I also remember offering you support on the
>matter.  I will look through the archives and see if I can find the
>post.  I do not believe I said in my last anything about you
>personally finding any fault with the instrument. Quite the opposite,
>it your continued enthusiasm for it and indeed my experience with the
>Nossaman instrument in Rochester that makes me very wishfull that I
>could find the time and resources to come and visit you, and have a
>thorough look see.

>All this said... I simply must insist on the right to voice my
>considered opinions without being accused of not knowing what I am
>talking about... or of attacking people, or of any of the rest of it.
>I hold people to their word and documented standpoints... pass really
>no value judgement on them beyond the <<being acceptant of others>>
>bit.

>At least this is in my mind, and this is what I strive to accomplish
>to the very best of my abilities.  

>Best
>Richard Brekne


>Ric:

>When you send out these flames it would help if you gave full names to
>the targets.  You stated below "Secondly... it was not just a couple
>three months back David did indeed 
>air frustration......" There are several Davids on this list so some
>indication of which one you meant would be helpful.  I know I have not
>complained about the D+ so you must be referring to some other David
>about some other problem with some other piano.  

>Better yet, try a little harder not to send out these unnecessary
>flames.

>dp

>David M. Porritt, RPT
>dporritt at smu.edu