 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SebastianB
Date: 2022-10-22 20:48
I love the ingenuity, including the automation. As the productive value of labor goes up, labor-intensive products have to keep up, or their cost to produce will soar.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David H. Kinder
Date: 2022-10-23 05:29
They have already soared.
And it's not the productive VALUE of the labor that has gone up, but the productive COST of the labor that has gone up. Value would add more value to the product. I don't see it that way.
Seeing "Made in France" on new clarinets means paying far more for the labor and other economic labor systems in France that have nothing to do with the actual manufacturing of the clarinet itself.
And if you're wondering, yes, I've studied a lot of Tom Ridenour's writings and videos. You can get his artist quality clarinet for under $2,000 rather than paying $7,500+ for those produced in France.
Getting back into playing after 20 years.
Ridenour AureA Bb clarinet
Vandoren M15 Profile 88 (non-13) mouthpiece
Vandoren Optimum Silver ligature (plate 1)
Vandoren blue-box #3.5 reeds
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2022-10-23 15:19
As for many (most?) products the link between manufacturing cost and retail price is rather tenuous. Clarinets are no exception.
If anyone thinks manufacturers will stop charging $7,500 if they can for a clarinet when the manufacturing processes are fully automated they will be in for a shock.
Let's not forget that in recent years several manufacturers have upped their prices by stratifying their product lines by adding more and ever, supposedly, better/improved instruments to the top of their ranges at significant additional cost. From what we've seen in that video you begin to wonder just what they can be doing to justify that. The answer seems obvious, at least to me.
If I was paying $7,500 for a 'Made in France' clarinet I'd get some comfort from the fact it was (hopefully) providing decent, skilled work to people and giving them the means to look after their families and their futures. Across many manual, semi-skilled and professional areas we are seeing automation and AI removing jobs that had provided a decent living for people and families. What's left are less rewarding and gig economy jobs at minimum wage under poor working conditions. It's not a pretty future if these characteristics continue to represent the gains and progress for humanity from developments that are sold as benefitting us.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SebastianB
Date: 2022-10-23 19:19
As tech and organizational knowledge increase, it becomes more and more obvious that the path to a comfortable life is a matter of how much marketable value you can create. Floating platonic fantasies of beautiful lives based on decontextualized worship of the past do not earn market share. The faster the world changes the faster the cloak of tradition and rote repetition drops away from the raw fact that human flourishing requires first handed thinking. There is no divine right to stay passive and to live in an unchanging world.
Post Edited (2022-10-24 03:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2022-10-24 00:00
SebastianB.
If you read my words you’ll see I didn't say 'progess' wasn't happening or should be resisted. My concern was about the way it is currently being implemented. The fact is, largely, humans aren't flourishing as the changes come about. Maybe a few are, but many more are living hand to mouth with little prospects of getting anywhere - through no fault of their own. The gains are being reaped by very few. I didn't advocate passivity, tradition, rote thinking etc. Those are your assumptions.
My point was that the past offered a different model. More balanced. Studies suggest somethings like 50% of current jobs will disappear in the next 15-20 years due to automation and AI. What sort of life and future do you want for the 50% who aren't able to work because there just arent any jobs? I doubt theyll be buying any clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SebastianB
Date: 2022-10-24 00:48
JTJC - I didn't quote you because I was not responding directly to you, as battles over implicit philosophic (political, economic) frameworks are outside the scope of this venue. Instead I chose to make positive points I consider important, at the approximately relevant level of generality. Yes we've both said things that have implicit foundations, and ours differ quite a bit. I am content to leave it at that for the moment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
