[Harp-L] Why cheap and disposable?

["sam blancato" <samblancato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the various threads discussing Suzuki's new harp the idea of "cheap and
disposable" has come up a couple of times.  I'm wondering, why this would be
desirable?  I'm for the 'pay more but have something you can hang on to for
a long time' approach.  My current short harp kit consists of about 20
harps, with a few of them being there for back-up.  Of these 20, my favorite
and most used are my Seydel 1847s and Soloist Pros.  The 1847s were
"Configurated"  for just intonation when I ordered them so they cost a
little more, about $90.00 after shipping and all.  This seems like a lot to
pay for an out-of-box harp but it isn't.  These harps play beautifully and
have held up great over the two years I've owned them.  I plan on having
these harps for a long time and I have every reason to expect that I will.
I'm always amazed the people who are serious about harmonica, who practice
daily, play out in bands and all,  and are satisfied with a harp that's so
cheap that they are fine with tossing it when a problem arises.  

I might add that the 'pay more but have something you can hang on to for a
long time' approach is cheaper in the end and, not to get all environmental
on everybody, it's better for the world, more "sustainable" if you will.  I
don't know, I get attached to my harps and I hate throwing out old ones.  I
haven't thrown out many in the last eight years; my playing has improved so
that I don't suck them to death and I case them and take care of them.  If
Suzuki is going to join the more expensive but longer lasting club I'm all
for it.  

I think you guys are all great contributors to this list and you're all
obviously very passionate about the harmonica but man, you all sure can pick
apart something when you want to.

Sam Blancato, Pittsburgh