At 12:37 AM -0700 5/14/03, Robin Hufford wrote: >Hello Bill, > I have always accepted the right of any technician to do as he >wished with a >given piano and I have repeatedly expressed this, or, at least, I >thought I was >doing so. I think my posts indicate such, and I have never excluded the >possibility of improvements thereby. Indeed, I find myself also >informed from the >ideas in such discussions. Good, I'm glad to have that in common with you. >This part and the preceeding paragraph in my post, >were not commentary of any redesign efforts but, rather, of the >preposterous claim, >recently repeated in a post under this thread, that what impedes >willingness to >accept these "improvements", whether they be such or not, arises >from a fear of any >new technical feature or new method. Or, even more ridiculous, the >idea that one >can be so overawed by some product as to consider it sacrosanct and from that >perspective then assign it "character" in order to be relieved of the >responsibility of dealing with its flaws. Need I make any further >commentary on >such a view? On the one hand, I might ask you to site specific complaints. For all I know, you may be referring to Dan Franklin. On the other hand, no, you needn't. This thread is already far too abstracted from the actual nuts and bolts of the subject, and by now is more a debate on intellectual etiquette. I do share with you the importance of intellectual honesty. But we must keep in mind that this is an internet mailing list, most of whom have no direct acquaintance with one another, and few of whom will actually let a completed post sit in the out-box, to be re-read an hour later or the next morning, before their words get fired off. It's also abstracted by the fact the no where in all this text, is there a group of techs all in one room together all listening to the same piano, and having this shared aural experience be the basis for the discussion. Such is the nature of internet discussions. You may be happier with it than I am. At 12:55 AM -0700 5/11/03, Robin Hufford wrote: >The underlying assumption of the various techniques of the >"redesigners" is what, as far as I can tell, seems to be a completely >unsupported claim to a superior result, something which, if real, all would >applaud. But the only reality that I can see here in this context are words >and ideas only, both of which may well be questioned. What does it mean >when one hears over and over: " These methods and techniques will achieve a >superior result, " and in the next breath, "The results are superior >because we have used these methods." Surely few would concede anything to >such an argument, except, perhaps laughter. It would be nice if we were all in the same room, listening to the same piano. Until the real thing comes along, I'll be happy discussing nuts and bolts. My respect and regards, Bill Ballard RPT NH Chapter, P.T.G. ".......true more in general than specifically" ...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew roots of Calypso music +++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC