Keith, With malice toward none, and with charity toward all, you and a few others need to go back through some of your own posts over the last year or so. Tone is often more important than content. The same factors which make this electronic medium so important, are the self-same ones that create an environment in which it is altogether too easy to avoid active consideration of our mutual humanity. On point: Consider the reponse you sent to the list when I responded to David Ilvedson's complaint about my "erudition". I am who I am, and I write how I write. Your response to my post was what incited me to seriously consider leaving the list . (Again. I've been on and off several times because of my own short fuse with these issues.) My one line comment about signing off prompted some listings on the net, and about 30 privately. As I wrote to one of our colleagues, after reading them (all), I disregarded the ones that either thought I walk on water (I don't), and the ones who thought that I should be consigned to the 7th level of Dante's theoretical place of eternal punishment. When that exercise was over, and some time had been spent thinking things through (hopefully) more clearly, it was my decision to stay subscribed because enough folks thought that I still have enough to offer to outweigh (at least in part) the obviously onerous chore of reading my posts. A position with which I am in agreement. We each bring to what we do who we are as human beings. Part of the great value of this (or any other) list, is the opportunity we have to learn from each other. That means that in dealing with each other, we each must (constantly) work to expand our own frames of reference to include those of our (in this instance) colleagues. =46or some, this means putting up with things like my admittedly 19th Century approach to writing, my "erudition" (whatever _that_ really means), and my all-too-self-evident arrogance and short temper. =46or me, it means things like learning to learn from Paul Bailey's (well thought-out and reasoned) posts without going ballistic about what I think (in _my_ practice, with _my_ clientele) would be seriously unprofessional, or worrying about how some poor sot is going to keep up his/her house payments while their SAT is getting repaired only to find out that they are so ill-trained /incompetent that they do not recognize that a piano is a 4th off when they, themselves, have misset the SAT to begin with. =46or others, it means other "opportunities for growth". =46rom another point of view, as a profession, we lose an irreplaceable resource when a John Travis dies. We lose something of even greater value when a Jim or an Andre choose to leave rather than to continue to participate in the dialogue. We each lose an ineffable part of ourselves. We lose that part in the sense that we are cut off from that part of our collective knowledge and experience of our profession, of our own lives. Something incredibly difficult to describe in a world which consistently sacrificies quality for quantity, content for form and human growth and interaction for profit. So, what does this all mean? "No man is an island, unto himself." Well, OK, so, John Donne wrote that a long, long time before people realized the inherent gender issues. But the point remains, that whatever we do, however we do it, has an effect. Perhaps not a large one, it is not given for many people to be a Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Lincoln, whatever. Most of us operate on, if you will, a much more human level; we have interactions within very small groups (of other human beings). Those of us who achieve some relative degree of noteriety and/or exposure may, or may not, have somewhat larger circles. To try to provide some kind of comprhensible answer to your question of "[h]ow did the act of someone unsubscribing bring about this level of conversation?", in the context of the above, try to imagine this list as a large, extended family. You may not necessarily have positivce or negative emotional response to any one individual, but you are related to all. In our case, we are all technicians. As piano technicians (in the very late 20thCentury), our common bond, beyond our putative membership in genus Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is our love/hate relationship with that improbable mechanical contraption, the piano. It, like the bumble bee, probably shouldn't work the way it does. But it does. We are also, along with a undefined percentage of pianists, the only folks left who have much in the way of delusions about the piano as a musical instrument. By whatever set of adjectives any individual member of our group describe their relationship to pianos, at some level it becomes an object of a projection of personal artistic expression. Our _personal_ contribution to the "Art of Music", as Braide White would have it. Thus, _seemingly_ thoughtless, tossed off comments, statements and/or criticisms tend to be heard in personal terms. Reality is a matter of perception. In writing, therefore, we must consider our