ricky recordo wrote:Experience with things like what, ski... like maybe playing an OASYS for instance? Are you saying I have never played / do not occasionally still play / probably never will again play an OASYS?
Funny, I don't recall ever having said those things; but still, you take up a defensive position on the notion that I did. Hmmm...
You've said that you've played the Oasys in a music store. Well, that's not quite the same as owning one and really getting a chance to explore its features, is it? Right now the O is a pretty deep machine when you take into account all of the EXi's and KARMA. Re KARMA alone, a lot of what it's capable of cannot be understood without many hours of exploration and manual reading (yet you offered your opinion on what it's capable of). And the depths that STR-1 can go to can't be fully appreciated by just a casual acquaintance with it (yet you offered an opinion on that too).
It's like saying you're qualified to offer opinions on Porsches (which you test drive once in a while) when the rest of the time you're driving around in a Winnebago.
Here, let me give you my opinion on contrabass clarinets. The Selmer rosewood contrabass clarinets are beautiful instruments to look at, but they don't produce as good a tone in the clarion register as the LeBlanc metal paperclip models. And the Selmers seem to go out of regulation more quickly than the LeBlancs, so your best bet is to get a LeBlanc. Oh, and while you're at it, get a Grabner mouthpiece and Rico GS reeds.
Sounds like I'm voicing an informed opinion, right? Well, that's all arm-chair knowledge, my friend. I've never played a contrabass clarinet, let alone seen one in person, but I'm interested in getting one so I'm doing my research. At this point I have a lot of info and other people's opinions stored in the back of my brain. But until I actually get one and learn how to play it, I'm really not qualified to tell you that a LeBlanc contra is better than a Selmer, am I?
That's an example of what I mean about voicing an "uninformed opinion". I know, it's an ugly term that comes across as really f-ing arrogant too. But does the shoe fit in this case? Sure, a person will form opinions based on what they read, or by having casual acquaintance with something, but most of the time that's not enough to qualify them to engage in active conversation on the subject. To ask questions about it? Sure, that's legal. Ask rhetorical questions? Eh, that's 1/2 legal if you're sincere about it, though after 2.5 years of this kind of thing the little needle on the trollmeter points more towards foe than friend. And to discuss it as though you actually have some experience with it? Mmmmmm... I don't think so. That kinda thing moves the needle violently towards "foe" and breaks the bezel.
Hey, I'm not saying you have to like the Oasys, and it's certainly not my place to say whether or not you have a right to post here. I don't even visit here all that often these days, but when I do I find it, um, "interesting" that after 2.5 years you're still here voicing your "O-pinions".
So, y'know, like, "whatever".