"Test playing" cheap whistles. ethically debatab

[DreamOgreen]

Hello to all. In reading through some old threads and even the newer one about the generation inconsistency debate, I came across a bothersome reference repeatedly. It seems as though people are in the regular habit of "test" playing many whistles in search of the best ones. Well it is not my intention to come off as a "holier than thou" type but I find that habit to be ethically questionable. If someone played many whistles in a local small music store I suppose it could be argued that the person was doing no more than what someone does in a grocery store when you look for the tomatoes that look the best and leave the rest. In effect, every customer has an equal access to the product and the same chance of weeding out the klunckers.... There are some larger music stores however that sell whistles both locally and by mail order. If the locals have already been in and bought the best, say four out of a dozen, then what does that do for the odds of a good one for the mail order customer? Does anyone actually believe that a company would send some whistles back to a manufacturer because they happen to be the last few left? This forum is a huge body of individuals many of whom I have a great respect for, based on their valued opinions and entertaining writing. This one thing though strikes me as just another "Do whats best for me" and not worry about the other guy kind of thing. For the price of a cheap whistle I would think that it would be better if we all just bought one if we wanted to and took the same chance on a good one (or not) as anyone else. Once again I am not trying to sound preachy, it just bothers me a bit that this admittedly tiny issue doesn't seem to bother anyone else.

[peeplj]

You make a good point.

Where I live, the few stores that sell whistles (or can order them for you if they don't carry them onsite) won't allow you to test play a whistle, citing hygenic reasons.

If I were looking at whistles in a store that would let me try them out, though, I would.

I played orchestral flute before ever playing whistle. Considering what good flutes cost ($1500 to $8000+), I would never consider buying a flute which I wasn't allowed to test play first.

I suppose the same attitude has carried over into my view of whistles and other instruments.

If allowed, try before you buy.

--James

[Tommy]

Hmmm.... Well, we need something to talk about.

[straycat82]

I don't struggle with any ethical issues in this situation. If I am going to spend money on an instrument in a shop then I'm going to try it out (assuming it is permissible) and try to get my money's worth. If I am going to buy an instrument via the internet then I am indeed taking a risk... it goes with the territory. Granted, buying a -$10 whistle is hardly a risk to speak of (IMHO), there is still a small risk that I won't be satisfied with my purchase. There are plenty of folks out there who have much easier access to trying out whistles than I do so most of my stuff is purchased from the internet and I've indeed found some to my liking and some not so much. To me, that's just the hand I've been dealt and I do the best I can with what I can get.

[wd40]

thats why mail order buyers get more practice tweaking .

[Screeeech!!!]

It's not the fault of the in store purchaser that the lesser whistles end up being used for mail order, it's the fault of the manufacturer for making the lesser whistles in the first place.

Preach to them about getting better consistency!

[BoneQuint]

Also, you don't always pick the "best" one, but just the one that works and sounds best for you. Someone else could be looking for something entirely different. I think you could point out any obviously defective whistles to the shop owner.

Ethics are a tricky thing. Rewarding the makers that make the highest quality instruments is probably best for everybody in the long run. How would you do that without trying as many as you can? I'm sure anyone who makes instruments would want you to try all theirs in stock and pick your favorite.

If you feel bad about depleting the quality of the selection, maybe you could buy the worst as well as the best, and practice tweaking on the worst?

[m31]

I think BoneQuint has an interesting point. The assumption here is that there is indeed a "best" of the bunch and that the people selecting the whistles are competent and wanting to pick the "best" ones. But how can such assumptions be proven true? Consequently, how can there be an ethical dilemma?

Furthermore as Screeeech!!! alluded, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make a product within specification. Now if specs don't exist and if nothing is spec'd in the purchase order, then it's caveat emptor (buyer beware).

[FJohnSharp]

Sounds a little communistic. Sorry, but I not going to feel bad for picking over tomatoes. It's part of produce buying. Some people get there first, and some get there later.


If a music store stocks 10 whistles, and I get there first and take the one I like best, then the next person takes the best of the remaining and so on, eventually there will be, say, three 'bad' ones. Who buys these? People looking for good ones will simply not buy any, and someone who doesn't know enough to be choosy will end up with them and then find his way here, post a message about "why can't I get my new whistle to play anything above a high G?," and he'll end up bemoaning the fact that he lost at Generation roulette. And the 'myth' will grow and prosper.

[Nanohedron]

Just think of test playing as another way to get chummier with your fellow human being.

[BoneQuint]

Consequently, how can there be an ethical dilemma?

Well, I wouldn't want to turn it into a black-and-white question -- even though you can't "prove" people will pick the best ones, they probably tend to. The uncertainty dilutes the dilemma, but doesn't remove it completely. This may seem to be a small issue, but it's a microcosm of many choices we make in the world.

Abdicating your ability of discernment out of a short-term concern about "fair play" has many ramifications. Does it mean you shouldn't avoid shops that tend to have tattier instruments? I find it tends to create more problems than it solves when you try to "out-think" situations like this. The answer seems to me to be honest, compassionate, discerning, and open. Maybe share your concerns with the shop owner or the instrument maker. But putting yourself through the uncertainty of not knowing if you have a lemon or not isn't doing yourself or the market or the world of whistling any good at all.

[walrii]

If the shop allows you to test whistles, then the shop is accepting the chance that you and other testers will pick over the good ones. The shop owner probably considers this acceptable since he 1) makes friends with the serious whistlers thus encouraging repeat business and 2) probably loses little or no business from the undiscerning buyers who are mostly shopping for toys and don't particularly care about the sound quality.

If a shop owner lets me play a whistle, I will, although most in the States don't allow test playing. If he doesn't then I may or may not buy the whistle, depending. I just bought two Generations from a shop that did not allow me to play them. I got them mostly so I could see what all the shouting is about.

[RonKiley]

So you go into the store and there are 10 Gens in the jar. You play them and find one you like and buy it. That leaves 9 that you didn't like as well. Now the shop owner comes out and adds 25 new Gens to the jar that you didn't get to play. Did you in some way get cheated? No ypu bought one that you liked. If there is none there that I like I don't buy.

Now how about the buyer who orders a $300 whistle and when it comes it is terrible. Yes that happens. Most makers will take it back. I think that many mail order outlets would take back a cheapie too. If you paid the shipping.

Ron

[Cynth]

It seems to me that the comparison to picking out tomatoes in a store is a very good one. I don't feel it is wrong for me to pick out the ones that look the best. It is true that someone coming along later will have a poorer selection than I did. If the grocery store wants to continue doing good business, it will keep an eye on the produce and constantly pull out the spoiled tomatoes and add good ones so that most people get some good tomatoes although a few may have to skip tomatoes that day and eat something else and come back after the next produce delivery.

I can see stores feeling that speading germs is a problem, but I guess there are ways to deal with that. I can't imagine buying a more expensive intstrument without trying it out first and I don't see why a whistle would be any different. If I got a lousy whistle by mail-order I would send it back and order from another shop.

I don't think ethical whistle-buying behavior would include the sorts of sacrifices a good person would be expected to make during a famine or drought, for example. To me, it just doesn't make sense. Just my opinion.

[m31]

Consequently, how can there be an ethical dilemma?

Well, I wouldn't want to turn it into a black-and-white question -- even though you can't "prove" people will pick the best ones, they probably tend to. The uncertainty dilutes the dilemma, but doesn't remove it completely. This may seem to be a small issue, but it's a microcosm of many choices we make in the world.

I disagree. The shop will have to buy at least a box of whistles. Only some of them will be on display. Some get bought up, and the empty spots get filled up again randomly. Customers typically try out only a subset of what's on display. Inventory starts drying up, another box gets ordered. It all gets mixed up over time, i.e., it's a crap shoot. Yes, statistically it's possible the shop keeper may at some point have a complete batch of duds (and possible that she has a perfect batch). So she has 50% off sale... Now that's a lot of assumptions, but are they any less plausible than someone else's? The point is there is no factual basis for making an "ethical" decision. Quite frankly, if there is a dilemma, it's perceived or imagined, not because it's real. If one feels that strongly about the situation (i.e., needs to validate their suspicions), then they owe it to themselves to obtain more facts. Somebody in this forum has in their signature, Don't believe everything you think.

Abdicating your ability of discernment out of a short-term concern about "fair play" has many ramifications. Does it mean you shouldn't avoid shops that tend to have tattier instruments? I find it tends to create more problems than it solves when you try to "out-think" situations like this. The answer seems to me to be honest, compassionate, discerning, and open. Maybe share your concerns with the shop owner or the instrument maker. But putting yourself through the uncertainty of not knowing if you have a lemon or not isn't doing yourself or the market or the world of whistling any good at all.

Paralysis by analysis?