audience. How is the intended receiver going to receive? What will they infer (or not) from what we imply (or don't)? Distilling this all down then, when some like Jim or Andre (or, in my mind, _anyone_ else, for that matter) unsubscribes, we all should take a few moments to look to ourselves for whatever answers there may be. We each contribute to the collective knowledge. For newbies, wannabies, sortabies, whatever, the inestimable value you bring is your willingness to ask questions, and to not accept pat answers. Those of us who, perhaps, have more experience in certain areas can offer the knowledge gained thereby; and, in the process, refine it further as we try to think through meaningful, thoughtful answers to reasonable, legitimate questions. For myself, it is has been some time since I was competent dealing with "normal" piano work. I used to do a good deal of it. I haven't for years. So, it is good for me to have to think about "do I have anything to contribute to so -and-so's issues?" If not, stay out of the way, and try to learn from those who do. The level of conversation (read controversy) engendered by this kind of thing then is a reflection of how deeply involved we each are with this work. We don't do this work for the money, there isn't enough. We do it for love and for art. For the same reasons that a Gilels or a Solomon or a Argerich spent those thousands of hours in the solitary confinement of the practice room so that they could play a certain chord just exactly how they want to. Because we love the looks on the faces of the family as they watch Susie/Johnny play something from John Thompson's "Teaching Little Fingers to Play" as that old piece of junk in the corner suddenly "sounds like it did when I was growing up" after a hard day's work. Because finally, after trying for decades, I got that one C# just right for the Bach/Busoni Chaconne. These are things with which most manufacturers and most dealers have long since lost touch. They are things of the heart and soul, as well as of the intellect As a result, they are not, and should not be reacted to in totally rational ways. People must decide for themselves their own "standard of tolerance" as to things like this list, as in all other areas of life, including the technical "standards" realiting to piano work. Keith, I began this post in a way for which I am neither apologetic nor contrite. This response carries your name solely because you were the first one to ask the questions you ask. I would offer to you (and others) something which I have already sent along to another colleague. Overall, I subscribe to (now) 9 lists similar to this one. Most of them are ones to which I must presently subscribe. Only one of them is digested, so I get an average of 350-500 email messages daily. I read alot. I also throw away alot. What I would offer to this list is the observation that this list, of all of them, has the lowest overall tolerance for I'll call divergent views/opinions. The other lists to which I subscribe, by comparison, tolerate a much wider view of individual preferences, views, idiosyncracies, what-have-you. This is not intended as perjorative, just observational. On the other hand, it does, in my mind, speak to a basic issue: in paraphrase of what has been said about the AIDs issue, the way in which we deal with these issues determines, to a large extent the right we have to call ourselves civilized. I don't know if this post will add to, or detract from, whatever confusion you, or anyone else, may be experiencing. We all have an opportunity here. Will we take it? (This weekend is, for me, a weekend from piano hell. 6 rehearsals, 7 concerts, and 3 recording sessions, in Carmel and Los Angeles, between now and next Wed. So, y'all are welcome to send all the email you want, but I won't see it for a while...) Now, I'll be really redudant, and suggest that in Andre's tag line is a message for us all: "Where music is, no harm can be" To which I would add a lesson which I seem to need to relearn regularly: "Whatever the problem, the answer is love." Bye for now. Best to all. Horace >To those who have posted under these headings: > >I'm terribly confused. > >It seems recent posts under the headings of Congrats, Andr=E9 and THE POWER >OF THE LIST imply, indicate, state something to the effect of hate mail, >exposing offenders, corporate rabble, intimidation, being threatened, etc. > >I do not wish to evoke anyone or unnecessarily elicit any further >reactions, but what in the world did I miss? How did the act of someone >unsubscribing bring about this level of conversation? > >Sincerely, > >Keith A. McGavern >kam544@ionet.net >Registered Piano Technician >Oklahoma Chapter 731 >Piano Technicians Guild >Oklahoma Baptist University >Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA Horace Greeley hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu "Always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them so much. - Oscar Wilde LiNCS voice: 725-4627 Stanford University fax: 725-9942
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC