Originally Posted by
sblock
There are always some folks who don't approve of new things, convinced that "we don't make 'em like we used to" and that older is better, no matter what the subject of discussion. But newer BMWs are more reliable cars. Their power trains last longer. They are vastly safer. They get better gas mileage, and they pollute less.
Have you ever driven a car from that era, complete with manual transmission, and without cupholders and fancy computerised subsystems? Or tried to repair one from the recent era? Or tried to buy a car with the "options" you prefer, and minus the bits that are forced on us by the regulatory state?
So you really have to define exactly what you mean by "better", before you make broad claims of superiority! Moreover, many of us feel that EPA regulations are good things for our environment. Getting rid of the lead in gasoline was one of those. Next, digital recording is not inferior to analog recording. It is true that lower sampling rates and bit-sizes on some recorded music that is sold is inferior, but high-quality digital "master-level" recordings capture every bit as a much -- and more! -- than old analog recordings, and they are comparatively immune to hiss, pop, degradation, and various nonlinear distortions.
Again, personal preferences are subsumed by your worship of the new shiny object. Still, many people much prefer the inferior products of an earlier time. Exposure to these things over time is necessary inorder to understand what has been altered, not always for the better.
And just think how much better our telephones are today than they were in the 1970s!
Landlines have their own power supply. When my fancy cable-type phone goes suddenly quiet, the landline will get my call through to 911. I can get through life without dealing with the constant distraction of a digital addictive device, unlike most of the people I see, wandering around with their heads down in their phones while walking, driving, or gathered in groups who are ignoring everything around them while fixated on some shiny object.
Fortunately, mandolins use, for the most part, non-CITES woods and parts (maple, spruce, and some types of ebony and rosewood that are still available for use). Yes, those regulations have become a pain in the you-know-what for some instrument makers, because they were designed to stop a much larger and more damaging trade in furniture and other goods that dominate those markets. The instrument problems are a nasty form of "collateral damage" associated with laws that are a bit too ham-fisted. That said, those laws were designed to protect elephants from being slaughtered (for ivory), and Brazilian hardwood from being devastated (Brazilian rosewood), and so on. Railing on against them is not helpful. But I agree that these laws could use some tweaking in order to ease some of the restrictions placed on luthiers and traveling musicians. That said, I am fully supportive of a ban in the ivory trade!
I'm aware of a large number of ivory objects from the days when they were perfectly legal being seized and destroyed by the forces of Correctness. Instead of a rational approach, slash and burn is the method. Works as well as it does in agriculture, namely not so well.
The "good old days" never really existed: this is pretty much a nostalgic fantasy, sorry. Old technology, in general (with rare exceptions), is not superior to new technology. And rolling back regulations to the 1970's is not going to happen. And no one is going to go back to analog recording, 1970's cars -- or use elephant ivory for bridge saddles. I will happily swap my BlueChip pick for one made from the back of an endangered sea turtle. Luddittes never win.
You lost me there with the tortoises and Luddites. TS is old school. Was that sarcasm, possibly?
Bookmarks