LA Times article

[David Love]

Couldn't have said it better.

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Schecter
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:12 PM
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: LA Times article

Hi, David.

Thanks for posting this. I must say, I'm provoked. It's fine for someone 
to get press, wherein he elucidates the difficulties and challenges of 
our work. That the public might be more appreciative of us 
behind-the-scenes folk is all to the good.

But, regardless of the skills this person (Elliot) no doubt has, for him 
to propound this old saw where he (Superman) swoops in at the last 
minute to miraculously save the day and do a superior, artistic job of 
it no less, while simultaneously implying that it takes someone like 
himself to fulfill the role he describes, and probably no one else 
really has the right stuff, is nothing more than shameless, 
self-aggrandizing, colleague-demeaning bullcrap. One, he can't do what 
he says he did, because nobody can. And two, to suggest that others are 
therefore inferior is to build on a false premise, the epitomy of illogic.

I don't care who he used to work for. I don't care who he works for now. 
I don't care if he's the greatest technician on earth. I'd like to hear 
him explain why his Carnegie Hall piano sounded terrible, and why he 
waited until 10 minutes to showtime before deigning to appear to work 
his magic. And I'd like to know how many strings he tuned, at how many 
seconds per string, before the piano sounded beautiful and resonant, an 
artistic triumph before a note was even played. But he's an ear tuner, 
the real deal. Wow, I'm impressed.

The idea that some guy claiming Steinway's imprimatur could lay it on 
this thick, talking as if there is no Guild, implying that he is the 
ultimate authority on what it _really_ takes to be a _real_ technician, 
and then describe his own services in such unbelievable terms, is just 
galling. I think that article deserves a rejoinder.

Thanks again for posting the article. I guess it was predictable that 
somebody would take the bait. I guess it's my turn. But I hope there are 
plenty of technicians of all description who take umbrage at the kind of 
aspersions this guy cast over nearly all of us, regardless of our 
choices of methods or tools.

But would you like to know how I really feel?

Tell me if I've taken this too seriously.

-Mark Schecter

David Love wrote:
> I see that the article might be difficult to access.  So I've attached it
> for those interested.