[CAUT] A clarification and a response to David Poritt

[David Ilvedson]

Come on Ric,

Ric and David,

It doesn't matter who started what or said what.   It's the first day of the rest of your lives...and ours, hopefully...   

Forget the apologies...

We just don't want to read in your next posts anything about "well-documented" or "un-called for attacks" etc.   

Enough is enough...this CAUT for goodness sakes.   That really says it..."for goodness sake"





So...how about those tuned duplexes....

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: ricb at pianostemmer.no
To: caut at ptg.org
Received: 9/19/2007 6:10:24 AM
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