LA Times article

[Mark Schecter]

Hi, Tom.

You probably came close to the real story, but look how long it took us
as a group of people with inside knowledge of the realities to dredge
that up from the swamp. Meanwhile, the story as reported by the tech &
the story writer has done its job of skewing the public's idea of how a
professional tech works, and appointed himself and his ways as the
keepers of the flame and the One True Way. Nobody made him adjust his
story-telling from honest to blowhard. I would be eternally embarassed
to have ever once treated the artist, the hall, and/or my employer with
the profound disrespect implicit in his story as he told it. To proudly
trumpet it as a war story representative of one's capabilities is beyond
my understanding. Somebody in a position of such responsibility ought to
have better sense than to telegraph to his future clients how he might
take care of their needs.

-Mark Schecter


Tom Servinsky wrote:
> Sounds like a rebuttal letter or interview should be the next move for 
> the LA Times to print.  Get going LA techs, here's your opportunity to 
> take a stance to create some  fair and balance informational reporting.
> Although I too found some pretty big tall-tail, story telling issues in 
> this story, I'm going give Mr. Elliot a small pass.  First of all , I 
> doubt if he called the Times and asked for an interview. Probably it was 
> a writer who happened to be in the stage area, needed a story, ran into 
> Mr. Elliot, and before you know it, there's a story. Factual or not.... 
> a story. And if you do have that type of position taking care of 
> important halls, your skill aren't too shabby! And   like it or not, 
> die-hard aural tuners still find the use of ETD as a sign of artistic 
> void. Anyone who uses doesn't deserve to be in this position.
> To Mr. Elliot's defense, I have been interviewed dozens of times for 
> feature articles by our Tri- county newspapers. Each and every time, the 
> journalist ended up getting the message wrong....way wrong.  It is as 
> though they never got it from me in the first place.
> That being said, I found it humorous to walk through the logic on his 10 
> min. interlude as he blessed the piano and pronounced it fit for the 
> artist. In all actuallality the series of events went more like this.
> Blessed tech raced through his first tuning earlier that day. Tech 
> probably not on top of his game(that day). Been there done that.
> Artist banged the hell out of it during rehearsal
> Artist expected a follow up touch up of tuning prior to concert
> No Tech returns
> Artist is getting nervous
> Artist calls to complain
> Tech summoned to get the hell over here pronto
> Tech arrives 10 mins. prior to concert
> Tech has sweat running down both eye brows hoping this doesn't issue 
> doesn't get back Steinway
> Tech cleans up some unisons
> Tech gets an evil stare from the Artist and Carnegie staff
> Carnegie staff informs him this better not happen again
> 5 yrs later, Tech rewrites the events of the day....fails to include why 
> things went wrong, who was wrong, and includes more heroics to dress up 
> story.
> 6 yrs later, article appears in newspaper.
> Tom Servinsky
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Love" 
> <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
> To: <schecter at pacbell.net>; "'Pianotech List'" <pianotech at ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 1:01 AM
> Subject: RE: LA Times article
> 
> 
>> Couldn't have said it better.
>>
>> David Love
>> davidlovepianos at comcast.net
>> www.davidlovepianos.com
>>