[Harp-L] Re: Suzuki Firebreath Problems

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Winslow wrote:

"What Jonathan Ross and John Balding write below shows a significant
misunderstanding of my position on this matter."

We shall see.  I think rather you may be backtracking from your  
original post:

http://harp-l.org/pipermail/harp-l/2006-September/msg00373.html


"I never suggested keeping things "hush hush" or that a product problem
should not be mentioned on the list."

True.  Perhaps what I wrote was misleading in the sense that it could  
be interpreted as such.  However, I feel that your insistence (you  
screamed it at the top of your lungs) on contacting the manufacturer  
first as the only "fair" way and that not doing so was somehow wrong  
or even malicious is essentially the same in effect.  I see little  
difference between the attitude that one MUST (to copy your shouting)  
first contact the manufacturers before having any moral right  
("should") to post to the list and the idea of not posting at all.   
There is a difference, but it's minimal and both are forms of  
censorship (self or otherwise).

"My point was that rather than complaining to the world at large without
- or even before - getting the manufacturer involved - is both
unproductive and unfair to the manufacturer."

How is it unfair.  You have made this claim now several times.  I  
have yet to see any reasoning behind the labeling of this action as  
unfair.  I have given my reasoning as to why I don't see "fair" as  
being anywhere involved in this, but I have yet to see how it is at  
all unfair.  To me, the manufacturer sells the product, Richard  
bought it, Richard reviewed it, Richard followed that up.  Aside from  
the money first transferred, there is nothing owed to the  
manufacturer at all other than factual reporting to this and other  
lists.  Nothing whatsoever.  What is the reasoning behind your  
disagreement with the above?  Again, you seem to be missing the  
context within which Richard wrote about the problem--his previous  
glowing reviews and posts.

"Rather than simply saying, "My harmonica broke," wouldn't it be both
more helpful to the manufacturer to make a better product, and more
revealing to the consumer about how responsive, helpful, and
conscientious the manufacturer is in fixing the immediate problem and
in improving their products in general to:"

Is it any less reasonable to say "it broke, I'll see what the  
manufacturer has to say" and then do the follow up?  What's the  
difference except possible embarrassment to the manufacturer?  And,  
why should the client care about that--it's not the buyers job to  
make the manufacturer's reputation.  If there was nothing wrong, then  
that would make the reputation for them.  If something is wrong and  
they handle it well, that is also good.  But, the purchaser/reviewer  
here (especially as he's just doing this out of a sense of charity to  
the list) has no obligations to the manufacturer aside from truthful  
reporting.  It would behoove Richard to let Suzuki know about this,  
but it doesn't change any of what he's told the list and it isn't an  
obligation.

"1) contact the manufacturer and get their response and initial action"

Sounds good.  But no reason it need be done before posting.  It can  
be done as easily after as before.  If you think this is unfair, I'd  
love to hear why, as it doesn't seem logical to me whatsoever.

"2) tell the list about the problem and how the manufacturer handled it"

A good idea.  But why must these be together.  I see no reason why  
the first can't happen and then the second telling the list about  
both when they occur?  Why is there an obligation on someone who  
promised a follow up to wait--why not continue telling the list about  
the process as he had done originally, as it occurred?

"3) follow up a few weeks, month, later, etc. to see how well the
manufacturer followed up on any promises made."

Again, good.  Again, how does this preclude mentioning the problem on  
the list as it occurred.  I'm wondering, did you object to Richard's  
original, positive review because he hadn't directed all potential  
questions to Suzuki at that time.  Is it just the negative nature of  
the comment in question that brings this up?  If so, well, that's the  
definition of not being fair.  Richard was updating his development  
with this new design as he used it and as they developed.  When  
positive, he was glowing.  When a negative came up, he mentioned it  
(with still fairly nice comments about the tone of the instrument, I  
noticed) in the same way in terms of time.  Is it fair to insist that  
he change his time-based updating just because the news isn't  
glowingly positive?  I can't possibly see how.

"I think that this procedure hides nothing from other consumers, and
actually gives them more rather than less information about the
situation. It is also more helpful in the long run in improving product
quality."

The later is a supposition without support.  Many times showing flaws  
without giving the manufacturer warning has had a good effect on  
quality.  Other times not.  As for the first part of the above  
paragraph, it ignores (once again) the context of how Richard was  
posting on this matter.  Moreover, it is not necessarily less honest  
than immediate reporting, but the possibilities are there more than  
otherwise.  If nothing else, it allows for post-facto editing of the  
situation (it is quite different to describe the failure as Richard  
did immediately following an event than it is to do so months later  
after everything is ironed out).  There may be nothing wrong with  
that, but when things can be less edited and more real-time they  
allow a far greater resource for the future, IMO.  In the end, the  
amount of information will be greater if Richard does do follow up  
and let's the list know that as well; more entries into the log on  
this heading and more data from which to draw a conclusion.

To bring this back to harmonicas, I still want to try the Firebreath  
and Pure Harp (and still think the names are horrible).  I will be  
doing so soon, but must admit my desire is tempered by my absolute  
lack of need for any more standard GMD tuned diatonics--I'm swimming  
in the things as is.  Still, I intend to check them out as soon as I  
can.  Sadly, right now I won't even be home enough to get a package  
in the mail the next, well, months.

Also, as a follow-up on the Suzuki SCT-128 tremolo chromatic here it  
is: a very nice beast indeed.  I had the tremolo touched up by Pat  
Missin to my tastes and he, of course, did an excellent job.  There  
is a flaw in the design of the top octave that makes getting a good  
tremolo all-but impossible, but I'm not sure it's a major problem (I  
sort of think a three-octave may have been better, if nothing else  
then they might have used the design for an octave-chrom instrument  
as well).  Still, it's a wonderfully made instrument, very airtight  
and ergonomically comfortable for me, as well as a good weight.  If I  
needed another chromatic, I'd definitely consider Suzuki's standard  
(and similarly constructed mouthpiece-wise) SC series.  If they were  
to come out with the SC-56 as a tenor-C tuned instrument, I'd  
probably have bought it by now (despite the cross-tuning).

Similarly, I've recently rediscovered a Charlie Musselwhite Hering  
chromatic in G.  Quite a nice beast as well.  I still don't care for  
Hering's windsavers, but that can be easily fixed.  Other than that  
the airtightness and overally playability rank very highly indeed.   
Quite a nice instrument, which I believe is essentially still made  
under the 7148 number.  Herings of this period (and perhaps still-- 
but I couldn't say about that) are not known for their reed  
longevity, but so far despite being a few years old (though barely  
played) and having been played a fair bit this summer, it's doing  
quite well in that department, with no significant detuning whatsoever.

I feel no desire to tell the manufacturers about any of these flaws.   
Either they already know them (they must in regards to the Suzuki) or  
not.  In either case, it's not my obligation to tell them.



 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'