Sindt waiting time reduced to one week

Whistle
41

On 2002-11-19 11:34, Azalin wrote:
…I don’t see anything wrong with an indivudual doing this if the maker knows about it. I dare anyone to start doing that and tell the maker “well, I need four of your flutes as I intend on selling them twice the price in two years”. If the maker agrees with this, then I don’t see anything wrong with the individual, and I would then focus my attention on the maker > :wink:

Why should the buyer (whether a music store or individual) have to get the maker’s approval? The maker has sold his goods to the buyer at a price the maker is happy with, so he’s made his profit. The goods now belong to the buyer. The buyer is free (ie, has the right) to offer his own property for sale at any price he deems fit. Whether others buy at that price or not is left to market forces. I would have thought that that would be the default position.

Only if there was some sort of agreement between the buyer and maker as to how the goods should be sold to 3rd parties, would the buyer be restricted in his sale practices.

If people aren’t happy with his/their sale practices or prices, that is a diff situation. Don’t buy from them or tell others why you aren’t happy (which is what you are doing, Azalin). Others may or may not agree with you as to whether the prices or practices are fair or not.

But I don’t think it was wrong of LITM to offer Sindts at that price.

42

Well I guess this question about Cnat on the Sindt D is never going to have a definitive answer. Selkie, I would suggest that you not worry that there is anything wrong with the Sindt you are waiting to receive. The Cnat can easily be played in tune with cross fingering if you blow the note a little easier and that is certainly no problem for people like us who are a little short of breath anyway! In fact I have found the Sindt to be my favorite instrument just because it is so easy to play without much breath requirement. Certainly a slight breath adjustment is much easier than feeling you have to use half holing. I play the Cnat a little easier now without even thinking about it.

To me the question of cross fingering or half holing the Cnat is more a question of what effect you want to achieve. If you want to slide up to, or down into Cnat (a la Joanie Madden) of course you use half holing. In one particular tune I even play B, Cnat, B as a continuous sound by rolling the whistle in and out of Cnat. But there are some great effects in slow Airs that seem to be best achieved by cross fingering and emphasizing the fingers hitting and leaving the sound holes. And I don’t know how you would play a roll on Cnat using half holing. It is easy to do with special cross fingering.

Best wishes, Tom

43

Aw come on guys! This is Lark In the Morning we’re talking about! If you don’t wanna wait, fine, pay thru the sinuses…if you don’t mind the wait, Sindt’s whistles are well worth it. I have a Eb,D, Bb & an A and love them all.

44

Isn’t it sometimes wrong to do
what you have the right to do?
Not that I think that Lark is
wrong in this case–tacky is more
like it, though I’d want more
details before I made that
judgement for keeps.

For instance
I have the right to my own
opinions, and the legal right
to express them. But advocating
that Jews be gassed, say, is
seriously wrong,
though it’s my right.

Economically if people sell me
their labor and I use it to make
a profit 100 times what I pay them,
well, they’re getting paid and I
certainly have the right to charge
what the market will bear. But surely
I ought to be paying them more.

Rehearsing how the market works–
you sell me this (your labor, your
whistle) and
I then have the right to sell it
at whatever price–seems to
me insufficient to rule out immorality.
Though I’m not sure exactly why.

People used to say–I have the right
to chose whether or not to buy something
which is for sale, by my own
lights and standards, whatever they
may be, and nobody can
force me to buy it; any purchaser
has that economic right!
This was a principal argument
against legislation prohibiting racial
discrimination in the purchasing of
labor.

The market is constrained by legislation
because the cold logic of capitalism
seems to leave out too much of what benefits
society at large and people involved
in the process (e.g. workers) in
particular. Minimum wage laws,
laws requiring lunch breaks…,
laws guaranteeing a right to
collective bargaining–a great deal
of this was responded to by
citing the way the market works (if
these people think their labor is
worth more than I’m willing to
pay for it, they can sell it to
somebody else–they have no right
to shut down my business so as
to force me to buy their labor
for more than I think it’s worth).

Similarly in a crisis, if gas stations
tripple the prices because that’s
what the market will bear, well,
that’s wrong.

There seems to be an idea that people
ought to do business in a way that
keeps faith with workers and
customers and that it’s immoral
not to. One needs to stay honorable.
Sometimes what counts as
keeping faith isn’t spelled out
explicitly, but tacky behaviour,
greedy behaviour, suggests that one
is on the way to immoral behaviour.
That Lark was within its economic
and legal rights doesn’t satisfy
me that it did nothing wrong;
and if (IF) it did do something wrong,
I would guess it
has to do with failing to keep
faith with someone.

45

On 2002-11-19 14:09, bodhrans wrote:

Theres a few points there Wombat, I’ll try to cover them from my point of view.

Thanks again bodhrans. That post of yours contained more stuff we all need to know, or, for anyone who disagrees, at least think about. We (as a community) sometimes get accused of treating makers and retailers badly. I think it’s really good that we are asking and debating these questions about what we and they have a right to expect in an open and fairly dispassionate way.

46

On 2002-11-20 02:32, jim stone wrote:
But advocating
that Jews be gassed, say, is
seriously wrong, (…)

To me, advocating any human be gassed is seriously wrong… :roll: