Hi Alan, Yes, you are right, I overstated my case a bit. Still, I prefer inconsistency with a number of gems to consistency with a kind of vanilla adequacy. Or, to put it a different way, I prefer a philosophy that involves the manufacture of individual musical instruments to one that tries to replicate the same qualities in each. Which, BTW, is a philosophy followed by many of the smaller manufacturers to one extent or other (the former, the individuality philosophy). But what I was trying to get at was the idea that there is a wide range of variety within any manufacturer's output, there are gems and dogs and in between, and which is which is often in the eye of the beholder. The differences within lines are quite significant, and what technicians do to them can accentuate or minimize those differences. In the end, the question of "One Brand Only" versus "Multiple Brands Only" isn't at all cut and dried. There is going to be variety whether we want it or not, at least to some extent. It's not just what is on the fallboard that determines this. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:04 AM, reggaepass at aol.com wrote: > Fred, > > I could not agree more with your point that the best piano is the > best maintained piano. But is inconsistency from one make and model > synonymous with "variety"? If there were variation, but all > iterations were actually wonderful in their own way (I mean really > and truly so, not just in the silver-tongued take of a smooth- > talking salesman), OK then. But haven't you had the experience of > sitting before someone's brand new S&S which doesn't play or sound > well at all, and they are so proud of their acquisition as they ask > you, "What do you think?" > > Alan Eder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20081124/6f3cba59/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC